Inhouse counsel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=== Inhouse counsel and the difficult subject of [[value]] === | === Inhouse counsel and the difficult subject of [[value]] === | ||
In this and many other ways their incentives are inverted. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a profit centre | 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 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]]. | ||
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 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 [[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''”. | |||
Here, if she is lucky, | “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. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} |