Guide to the legal profession: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work| | {{a|work| | ||
[[File:Monitor support.png|450px|thumb|center|Pride of place in the [[JC]] library of functional publications]] | [[File:Monitor support.png|450px|thumb|center|Pride of place in the [[JC]] library of functional publications]] | ||
}} | }}Those vanity-published [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner: they make ''excellent'' platforms for raising your monitor in the home office. They are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance, and when used in groups, even competing products (like the “[[Legal 500]]” or any of the [[Chambers]] Global Practice Guides) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible. | ||
Those vanity-published [[Guide to the legal practice|annual guides to the profession]] are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner | |||
A [[legal almanac]] scores over the traditional ream of A4 printer paper in one key regard: ''durability''. Because it has is no other practical ''use'', you may safely stuff two or three of them under your screen indefinitely without fear of having to disassemble your workstation because you have an urgent job and the last sod to use the printer didn’t restock the paper supply in the cupboard. | |||
Recent times have nonetheless been tough for publishers | Recent times have nonetheless been tough for [[legal almanac]] publishers. They have been hit by a triple cocktail of woe: | ||
===[[Critical theory]] got ... critical === | ===[[Critical theory]] got ... critical === | ||
In 2019, from nowhere, | In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive [[virtue-signalling]] when their “rigorous selection methodology” — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless [[Critical theory|critical legal theorist]]s.<ref>Or possibly practitioners, ''posing'' as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.</ref> | ||
But | The publishers’ response, though reasonable —“wait a minute? No-one actually ''reads'' these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf ears. | ||
But publishers are nothing if not resourceful: the new “Chambers [[Diversity & inclusion|Diversity & Inclusion]]” is an exclusive guide to the intersectionally-marginised global elite.<ref>https://diversity.chambers.com/ “Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are all, in that regard, fundamentally the same, yet at the same time we screen our people to make sure D&I is a fundamental part of their, and therefore our, DNA.”</ref> | |||
===Covid goes virtual=== | ===Covid goes virtual=== | ||
But | But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish [[snowflakes]]. The [[Covid]] pandemic prompted the legal almanac publishing industry to go digital, thereby making the same [[category error]] the [[Critical theory|critical theorist]]s did, which was to assume that ''people want guides to the legal profession to read them''. But as a moment’s reflection should tell us, they do not. They look up their own entry, send a photocopy to their mum, and them put the whole guide to better uses propping up monitors, holding fire-stop doors open, and sandwich between pot plants around the department to make the place look learned. | ||
An ''e-''version of a legal almanac no good for any of those purposes ''unless you print it out''. But that will blow a ream of virgin A4 printer paper, and you are better just to use it as it is, just in case you need it for printing. | |||
=== Printing is so 2019 === | === Printing is so 2019 === | ||
Covid is a double crisis, | But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will. Covid is a double crisis, because the working mediocritariat has discovered that it doesn’t need to print, so no-one does any more, so there are oodles of reams of A4 lying around the office, which make ''perfect'' monitor stands... | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 19:19, 30 September 2021
|
Office anthropology™
|
Those vanity-published annual guides to the profession are untterly invaluable to the modern practitioner: they make excellent platforms for raising your monitor in the home office. They are sturdy, stable, give a good inch or so of clearance, and when used in groups, even competing products (like the “Legal 500” or any of the Chambers Global Practice Guides) are stackable, interoperable, and backwards-compatible.
A legal almanac scores over the traditional ream of A4 printer paper in one key regard: durability. Because it has is no other practical use, you may safely stuff two or three of them under your screen indefinitely without fear of having to disassemble your workstation because you have an urgent job and the last sod to use the printer didn’t restock the paper supply in the cupboard.
Recent times have nonetheless been tough for legal almanac publishers. They have been hit by a triple cocktail of woe:
Critical theory got ... critical
In 2019, from nowhere, publishers were forced into bouts of panicked defensive virtue-signalling when their “rigorous selection methodology” — largely “recommending your buddies as a prank and then voting for each other” — was found to be doctrinally wanting by humourless critical legal theorists.[1]
The publishers’ response, though reasonable —“wait a minute? No-one actually reads these guides, do they? Doesn’t everyone just use them to prop up their monitors?” — fell on deaf ears.
But publishers are nothing if not resourceful: the new “Chambers Diversity & Inclusion” is an exclusive guide to the intersectionally-marginised global elite.[2]
Covid goes virtual
But the trouble didn’t stop with a couple of beanish snowflakes. The Covid pandemic prompted the legal almanac publishing industry to go digital, thereby making the same category error the critical theorists did, which was to assume that people want guides to the legal profession to read them. But as a moment’s reflection should tell us, they do not. They look up their own entry, send a photocopy to their mum, and them put the whole guide to better uses propping up monitors, holding fire-stop doors open, and sandwich between pot plants around the department to make the place look learned.
An e-version of a legal almanac no good for any of those purposes unless you print it out. But that will blow a ream of virgin A4 printer paper, and you are better just to use it as it is, just in case you need it for printing.
Printing is so 2019
But it becomes less likely by the day that you you will. Covid is a double crisis, because the working mediocritariat has discovered that it doesn’t need to print, so no-one does any more, so there are oodles of reams of A4 lying around the office, which make perfect monitor stands...
See also
References
- ↑ Or possibly practitioners, posing as humourless critical legal theorists, who were disappointed not to have been included.
- ↑ https://diversity.chambers.com/ “Diversity and inclusion is at the very heart of what we do and who we all are. We are all, in that regard, fundamentally the same, yet at the same time we screen our people to make sure D&I is a fundamental part of their, and therefore our, DNA.”