Weeds: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|work| | ||
{{image|Ninja in Weeds|png|A [[Ninja|legal ninja]], knee-deep in the weeds, yesterday.}} | |||
}}{{d|Weeds|/wiːdz/|n|}} ''(usage: into the ~; deep in the ~etc.)''<br> | }}{{d|Weeds|/wiːdz/|n|}} ''(usage: into the ~; deep in the ~ etc.)''<br> | ||
A lush undergrowth of spontaneously propagated [[indenture]]s, subscription agreements, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and the like which traditionally provide abundant nesting materials (flax, dry twigs, liability [[carve-in]]s and [[carve-out]]s, [[indemnity]] scoping arguments, [[governing law|governing law and jurisdiction]] clauses, wild [[celery]] and so on) for local [[legal eagle]]s. Sometimes their chicks find these nests so comforting that many spend their entire lives feasting on the rich biodiversity they | A lush undergrowth of spontaneously propagated [[indenture]]s, subscription agreements, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and the like which traditionally provide abundant nesting materials (flax, dry twigs, liability [[carve-in]]s and [[carve-out]]s, [[indemnity]] scoping arguments, [[governing law|governing law and jurisdiction]] clauses, wild [[celery]] and so on) for local [[legal eagle]]s. | ||
Sometimes their chicks find these nests so comforting that many spend their entire lives feasting on the rich biodiversity within. | |||
But there are weeds — honestly, no-one cares whether the [[indemnity]] in a custody agreement carves out [[gross negligence]] or not, and the sooner one realises this the happier one’s life will be — and there are “weeds”. | |||
On one view, a lawyer’s descent into ''any'' kind of legal analysis, however fundamental, is a descent into the “weeds”. One sees this attitude most commonly articulated amongst [[inhouse lawyers]]. | |||
===Inhouse lawyers and the fear of weeds=== | |||
The [[legal department]] in any commercial organisation is a place of entropic stasis. People go there to die. They eventually get crushed under the weight of of tedium, the way wasps succumb to honey. To insist on dwelling among the arcane legal details — the “weeds” — is the mark of the unpromotable laggard. The [[JC]] is one of those. | |||
A popular means of career progression for inhouse lawyers — some would say the ''only'' means — is to avoid this fate by transforming into ''managers''. | |||
The JC was once told, “JC, if you want to progress in this firm, you must ''get out of the weeds''. You know, and ''manage''.” | |||
“Manage? like as in ''middle'' management?” | |||
“Yes! That’s just it! Admin! Meetings! Sit on [[Opco|committees]]! Prepare [[management information and statistics]]!” | |||
On that day, the JC commended his soul into the weed-strewn honey. | |||
For this is, surely, like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. The JC has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spend the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer do so ''because they want to practice law''. They do not ''want'' to be middle managers. They will not be ''good'' at being middle managers. They will not ''like'' it. | |||
''Almost anyone'' can be a middle manager: why waste a lawyer? It requires little acumen: in fact, it seems to favour a lack of it. In any case, if you want someone to do some middle management, ''hire a [[middle manager]]''. Let your legal eagles fly — watch them soar and float and dive — into the luscious, beckoning weeds. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Verbiage]] | |||
*[[Lucy Letby]] and [[Prosecutor’s tunnel vision]] | |||
*[[Let’s go straight to docs]] | |||
*[[Operating committee]] and [[steering committee]] | |||
*[[Deep dive]] | *[[Deep dive]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:55, 18 August 2024
|
Office anthropology™
|
Weeds
/wiːdz/ (n.)
(usage: into the ~; deep in the ~ etc.)
A lush undergrowth of spontaneously propagated indentures, subscription agreements, confidentiality agreements and the like which traditionally provide abundant nesting materials (flax, dry twigs, liability carve-ins and carve-outs, indemnity scoping arguments, governing law and jurisdiction clauses, wild celery and so on) for local legal eagles.
Sometimes their chicks find these nests so comforting that many spend their entire lives feasting on the rich biodiversity within.
But there are weeds — honestly, no-one cares whether the indemnity in a custody agreement carves out gross negligence or not, and the sooner one realises this the happier one’s life will be — and there are “weeds”.
On one view, a lawyer’s descent into any kind of legal analysis, however fundamental, is a descent into the “weeds”. One sees this attitude most commonly articulated amongst inhouse lawyers.
Inhouse lawyers and the fear of weeds
The legal department in any commercial organisation is a place of entropic stasis. People go there to die. They eventually get crushed under the weight of of tedium, the way wasps succumb to honey. To insist on dwelling among the arcane legal details — the “weeds” — is the mark of the unpromotable laggard. The JC is one of those.
A popular means of career progression for inhouse lawyers — some would say the only means — is to avoid this fate by transforming into managers.
The JC was once told, “JC, if you want to progress in this firm, you must get out of the weeds. You know, and manage.”
“Manage? like as in middle management?”
“Yes! That’s just it! Admin! Meetings! Sit on committees! Prepare management information and statistics!”
On that day, the JC commended his soul into the weed-strewn honey.
For this is, surely, like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. The JC has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spend the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer do so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. They will not be good at being middle managers. They will not like it.
Almost anyone can be a middle manager: why waste a lawyer? It requires little acumen: in fact, it seems to favour a lack of it. In any case, if you want someone to do some middle management, hire a middle manager. Let your legal eagles fly — watch them soar and float and dive — into the luscious, beckoning weeds.