You would say that: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|}}A nascent theory of professional legal practice.
{{a|devil|}}A nascent theory of professional legal practice.


A private practitioner’s greatest fear a [[bright line test|bright-line]]. You can't do anything with a bright line, you can't vacillate around it. You're either one side or the other. Lawyer likes to vacillate.Any opportunity to to blur the edges of old white line is an opportunity to extemporise on a client dine whilst taking little or no risk and whilst subjecting oneself to little or no criticism.
A private practitioner’s greatest fear is a [[bright line test|bright-line]]. You can’t ''do'' anything with a bright line: it just sits there, unambiguously demarcating boundaries, dispassionately indicating what is ''in'' and what is ''out''.
 
You can't vacillate around it. There are no penumbras, no degrees of shade, no room for pause, for careful contemplation of remote but feasible phantoms loitering in dark recesses. You’re either one side or the other.  
 
Lawyers ''like'' to vacillate. That is why they turn up. Any opportunity to to blur the edges of old white line is an opportunity to extemporise on a client dine whilst taking little or no risk and whilst subjecting oneself to little or no criticism.


So, for example, we are told that institutional big boy letters should be effective at disclaiming liability for prospectuses at least when selling too sophisticated institutional clients.
So, for example, we are told that institutional big boy letters should be effective at disclaiming liability for prospectuses at least when selling too sophisticated institutional clients.
Line 7: Line 11:
{{Sa}}
{{Sa}}
*[[Qiix]]
*[[Qiix]]
[[Bright line test]]
*[[Big-boy letter]]
*[[Big-boy letter]]
[[Inclined]] to be [[supportive]]
[[Inclined]] to be [[supportive]]

Revision as of 21:31, 12 November 2022

In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

A nascent theory of professional legal practice.

A private practitioner’s greatest fear is a bright-line. You can’t do anything with a bright line: it just sits there, unambiguously demarcating boundaries, dispassionately indicating what is in and what is out.

You can't vacillate around it. There are no penumbras, no degrees of shade, no room for pause, for careful contemplation of remote but feasible phantoms loitering in dark recesses. You’re either one side or the other.

Lawyers like to vacillate. That is why they turn up. Any opportunity to to blur the edges of old white line is an opportunity to extemporise on a client dine whilst taking little or no risk and whilst subjecting oneself to little or no criticism.

So, for example, we are told that institutional big boy letters should be effective at disclaiming liability for prospectuses at least when selling too sophisticated institutional clients.

See also

Bright line test

Inclined to be supportive