82,891
edits
Inhouse legal team of the year: Difference between revisions
Inhouse legal team of the year (view source)
Revision as of 11:21, 14 October 2022
, 14 October 2022no 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 awards|png|Just a golden envelope away}}}}To bring some rigour to the annual [[Awards]] season, and short of some kind of centralised hunger games whereby different inhouse legal teams gather to duel, or compete to the death in a [[tedium]]-endurance heptathlon — the [[JC]] today publishes standardised criteria by which judging panels — who plainly have no clue otherwise — may assess finalists for [[inhouse legal team of the year]] [[Awards|award]]s. | ||
As any experienced [[inhouse lawyer]] will tell you, the following are the core skills: | As any experienced [[inhouse lawyer]] will tell you, the following are the core skills: | ||
*'''Timeliness of brief''': After an indolent day spent in [[Continuing professional development|CPD seminars]] and [[panel discussions]], how reliably can you hit the magical [[6 p.m.]] deadline for dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow so help me” instruction on [[Private practice lawyer|external advisors]]? | *'''Timeliness of brief''': After an indolent day spent in [[Continuing professional development|CPD seminars]] and [[panel discussions]], how reliably can you hit the magical [[6 p.m.]] deadline for dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow so help me” instruction on [[Private practice lawyer|external advisors]]? | ||
*'''Inexplicable delay''': For how many weeks can you leave drafts — whose immediate turnaround you expressed to be a matter of life and death, and | *'''Inexplicable delay''': For how many weeks can you leave the aforementioned drafts — whose immediate turnaround you expressed to be a matter of life and death, and for whose production the [[Private practice lawyer|external team]] rearranged long-standing plans to attend the theatre, celebrate wedding anniversaries and so on — before deigning to look at them? | ||
*'''Yes, but can I speak to a partner please?''' How disdainful can you be to the [[Private practice lawyer|junior-most lawyer on the external team]] should {{sex|she}} try to answer your uninformed questions about a document {{sex|she}} has just spent sixteen hours preparing? | *'''Yes, but can I speak to a partner please?''' How disdainful can you be to the [[Private practice lawyer|junior-most lawyer on the external team]] should {{sex|she}} try to answer your uninformed questions about a document {{sex|she}} has just spent sixteen hours preparing? | ||
*'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': How comprehensive is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight, leading and style of the firm’s legal name wherever it appears in a [[prospectus]]? | *'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': How comprehensive is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight, kerning, leading and style of the firm’s legal name wherever it appears in a [[prospectus]]? | ||
*'''Mark-up pedantry/ambiguity''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], how brazenly superficial are your amendments to perfectly sound legal drafting? | *'''[[Mark-up]] [[pedantry]]/ambiguity''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], how brazenly superficial are your amendments to perfectly sound legal drafting? Points available for: | ||
:*refusing to hear of modifications to your comments notwithstanding their illegibility, incomprehensibility or irrelevance;<ref>{{Bold full stop}}</ref> | :*refusing to hear of modifications to your comments notwithstanding their illegibility, incomprehensibility or irrelevance;<ref>{{Bold full stop}}</ref> | ||
:* | :*how rigorously you [[mark-up]] closing agendas, bible tables of content and [[process agent]] appointment letters, relative to your substantive input — [[if any]] — on the deal documentation; | ||
:*the | :*the ''inscrutability'' of your [[mark-up]]: a question mark, exclamation point or other cryptic glyph, annotated airily in a margin, ''apropos'' nothing but just hovering there, transcendent, above the fray, exuding other-worldly wisdom without giving anything away, leaving [[Private practice lawyer|external counsel]] the task of extracting meaning from it and converting that into a positive textual amendment, over which you then have a free option: if it turns out to be brilliant, you can take all credit; if it is not, you can ... | ||
*'''Throw the associate under the bus''': How shamelessly will you blame the most [[Private practice lawyer|junior member of outside counsel team]] — the | *'''Throw the associate under the bus''': How shamelessly will you blame the most [[Private practice lawyer|junior member of outside counsel team]] — the one whose name you keep forgetting and whose thoughtful explanations count for nothing in the “yes, but 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 a.m. on the Saturday morning immediately following your [[6 p.m.]] request for it? | ||
*'''External law-firm management''': How insistent are you in requiring any external spend over £2,500 to go through a mandatory three-way bidding process? | *'''External law-firm management''': How insistent are you in requiring any external spend over £2,500 to go through a mandatory three-way bidding process? | ||