Legal value: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|management|{{image|Barncacle|jpg|[[For the avoidance of doubt]] this picture contains, [[without limitation]], [[one or more]], [[as the case may be]], [[barnacle]]s.}} | ||
}}The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value.<ref>other than the value destruction that inevitably follows from your engagement in the first place — your professional fees, that is.</ref> | }}The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value.<ref>other than the value destruction that inevitably follows from your engagement in the first place — your professional fees, that is.</ref> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
It is a [[Anal paradox|paradox]] that, however [[tedious]] it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more [[tedious]] to insist upon their removal. Thus over time legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush. | It is a [[Anal paradox|paradox]] that, however [[tedious]] it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more [[tedious]] to insist upon their removal. Thus over time legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush. | ||
===Measuring legal value=== | |||
All this presents quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity cannot be measured in [[time and attendance|billable hours]]. That is, in-house legal eagles. | |||
For those in private practice, it does not matter ''how'' counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding is their behaviour ''as long as it brings in fees''. Fees one can measure. Fees one can bank. Consultants may indeed run algorithms comparing input and output and devise metrics predicting the ''optimal amount'' of literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns but an [[inhouse lawyer]]’s putative — granted, quixotic — quest is not to produce “legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to ''avoid'' generating [[attorney work product|legal work product]] wherever possible. In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense. | |||
You can't measure this with [[metric]]s. Unavoidable legal processes — customer contract negotiations — can certainly be streamlined, widgetised, productionised, but once that is done, they become an operational function, not a legal one, and legal’s contribution to their ongoing success, again can only be measured in silhouette: how ''infrequently'' legal is obliged thereafter to get involved. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Key non-performance indicator]] | |||
*[[Anal paradox]] | *[[Anal paradox]] | ||
*[[Flannel]] | *[[Flannel]] | ||
*[[In your face]] | *[[In your face]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 08:37, 4 February 2023
|
The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively destroying value.[1]
For, if I send my lawyer a 90-page indenture and it comes back unmarked, “all fine”, but accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I feel I am getting value for money?
Generally, I do not. Even though I might be. The dog that doesn’t bark in the night-time brings me no comfort, even if there is nothing to bark at.
So, lawyers have developed techniques for making formal changes which do not alter the substance, but signal that they have indeed pored over the document, subjecting it to their unique forensic consideration — that it has been buffed and polished to a high sheen. You can spot these parenthetical statements, which we call flannel in these pages, by their tells: “for the avoidance of doubt”, “without limitation...”, “whether or not...”, or “notwithstanding the foregoing...”.
It is a paradox that, however tedious it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more tedious to insist upon their removal. Thus over time legal forms tend towards barnacle-encrusted, impenetrable mush.
Measuring legal value
All this presents quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity cannot be measured in billable hours. That is, in-house legal eagles.
For those in private practice, it does not matter how counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding is their behaviour as long as it brings in fees. Fees one can measure. Fees one can bank. Consultants may indeed run algorithms comparing input and output and devise metrics predicting the optimal amount of literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns but an inhouse lawyer’s putative — granted, quixotic — quest is not to produce “legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to avoid generating legal work product wherever possible. In-house legal departments exist to throttle legal expense.
You can't measure this with metrics. Unavoidable legal processes — customer contract negotiations — can certainly be streamlined, widgetised, productionised, but once that is done, they become an operational function, not a legal one, and legal’s contribution to their ongoing success, again can only be measured in silhouette: how infrequently legal is obliged thereafter to get involved.
See also
References
- ↑ other than the value destruction that inevitably follows from your engagement in the first place — your professional fees, that is.