Legal operations: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "{{a|work|}}A tremendous new wheeze for rent-seeking from legal eagles. Legal operations is a second-order derivative military-parasitical complex that..."
 
No edit summary
 
(27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|work|}}A tremendous new wheeze for rent-seeking from [[legal eagle]]s. Legal operations is a [[second-order derivative]] [[Rent-seeker|military-parasitical complex]] that feeds off the direct first-order rent-seeking of those in inhouse legal profession. The history of [[inhouse legal history|inhouse legal]] is interesting, by the way.
{{a|work|
{{image|Twiki|png|The inhouse legal of Tomorrow, yesterday.}}}}{{d|Legal operations|/ˈliːgəl/ /ˌɒpəˈreɪʃənz/|n}}<br>Recursive rent-extraction ''from the consummate rentiers''.


It works like this:
Legal operations are industrialised [[second-order derivative|second-order rent-seekers]] who feed off the direct, ''first''-order [[rent-seeking]] of those members of the legal profession who, shipwrecked on the sacred voyage from pupil to partner, found themselves washed up on the deserted shores of a [[Legal department|in-house legal department]].


Once upon a time there were deals, and banks who did them would engage law-firms to do the legals. These deals — mergers, acquisitions, equity offerings, bond issues, syndicated loans — involved the transfer of lots and lots of ''[[money]]''. Not millions, but ''tens'' or even ''hundreds'' of millions of dollars. Every now and then, even billions of dollars. Now observe two rather self-evident things: firstly, if you are wiring hundreds of millions of dollars to some random, should things go wrong, they can go ''badly'' wrong. Just ask [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|Citigroup]]. Secondly, a very very small percentage of a couple of hundred million dollars is still a hell of a lot of money, even at £400 per hour.  
The history of [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse legal]] — how it went from “sleepy backwater for awkward, work-shy, typo nuts” to “military-forensic complex in need of taming with extreme prejudice by [[management consultancy]]”  in twenty short years is [[The history of inhouse legal|interesting]], by the way.


Bankers, who themselves might collect as much as ''seven'' percent of the value of a deal, would quite happily expend say ''one'' percent of the deal, on decent firm of lawyers. And so was born the [[Magic circle law firm|magic circle]], which has been with us since at least the era of the [[First Men]], and even before them to the primordial pagan era where the [[Children of the Forest]] roamed the Woods of Bretton.  
== What the MBAs bring to the party==
Now MBAs are not known for their imagination, but they do have a long suit in reductionist analytical rigour and they do love an over-arching metaphorical schema.  Management consultants are keen on publishing these, and they will throw [[Microsoft PowerPoint|PowerPoint]] thought pieces around at the gentlest invitation. Lacking the [[subject matter expert]]’s deep grasp of the market, the “in-house legal problem” may be impervious to front-on attack, but they can ''analyse'' it into submission.  


This was all fine, and capital,
You do this by breaking down the intractable whole into [[Legibility|legible]], familiar components that already exist in the MBA toolkit. Each becomes its own little sub-domain, with its own [[LinkedIn job descriptions|workstream lead]]-led [[workstream]], going out and gathering evidence and, basically, getting in the way of the lawyers who are busily trying to execute on their own time-worn business model.
 
Perversely, [[Workstream lead|change manager]] interference only further slows down the lawyers  even  — every other day they are fending off a call from a well-meaning analyst asking for feedback on some innovation or other they didn’t ask for and have little interest in using — while the size of the legal operations team grows, and it foments its plans to entrench itself into the legal team.
 
The legal work catalog, comprises the following components and opportunities:
*Strategic planning
*[[service delivery|Formulating models for legal service delivery]]
*Project management
*[[Triage|Triage management]]
*[[Operationalisation|Practice operationalisation]]
*Organisational optimisation
*[[Knowledge management]]
*Information governance
*Vendor management
*Finance management
*Business intelligence
*[[Continuing professional development|Training and personnel development]]
*[[Legal technology|Technology infrastructure management]]
 
Suddenly, the business of being an in-house lawyer is worthy of a modern military-industrial complex to support it.
 
{{Sa}}
 
*[[Magic circle law firm]]
*[[ISDA ninja]]
*[[Ultimate client]]
*[[Look, I tried]]
*[[OneNDA]]
{{Ref}}

Latest revision as of 10:20, 15 September 2022

Office anthropology™


The inhouse legal of Tomorrow, yesterday.
The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click ᐅ to expand:
Work anthropology
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Legal operations
/ˈliːgəl/ /ˌɒpəˈreɪʃənz/ (n.)

Recursive rent-extraction from the consummate rentiers.

Legal operations are industrialised second-order rent-seekers who feed off the direct, first-order rent-seeking of those members of the legal profession who, shipwrecked on the sacred voyage from pupil to partner, found themselves washed up on the deserted shores of a in-house legal department.

The history of inhouse legal — how it went from “sleepy backwater for awkward, work-shy, typo nuts” to “military-forensic complex in need of taming with extreme prejudice by management consultancy” in twenty short years is interesting, by the way.

What the MBAs bring to the party

Now MBAs are not known for their imagination, but they do have a long suit in reductionist analytical rigour and they do love an over-arching metaphorical schema. Management consultants are keen on publishing these, and they will throw PowerPoint thought pieces around at the gentlest invitation. Lacking the subject matter expert’s deep grasp of the market, the “in-house legal problem” may be impervious to front-on attack, but they can analyse it into submission.

You do this by breaking down the intractable whole into legible, familiar components that already exist in the MBA toolkit. Each becomes its own little sub-domain, with its own workstream lead-led workstream, going out and gathering evidence and, basically, getting in the way of the lawyers who are busily trying to execute on their own time-worn business model.

Perversely, change manager interference only further slows down the lawyers even — every other day they are fending off a call from a well-meaning analyst asking for feedback on some innovation or other they didn’t ask for and have little interest in using — while the size of the legal operations team grows, and it foments its plans to entrench itself into the legal team.

The legal work catalog, comprises the following components and opportunities:

Suddenly, the business of being an in-house lawyer is worthy of a modern military-industrial complex to support it.

See also

References

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Legal_operations&oldid=67552"