82,892
edits
Legal operations: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
== What’s ''really'' wrong with in-house legal == | == What’s ''really'' wrong with in-house legal == | ||
Now acres of ink have been spilled, books written, monographs published, thought-pieces floated, on the problem ''how to fix inhouse legal''. | Now acres of ink have been spilled, books written, monographs published, thought-pieces floated, on the problem of ''how to fix inhouse legal''. [[LinkedIn]] is awash with them; all in awe of technology’s current gallop; all clothe their mundane propositions in expressions of the richest finery; all seek to ride the vanguard leading edge. Legal is profoundly broken, always has been, but [[this time is different]]. Now we have the technology to rebuild it. The ''bionic legal department'' is nigh. | ||
But, friends, the problem is not technological, it isn’t new, and it doesn’t require much vision. It is rather dreary and age-old. It is quite easy to state, if not to fix: | |||
{{Quote|''Legal is too expensive and too slow.''}} | {{Quote|''Legal is too expensive and too slow.''}} | ||
This in turn hinges on two things: | |||
This in turn hinges on two things, neither of them new much less soluble by [[Chatbot|chatbots]]: | |||
* '''Over-reliance on external counsel''': [[In-house lawyer|in-house lawyers]] are still far too ready to send easy, English-law work out. This was the original plan, to be sure, and it made sense when the bank only had three lawyers covering the whole investment bank, but times have moved on. Inhouse teams at investment banks are the size of middling international law firms. They have, generally, more senior and have far more institutional experience than their equivalents in private practice. There is generally little substantive need to refer complex English law material to outside counsel, yet they routinely do it.<ref>It is said that Banks’ reluctance to buy [[Professional indemnity insurance|professional indemnity]] insurance for their legal teams may propel this, but this strikes me as a fatuous argument. Banks are classic self-insurers. If ever the amount of a legal call is sufficiently grave to warrant claim on a professional indemnity policy there are better questions to ask, such as ''why is a bank adopting such a risky strategy in the first place''? If that is too naive an outlook — ok, guilty as charged — then maybe ''that'' is the triage point for engaging external counsel.</ref> | * '''Over-reliance on external counsel''': [[In-house lawyer|in-house lawyers]] are still far too ready to send easy, English-law work out. This was the original plan, to be sure, and it made sense when the bank only had three lawyers covering the whole investment bank, but times have moved on. Inhouse teams at investment banks are the size of middling international law firms. They have, generally, more senior and have far more institutional experience than their equivalents in private practice. There is generally little substantive need to refer complex English law material to outside counsel, yet they routinely do it.<ref>It is said that Banks’ reluctance to buy [[Professional indemnity insurance|professional indemnity]] insurance for their legal teams may propel this, but this strikes me as a fatuous argument. Banks are classic self-insurers. If ever the amount of a legal call is sufficiently grave to warrant claim on a professional indemnity policy there are better questions to ask, such as ''why is a bank adopting such a risky strategy in the first place''? If that is too naive an outlook — ok, guilty as charged — then maybe ''that'' is the triage point for engaging external counsel.</ref> | ||