Inhouse counsel: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Inhouse counsel (view source)

Revision as of 11:07, 9 November 2022

36 bytes added , 9 November 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,503

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|people|[[File:Legal eagle.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[legal eagle]] yesterday.]]}}{{d|Inhouse counsel|/ˈɪnhaʊs ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|n|}}
+{{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:
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 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 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 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]].
+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]].
-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]].
+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''”.