Inhouse legal team of the year: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your [[Private practice lawyer|external advisors]]; | *'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your [[Private practice lawyer|external advisors]]; | ||
*'''Inexplicable delay''': | *'''Inexplicable delay''': For how many weeks you can leave a draft — whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death, and which, your [[Private practice lawyer|legal team]] rearranged long-standing plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on to produce by your deadline — before deigning to look at it? | ||
*'''Can I speak to a partner please?''' The disdain with you regard | *'''Can I speak to a partner please?''' The disdain with which you regard [[Private practice lawyer|juniors on the external team]] should they try to answer your uninformed questions about a document they spent sixteen hours preparing; | ||
*'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': | *'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': The comprehensiveness and depth of your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name, wherever it appears in a prospectus; | ||
*'''Mark-up pedantry''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], | *'''Mark-up pedantry''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], the brazen superficiality of your amendments to perfectly sound legal drafting? Additional points for refusing to hear of modifications to your own mangled syntax; | ||
*'''Throw the associate under the bus''': | *'''Throw the associate under the bus''': The shamelessness with which you blame the most [[Private practice lawyer|junior member of outside counsel team]] — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it. | ||
*'''The competitive bid''': | *'''The competitive bid''': The ingenuity of making all external spend over £2,500 subject to a mandatory three-way competitive bidding process. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Inhouse counsel]] | *[[Inhouse counsel]] | ||
*[[Awards]] | *[[Awards]] | ||
Revision as of 14:57, 2 December 2019
|
People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.
|
To bring some rigour to the annual Awards season, the JC is pleased to announce the judging criteria for inhouse legal team of the year award.
- Timeliness of instructions: How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your external advisors;
- Inexplicable delay: For how many weeks you can leave a draft — whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death, and which, your legal team rearranged long-standing plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on to produce by your deadline — before deigning to look at it?
- Can I speak to a partner please? The disdain with which you regard juniors on the external team should they try to answer your uninformed questions about a document they spent sixteen hours preparing;
- Red-herring ninjadom: The comprehensiveness and depth of your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name, wherever it appears in a prospectus;
- Mark-up pedantry: Beyond the inherent pedantry of the red-herring ninja, the brazen superficiality of your amendments to perfectly sound legal drafting? Additional points for refusing to hear of modifications to your own mangled syntax;
- Throw the associate under the bus: The shamelessness with which you blame the most junior member of outside counsel team — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it.
- The competitive bid: The ingenuity of making all external spend over £2,500 subject to a mandatory three-way competitive bidding process.