82,974
edits
Guide to the legal profession: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work| | {{a|work| | ||
{{image|Monitor support|png|Pride of place in the [[JC]] library of functional publications}} | |||
}}Those vanity-published<ref>TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE, RIGHT?</ref> [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are invaluable to the modern practitioner: they are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance each, and can be used in groups. Even competing products (like the [[Legal 500]], the [[Chambers]] Global Practice Guides and our old friend that [[FT book about derivatives]]) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible. All told, an excellent adjunct to any firm’s HSE policy, because it is supremely important that your monitor is at eye-level. | }}Those vanity-published<ref>TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE, RIGHT?</ref> [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are invaluable to the modern practitioner: they are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance each, and can be used in groups. Even competing products (like the [[Legal 500]], the [[Chambers]] Global Practice Guides and our old friend that [[FT book about derivatives]]) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible. All told, an excellent adjunct to any firm’s HSE policy, because it is supremely important that your monitor is at eye-level. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted publishers to go digital, demonstrating exactly the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s made: to assume that people want professional guides in order to ''read'' them. | The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted publishers to go digital, demonstrating exactly the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s made: to assume that people want professional guides in order to ''read'' them. | ||
But a moment’s reflection should tell us they do not: one looks up one’s own entry and, if it is there, sends a photocopy to mum and, if not, commends yet another quiet resentment to the eternal pool in one’s interior monologue, | But a moment’s reflection should tell us they do not: one looks up one’s own entry and, if it is there, sends a photocopy to mum and, if not, commends yet another quiet resentment to the eternal pool in one’s interior monologue, before swiftly, bravely rising above it and ''gathering'' oneself. The best way to do this is to put the guide to one of its many better uses: propping up monitors, holding open fire-stop doors, dotting them around the department between pot plants to make the place look learned, or just loafing around passively on top of filing cabinets. Legal guides can survive this way for years. | ||
Now this being the case, an ''e-''version of a legal almanac is no good at all ''unless you print it out''. But that would blow a ream of virgin printer paper, and you are better just to use the ream as it is, lest you later need it to cover a late-night printing emergency. | Now this being the case, an ''e-''version of a legal almanac is no good at all ''unless you print it out''. But that would blow a ream of virgin printer paper, and you are better just to use the ream as it is, lest you later need it to cover a late-night printing emergency. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will need to do that. Covid has been a ''double'' bummer for almanac publishers, because since the working [[mediocritariat]] was ''forbidden'' from printing anything for eighteen months, it has largely now realised it ''doesn’t need to print anything'' and has got out of the habit, so even though we’re back in the office a day every week, no-one uses printers any more, and there are oodles of surplus reams of A4 lying around the office, which make ''perfect'' monitor stands... | But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will need to do that. Covid has been a ''double'' bummer for almanac publishers, because since the working [[mediocritariat]] was ''forbidden'' from printing anything for eighteen months, it has largely now realised it ''doesn’t need to print anything'' and has got out of the habit, so even though we’re back in the office a day every week, no-one uses printers any more, and there are oodles of surplus reams of A4 lying around the office, which make ''perfect'' monitor stands... | ||
==== Anonymous praise! === | ==== Anonymous praise! ==== | ||
Most baffling, to inductees, are the | Most baffling, to almanac inductees, are the “anonymously-submitted” client lionisations, which — inductees being self-effacing folk, they purport not to recognise, but are profoundly, publicly, grateful for, all the same. [[LinkedIn]] is, as usual, the natural home for this type of [[humblebraggadocio]]. So: | ||
{{Quote|Shameless self-promotion, but<ref>Yes, it ''is'' shameless, and admitting that does not make it any ''less'' shameless by the way. That makes it ''more'' shameless.</ref> thank you to the anonymous client who submitted feed back that “''Basil is diligent, committed, pragmatic and always commercial, and shines golden beams of gravitas on everything to which he turns his attention. I cannot wait for his next novel''”. I don’t know quite what to say!}} | {{Quote|Shameless self-promotion, but<ref>Yes, it ''is'' shameless, and admitting that does not make it any ''less'' shameless by the way. That makes it ''more'' shameless.</ref> thank you to the anonymous client who submitted feed back that “''Basil is diligent, committed, pragmatic and always commercial, and shines golden beams of gravitas on everything to which he turns his attention. I cannot wait for his next novel''”. I don’t know quite what to say!}} | ||
I do: it involves a bucket. The great temptation is to call Basil’s bluff here. This is what [[LinkedIn]]’s comments facility was designed for. “That’s wonderful feedback, @Basil, and so richly deserved! Surely with the power of the network and the process of elimination, we must be able to identify that anonymous benefactor. I’ll start. It wasn’t me. Anyone else?” | I do: it involves a bucket. The great temptation is to call Basil’s bluff here. This is what [[LinkedIn]]’s comments facility was designed for. “That’s wonderful feedback, @Basil, and so richly deserved! Surely with the power of the network and the process of elimination, we must be able to identify that anonymous benefactor. I’ll start. It wasn’t me. Anyone else?” | ||