82,387
edits
Inhouse counsel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|people| | {{a|people|{{image|legal eagle|png|Know me by this name: EAGLE NINJA.}}}}{{d|Inhouse counsel|/ˈɪnhaʊs ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|n|}} | ||
A peculiar breed of [[flannelwright]] whose chief expertise resides in: | A peculiar breed of [[flannelwright]] whose chief expertise resides in: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Inhouse counsel are different from [[Outhouse counsel|outhouse lawyers]]: more work-shy; less heroic about the number of hours on the bounce they can ensure catatonic [[tedium]] before being stretchered out. | Inhouse counsel are different from [[Outhouse counsel|outhouse lawyers]]: more work-shy; less heroic about the number of hours on the bounce they can ensure catatonic [[tedium]] before being stretchered out. | ||
But then, without the [[time and attendance]] yardstick, the sole dimension of | === The difficult subject of [[value]] === | ||
But then, without the [[time and attendance]] yardstick, the sole dimension of “sustained concentration whilst gripped by the jaws of [[boredom]] and confusion” is no great advantage. | |||
Undoubtedly, there are better ways of describing a lawyer’s worth than simple time spent, though that is not to say anyone in the legal team has yet nutted out what they are. | |||
In this and many other ways are the [[Private practice lawyer|outhouse]] and inhouse incentives inversions of each other. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a ''[[profit centre]]'' — one who profits from ''discord'': the more of it, and the longer it takes to untangle, the better — an inhouse legal eagle 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, but design: the [[legal department]] is by its very ''[[ontology]]'' a [[cost centre]]. | |||
In this and many other ways | |||
This does not stop | This does not stop starry-eyed [[general counsel]], [[from time to time]], wishing their department ''could'' be a [[profit centre]], of course. | ||
To be sure, this would be an excellent corrective to the [[chief operating office]]’s disposition when it beholds the legal function: that it is a blight, a [[Cost reduction|cost]], a drag and, at the end of the day, a roadblock: a department stocked with expensive professionals whose main talent seems to be coming up with creative ways to say “''no''”. | To be sure, this would be an excellent corrective to the [[chief operating office]]’s disposition when it beholds the legal function: that it is a blight, a [[Cost reduction|cost]], a drag and, at the end of the day, a roadblock: a department stocked with expensive professionals whose main talent seems to be coming up with creative ways to say “''no''”. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
“But many of our lawyers are commercial and creative, and they ''do'' contribute to the successful execution of banking deal flow,” the [[General counsel|GC]] will think to herself. She may even articulate this to her management committee, and they will agree: inhouse lawyers are frequently vital. “So, why should we not be credited with our contribution?” | “But many of our lawyers are commercial and creative, and they ''do'' contribute to the successful execution of banking deal flow,” the [[General counsel|GC]] will think to herself. She may even articulate this to her management committee, and they will agree: inhouse lawyers are frequently vital. “So, why should we not be credited with our contribution?” | ||
Here, if she is lucky, a brave soul on that committee will object: for it is easy to be carried away, but there are many simple, axiomatic answers to this question: the importance of segregating those whose mandate is ''defensive'' from those whose role is to seek out reward — that kind of thing. One can quickly become bogged down with distracting details and lose sight of the wood for all the argumentative trees. But there is a single word which should bring a GC to her senses if carried away with such a frolicsome idea: “[[Enron|''Enron'']]”. ''[[Enron Corporation|Enron]]'' is what happens when you turn a control function into a profit centre. | Here, if she is lucky, a brave soul on that committee will object: for it is easy to be carried away, but there are many simple, axiomatic answers to this question: the importance of segregating those whose mandate is ''defensive'' from those whose role is to seek out reward — that kind of thing. One can quickly become bogged down with distracting details and lose sight of the wood for all the argumentative trees. | ||
But there is a single word which should bring a GC to her senses if carried away with such a frolicsome idea: “[[Enron|''Enron'']]”. ''[[Enron Corporation|Enron]]'' is what happens when you try to turn a [[control function]] into a [[profit centre]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||