Weeds: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work| | {{a|work| | ||
{{image|Weeds|jpg|A target-rich environment, yesterday.}} | {{image|Weeds|jpg|A target-rich environment, yesterday.}} | ||
}}{{d|Weeds|/wiːdz/|n|}} | }}{{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 find there. | 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 find there. | |||
But there are weeds — honestly, no-one cares less 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, any descent into legal analysis of any kind, however fundamental, is a descent into the “weeds”. One sees this attitude most commonly articulated amongst [[inhouse lawyers]]. | |||
===Inhouse lawyers and the fear of the weeds=== | ===Inhouse lawyers and the fear of the weeds=== | ||
The legal department in a commercial organisation, being a cost centre, is a place of entropic stasis. People go there to die. Thus, a popular means of career progression for inhouse lawyers — some would say the only means — is to convert them into ''managers''. The legal details — weeds — are the mark of the unpromotable laggard. The JC is one of those. He was once told, | |||
“JC, if you want to progress in this firm, you must get out of the weeds and | “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?” | “Manage? like as in ''middle'' management?” | ||
“Yes! That’s just it!” | “Yes! That’s just it! Admin! Sit on committees! Prepare management information and statistics!” | ||
This is like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. Now he has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spent the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer did so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. ''Anyone'' can be a middle manager. It requires little acumen. In fact, it seems to require a lack of it. Middle management works even better when it isn’t undertaken at all. | This is like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. Now he has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spent the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer did so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. ''Anyone'' can be a middle manager. It requires little acumen. In fact, it seems to require a lack of it. Middle management works even better when it isn’t undertaken at all. | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 22 September 2022
|
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 they find there.
But there are weeds — honestly, no-one cares less 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, any descent into legal analysis of any kind, however fundamental, is a descent into the “weeds”. One sees this attitude most commonly articulated amongst inhouse lawyers.
Inhouse lawyers and the fear of the weeds
The legal department in a commercial organisation, being a cost centre, is a place of entropic stasis. People go there to die. Thus, a popular means of career progression for inhouse lawyers — some would say the only means — is to convert them into managers. The legal details — weeds — are the mark of the unpromotable laggard. The JC is one of those. He 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! Sit on committees! Prepare management information and statistics!”
This is like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. Now he has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spent the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer did so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. Anyone can be a middle manager. It requires little acumen. In fact, it seems to require a lack of it. Middle management works even better when it isn’t undertaken at all.
So, if you want someone to do some middle management, hire a middle manager. Let the lawyers get on with what they are best at.