Inhouse counsel: Difference between revisions

Inhouse counsel (view source)

Revision as of 16:42, 24 October 2021

4 bytes added , 24 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

81,841

edits

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 Inhouse counsel are different from normal lawyers: more work-shy, less heroic about the number of hours, on the bounce, they can remain engaged in utter tedium without collapsing and being stretchered out. But then, without the time and attendance yardstick, the sole dimension of sustained concentration when gripped in the jaws of boredom and confusion is no great advantage.
-In this and many other ways their incentives are inverted. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a profit centre: one that profits from ''discord'' — the more of it, and the longer it takes to untangle, the better — an in-house lawyer resolutely is ''not''. Inhouse counsel don’t generate revenue: they can’t — they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just by coincidence: the [[legal department]] is by its very ''[[ontology]]'' a cost centre. This does not stop giddy [[general counsel]], [[from time to time]], alighting on the idea that perhaps they might like to be a profit centre. To be sure, this would be an excellent corrective to the unimaginative disposition usually held by the [[Chief Operating Office]] when it holds the legal function in contemplation: that it is a blight, a cost, a drag and, at the end of the day, a roadblock: a costly department stocked with expensive professionals whose main talent seems to be devising creative ways of saying “no”.
+In this and many other ways their incentives are inverted. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a profit centre: one that profits from ''discord'' — the more of it, and the longer it takes to untangle, the better — an in-house lawyer resolutely is ''not''. Inhouse counsel don’t generate revenue: they can’t — they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just by coincidence: the [[legal department]] is by its very ''[[ontology]]'' a cost centre. This does not stop giddy [[general counsel]], [[from time to time]], alighting on the idea that perhaps they might like to be a profit centre. To be sure, this would be an excellent corrective to the unimaginative disposition usually held by the [[chief operating office]] when it holds the legal function in contemplation: that it is a blight, a cost, a drag and, at the end of the day, a roadblock: a costly department stocked with expensive professionals whose main talent seems to be devising creative ways of saying “''no''”.
 “But many of our lawyers are commercial and creative, and they ''do'' contribute to the successful execution of banking deal flow.” Indeed; this is quite so. “So, why should we not be credited with our contribution?”