Of counsel: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work|}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv | {{a|work|}}{{quote| | ||
Oh, whoreson Of!<br> | |||
Thou unnecessary preposition!<br> | |||
:''King Edward Lear'', V, viii}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|adj}} | |||
The [[Bob Cunis]] of the [[law firm]]: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a [[partner]]. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to ''be'' a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with. | The [[Bob Cunis]] of the [[law firm]]: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a [[partner]]. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to ''be'' a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 8: | ||
“''Of'' counsel”. | “''Of'' counsel”. | ||
Now it is, of course, part of the American lawmakers’ sacred oath to perplex, befuddle and stretch the laiety’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. So we should not be surprised | Now it is, of course, part of the American lawmakers’ sacred oath to perplex, befuddle and stretch the laiety’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. So we should not be surprised that this is originally an American phenomenon that has begun leeching into the waters of the international practice, nor that the American Bar Association has a formal opinion on the subject of what to call people you can’t quite make up your mind how to feel about<ref>Number 90-357, of 10 May 1990 of the ABA’s ''Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility'', since I know you were about to ask.</ref>, nor that that opinion is much too dreary to recount in any detail here.<ref>Click [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_90_357.authcheckdam.pdf here], if you ''really'' must.</ref> | ||
But seriously, the most pressing question is ''why''. Why “''of''” counsel? Perhaps this prepositional curiosity springs from the same well. Perhaps it speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, ''I am of counsel''. Look, I’m reaching here. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 16:53, 23 February 2022
|
Office anthropology™
|
Oh, whoreson Of!
Thou unnecessary preposition!
- King Edward Lear, V, viii
Of counsel
/ɒv ˈkaʊns(ə)l/ (adj.)
The Bob Cunis of the law firm: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a partner. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to be a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with.
“Of counsel”.
Now it is, of course, part of the American lawmakers’ sacred oath to perplex, befuddle and stretch the laiety’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. So we should not be surprised that this is originally an American phenomenon that has begun leeching into the waters of the international practice, nor that the American Bar Association has a formal opinion on the subject of what to call people you can’t quite make up your mind how to feel about[1], nor that that opinion is much too dreary to recount in any detail here.[2]
But seriously, the most pressing question is why. Why “of” counsel? Perhaps this prepositional curiosity springs from the same well. Perhaps it speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, I am of counsel. Look, I’m reaching here.