Inhouse legal team of the year: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|people|}}To bring some rigour to the annual [[Awards]] season, the [[JC]] is pleased to announce the judging criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]] award.
{{a|people|}}To bring some rigour to the annual [[Awards]] season, the [[JC]] is pleased to announce the judging criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]] award.


*'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your external advisors;
*'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your [[Private practice lawyer|external advisors]];
*'''Inexplicable delay''': How long you can leave a draft whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death, and which necessitated your legal team rearranging plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on, before deigning to so much as look at it.
*'''Inexplicable delay''': How many weeks can you leave a draft whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death and to produce which, your [[Private practice lawyer|legal team]] rearranged long-standing plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on before deigning to so much as look at it?
*'''Can I speak to a partner please?''': The disdain with you regard junior members of the external team should they try to answer your elementary questions about the draft they spent sixteen hours preparing;
*'''Can I speak to a partner please?''' The disdain with you regard junior members of the external team should they try to answer your elementary questions about the draft they spent sixteen hours preparing;
*'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': How comprehensive and particular is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name wherever it appears in a prospectus?
*'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': How comprehensive and particular is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name wherever it appears in a prospectus?
*'''Mark-up pedantry''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], how brazenly superficial are your amendments to your counsel’s perfectly sound legal drafting?
*'''Mark-up pedantry''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], how brazenly superficial are your amendments to your counsel’s perfectly sound legal drafting?
*'''Throw the associate under the bus''': How shamelessly will you blame the most junior member of outside counsel team — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it.
*'''Throw the associate under the bus''': How shamelessly will you blame the most junior member of outside counsel team — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it.
 
*'''The competitive bid''': Ingeniously deciding to make all external spend over £2,500 subject to a mandatory three-way competitive bidding process.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Inhouse cousel]]
*[[Inhouse counsel]]
*[[Awards]]
*[[Awards]]

Revision as of 14:48, 2 December 2019

People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.


Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

To bring some rigour to the annual Awards season, the JC is pleased to announce the judging criteria for inhouse legal team of the year award.

  • Timeliness of instructions: How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your external advisors;
  • Inexplicable delay: How many weeks can you leave a draft whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death — and to produce which, your legal team rearranged long-standing plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on — before deigning to so much as look at it?
  • Can I speak to a partner please? The disdain with you regard junior members of the external team should they try to answer your elementary questions about the draft they spent sixteen hours preparing;
  • Red-herring ninjadom: How comprehensive and particular is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name wherever it appears in a prospectus?
  • Mark-up pedantry: Beyond the inherent pedantry of the red-herring ninja, how brazenly superficial are your amendments to your counsel’s perfectly sound legal drafting?
  • Throw the associate under the bus: How shamelessly will you blame the most junior member of outside counsel team — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it.
  • The competitive bid: Ingeniously deciding to make all external spend over £2,500 subject to a mandatory three-way competitive bidding process.

See also