Template:M intro design no-one reads this: Difference between revisions

Given as he is to making social science up on the hoof, JC is working on a theory that when we buy the services of a commercial law firm — and, specifically, when we buy them to make [[contract]]s for us — we are not buying ''words'', nor even the underlying ''legal content'' that they carry, but a more general, beatific ''peace of mind'' that comes from paying ''serious people'' to do sober things for us.  

We don’t ''need'' to understand these words or content, because our sober agents have done this for us and, by their simple presence (the agentsʼ as much as their words), intimated — but to be clear, not ''told'' you in so many words — that ''everything will be okay''.  

This comforting illusion lasts as long afterwards as no one casts an eye across the documents. The moment anyone does — and look: no one reads legal agreements for the hell of it, so assume she is being paid to pick holes in them — the illusion tartly vanishes.  

Crucial operators — words like “not” —  will, without explanation, be absent when needed or present when not. Square brackets, [[blob]]s and placeholders will impotently stand in for pivotal passages and vital variables. Forms you now dearly wish were signed, dated and legibly filled-out won’t be. Critical terms will be subject to non-existent subclauses. Carelessly lobbed [[boilerplate]] will ram-raid painstakingly crafted rights.<ref>Our old friends the [[no oral modification]] clause and the [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] exclusion are often causes for deep regret.</ref>

And that is where the parties ''have'' kept their original deal continuously in mind. But life is rarely as mundane as that: invariably, since upon signing they bid their legal teams a fond farewell fifteen years ago, ''neither'' side has paid these terms the blindest bit of attention. They may not know where they now are or, if enough time has passed, even if there ''are'' any such terms.  

''Why would they?'' However hotly they once were argued for, no one since has insisted on, performed, or adverted to those covenants and termination. No-one who was present at their ordination is now around: he last was made redundant in 2008. By their consensual behaviour the parties have systematically contradicted key tenets of the contract for years.  

None of this matters in the slightest unless the relationship hits the skids. Suddenly each side seeks legal advice, their new counsel, rejoicing in a fresh licence to create mayhem, comb the contract, poring over minor details, hunting for clinchers in a babbling, confused, inchoate hellscape of random words that it is now impossible, except by coincidence, to map to any coherent course of behaviour — let alone the partiesʼ ''actual'' dealings with each other.  

This is because the parties delegated this performative act — you know, “doing the legals” — to [[legal eagle|lab coated specialists]] with a threadbare grasp of the commercials even at the time of their engagement who, not having been involved since, have no grasp of it now, and who hardly can be blamed for failing to predict how the relationship would  develop in between times.  

Commissioning legal contracts in this way is to pay good money to buy (or, for all you know, ''sell'') a lucky dip of random [[put]]s and [[call]]s. What you pulled out of the barrel on signing day is then buried in peat, only to be revealed, if at all, a long time later upon the advent of [[tail event|catastrophe]]. Your best hope, therefore, is that ''no such catastrophe visits'", your relationship continues to flourish and no one ever looks at the contract again.  

Which begs the question: ''what are you paying for?''

The ugly secret of professional practice is that much work product is like that because, for the most part, ''it doesnʼt matter if it is not''.  

A vanishingly small percentage of contracts are ever litigated. This is ''not'' because they are good contracts: it is because their parties donʼt fall out. ''Almost all contracts expire untested.''

To its principals, the contract preparation process is a sombre mystery. You are not even ''meant'' to understand the actual words they send you, and you may cause yourself trouble if you try. It is better just to take generalised comfort that there are a ''lot'' of words, they seem legally sonorous, they are strung together in carefully constructed, if forbiddingly unbroken, slabs and the battalions of advisors who have gathered at the banquet on either side to pick them over will, by the time the busboys are serving coffee and warming up the disco, have {{strike|maximised their chargeables|made peace with the legal content}}.

All that skirmishing and sniping must, after all, ''do'' something — ''mustnʼt it''? It must advance what the respective advisors take to be their clientsʼ interests, however imperfectly they understand them?

In the same way trenches and battle fronts thrust and counterthrust, the lines move back and forth. Since the people who wrangle these textual monoliths are part of an educated elite, a kind of emergent wisdom settles upon the project. Its net effect — even if you cannot fathom how or why — will be a comforting conviction that everything will generally be ''okay''.

But what if this assumption was — ''wrong''?

To be clear, the question is not merely “I wonder whether commercial principals — should I say “[[agency problem|agents]]” — hire law firms to cover their backsides?”

Of ''course'' they do. Everyone knows that.  

I was getting at the fact that the Big Law work product, when you do read it, is dismal. This is because *it is not designed to be read*.  

It is designed to just occupy space. It is like that expanding polystyrene stuff they spray inside internal partition walls for soundproofing.

There is just no craft, no elegance, no design, no architectural panache, no basic economy. It is just this tortured, brutalised, monstrous torrent of dreck, from end to end.

These people are meant to be wizards of language, after all. They should deliver the most beautiful, clear, elegant product.

That they don’t is a kind of final triumph of form over substance.