Legal value: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|mgmt|{{wmc|Royal-clipper.jpg|Imagine the barnacles on the bottom of ''that'' baby.}}}}The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value.
{{a|mgmt|{{wmc|Royal-clipper.jpg|Imagine the barnacles on the bottom of ''that'' baby.}} }}{{qd|Legal value|ˈliːɡᵊl ˈvæljuː|highly abstract n|The contribution to an organisation’s bottom line — as often as not rendered by heading off impositions which might otherwise plonk themselves on the [[Middle line|''middle'' line]] — provided by the legal department.}}


For, if I send my [[lawyer]] a 90-page [[indenture]] and it comes back unmarked bar the words “all fine” scrawled across the front page, yet still accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I ''feel'' I am getting value for money?  
{{drop|T|he dilemma for}} professional services providers is not ''providing'' value — but ''showing'' it. It is all very well working tirelessly and unobserved in the clammy penumbra of doubt and risk in which your client’s best opportunities are bathed — but if no one ever ''sees'' you, you know, going in elbow-deep to clear that blocked u-bend with your bare hands — how are they to understand the critical difference you make? How is anyone meant know how ''valuable'' you are?
 
The ordure in which commercial eaglets must grope is certainly grim but most of it, beyond its sheer annoying heft, is harmless enough. This is the dirty secret of commercial legal practice: you have to fish around for a while before finding anything worth reporting. Most days you won’t find much worth remarking on at all.
 
Most days there won’t ''be'' anything.
 
But this is little if I send my [[lawyer]] a 90-page [[indenture]] and it comes back unmarked bar the words “all fine” scrawled across the front page, yet still accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I ''feel'' I am getting value for money?  


Generally, I do not.  
Generally, I do not.  
====On non-barking dogs and night-times====
====On non-barking dogs and night-times====
This is so even though I ''might'' be: [[The dog in the night time|a dog that barketh not in the night-time brings no comfort]], even when there is nothing to bark at.
This is so even though I ''might'' be: [[The dog in the night time|a dog that barketh not in the night-time brings no comfort]], even when there is nothing to bark at.
So how to demonstrate a positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value?


So, commercial [[Lawyer|lawyers]] have developed techniques for barking ostentatiously during hours of darkness: [[Form|formal]] alterations that alter no [[substance]], but exude the psychological safety that comes from seeing they have indeed pored over the document, buffing and polishing it to a high forensic sheen.  
So, commercial [[Lawyer|lawyers]] have developed techniques for barking ostentatiously during hours of darkness: [[Form|formal]] alterations that alter no [[substance]], but exude the psychological safety that comes from seeing they have indeed pored over the document, buffing and polishing it to a high forensic sheen.  
Line 11: Line 20:
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]]...”.
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 [[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 its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what [[Douglas Adams]] and John Lloyd would call “[[clabby conversation|clabby]]” [[clabby conversation|conversation]]<nowiki/>s.  
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 its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what [[Douglas Adams]] and John Lloyd would call “[[clabby conversation|clabby]]” [[clabby conversation|conversation]]s.  


Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “[[ditherington]]”.
Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “[[ditherington]]”.
Line 24: Line 33:
In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense.
In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense.


The problem is, you can’t measure this with [[metric]]s or [[key performance indicators]]. Unavoidable legal process — customer [[contract negotiation]]<nowiki/>s, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the [[process]] becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and [[legal]]’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in ''silhouette'': how ''rarely'' is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved.
The problem is, you can’t measure this with [[metric]]s or [[key performance indicators]]. Unavoidable legal process — customer [[contract negotiation]]s, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the [[process]] becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and [[legal]]’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in ''silhouette'': how ''rarely'' is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved.


Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that [[inhouse lawyer]]s sprinkle their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly ''can'' count the ways they don’t: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the box-ticking, form-filling, meeting-attending and perpetually re-advising on issues it is, fundamentally, the business’s job to know already.  
Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that [[inhouse lawyer]]s sprinkle their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly ''can'' count the ways they don’t: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the box-ticking, form-filling, meeting-attending and perpetually re-advising on issues it is, fundamentally, the business’s job to know already.  

Revision as of 16:11, 6 September 2024

JC sounds off on Management™
Imagine the barnacles on the bottom of that baby.
Index: Click 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.

Legal value
ˈliːɡᵊl ˈvæljuː (highly abstract n.)

The contribution to an organisation’s bottom line — as often as not rendered by heading off impositions which might otherwise plonk themselves on the middle line — provided by the legal department.

The dilemma for professional services providers is not providing value — but showing it. It is all very well working tirelessly and unobserved in the clammy penumbra of doubt and risk in which your client’s best opportunities are bathed — but if no one ever sees you, you know, going in elbow-deep to clear that blocked u-bend with your bare hands — how are they to understand the critical difference you make? How is anyone meant know how valuable you are?

The ordure in which commercial eaglets must grope is certainly grim but most of it, beyond its sheer annoying heft, is harmless enough. This is the dirty secret of commercial legal practice: you have to fish around for a while before finding anything worth reporting. Most days you won’t find much worth remarking on at all.

Most days there won’t be anything.

But this is little if I send my lawyer a 90-page indenture and it comes back unmarked bar the words “all fine” scrawled across the front page, yet still accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I feel I am getting value for money?

Generally, I do not.

On non-barking dogs and night-times

This is so even though I might be: a dog that barketh not in the night-time brings no comfort, even when there is nothing to bark at.

So how to demonstrate a positive contribution without actively destroying value?

So, commercial lawyers have developed techniques for barking ostentatiously during hours of darkness: formal alterations that alter no substance, but exude the psychological safety that comes from seeing they have indeed pored over the document, buffing and polishing it to a high forensic 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 its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards barnacle-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what Douglas Adams and John Lloyd would call “clabbyconversations.

Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “ditherington”.

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 their behaviour is, as long as it brings in fees. Fees, one can measure. Fees, one can bank.

Legal practice management consultants may help by comparing inputs to outputs; devising metrics to predict the optimal amount of defensible literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns, but this will not work inhouse, where lawyers collect no fees. Here, the putative 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 it is not absolutely necessary.

In-house legal departments exist to throttle legal expense.

The problem is, you can’t measure this with metrics or key performance indicators. Unavoidable legal process — customer contract negotiations, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the process becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and legal’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in silhouette: how rarely is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved.

Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that inhouse lawyers sprinkle their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly can count the ways they don’t: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the box-ticking, form-filling, meeting-attending and perpetually re-advising on issues it is, fundamentally, the business’s job to know already.

These “key non-performance indicatorscould be counted and presented to the Opco during its weekly stakeholder check in conference call, on an attractive slide, replete with RAG statuses, downward-sloping graphs and Gantt diagrams charting the department’s ascent to a condition of crystal purity, with maximum scope for offering untrammelled, ineffable excellence.

But are they, in any organisation on the planet?

Are they heck, as the Americans say.

See also

References