King’s Counsel: Difference between revisions

For the most part, [[financial services]] professionals know enough of what they are about that their contracts — the “[[verbiage]]”, so to speak — don’t fall to be considered by the courts. When they do, it usually follows some cataclysmic failure, where institutions that were conventionally understood to be immortal, impervious and managed by enlightened auteurs turn out to have been run by morons.  

Such revelations tend to be cyclical; over-lionised morons may go years or even decades without being exposed. But, suddenly, ''[[Lehman]]'', you know. [[Enron]]. Our world is all at once awash with litigation — much of it conducted by, on behalf of and in front of people with barely the first idea about the complexities of financial services contracts; things [[subject matter expert]]s take entirely as read.

Everyone knows it is ''much'' more fun cross-examining [[Mrs. Pinterman]] about her alibi, establishing a [[mens rea]] and objecting to things. I mean security waterfalls? COME ON.

So every now and then, a litigator might see an {{isdama}} or two — like [[Clapham omnibus|Clapham omnibuses]], often a few come along at once — whenever a systemically important financial institution reveals itself to have been in the hands of morons. But, and for just that reason, {{isdama}}s, which we in-house [[legal eagle]]s find [[tedious]], quotidian and everyday, they regard as exotic butterflies to be pinned, labeled and enclosed in glass cages. We live with them, animate them, ''give them life'' every day of our working careers. We know them, deeply, in a way no litigator, let alone a [[Queen’s Counsel]] ever could, ''or would want to''.  

But every now and then, a thorny question might arise, as to the metaphysical chassis on which an {{isdama}}, or a {{gmsla}}, or a {{gmra}} is engineered. It doesn’t happen often, but it is amazing when half a billion dollars is at stake how sharply one can focus on what might once have seen a dusty academic conceptualisation. Philosophical questions like this seem to perplex modern [[Magic circle law firm|magic circle]] [[partner]]s — people whose predecessors, let it be said, ''wrote'' the damn things, back in the day.  

So, if a practical person wanted a sensible answer on such a curly question, whom would she ask?

My friends, ''I'' would ask an expert. Someone who lives, breathes, and makes an honest livelihood out of manipulating these contracts. For example, ''someone who has spent twenty years in the [[doc unit]]''. To be sure, end-users are falling over themselves to rid themselves of these people and replace them with [[School-leaver in Bucharest|school-leavers in Bucharest]], but they are a tenacious bunch. Many are still around. If anyone will know how an ISDA is meant to work, these people surely will.