Legal value: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Legal value (view source)

Revision as of 13:50, 15 September 2023

1,366 bytes added , 15 September 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|mgmt|{{image|Barncacle|jpg|[[For the avoidance of doubt]] this picture contains, [[without limitation]], [[one or more]], [[as the case may be]], [[barnacle]]s.}}
-}}The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value.<ref>other than the value destruction that inevitably follows from your engagement in the first place — your professional fees, that is.</ref>
+}}The dilemma for professional services providers is how to show your positive contribution without actively ''destroying'' value.
-For, if I send my [[lawyer]] a 90-page [[indenture]] and it comes back unmarked, “all fine”, but accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I ''feel'' I am getting value for money?
+For, if I send my [[lawyer]] a 90-page [[indenture]] and it comes back unmarked bar the words “all fine” scrawled across the front page, yet still accompanied by a hefty note of costs, do I ''feel'' I am getting value for money?
-Generally, I do not. Even though I might be. The [[The dog in the night time|dog that doesn’t bark in the night-time]] brings me no comfort, even if there is nothing to bark at.
+Generally, I do not.
+====On non-barking dogs and night-times====
+This is so even though I ''might'' be: [[The dog in the night time|a dog that barketh not in the night-time brings no comfort]], even when there is nothing to bark at.
-So, [[Lawyer|lawyers]] have developed techniques for making [[Form|formal]] changes which do not alter the [[substance]], but signal that they have indeed pored over the document, subjecting it to their unique forensic consideration — that it has been buffed and polished to a high sheen. You can spot these parenthetical statements, which we call [[flannel]] in these pages, by their tells: “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, “[[without limitation]]...”, “[[whether or not]]...”, or “[[notwithstanding the foregoing]]...”.
+So, commercial [[Lawyer|lawyers]] have developed techniques for barking ostentatiously during hours of darkness: [[Form|formal]] alterations that alter no [[substance]], but exude the psychological safety that comes from seeing they have indeed pored over the document, buffing and polishing it to a high forensic sheen.
-It is a [[Anal paradox|paradox]] that, however [[tedious]] it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more [[tedious]] to insist upon their removal. Thus over time legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush.
+You can spot these parenthetical statements, which we call [[flannel]] in these pages, by their tells: “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, “[[without limitation]]...”, “[[whether or not]]...”, or “[[notwithstanding the foregoing]]...”.
+It is a [[Anal paradox|paradox]] that, however [[tedious]] it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more [[tedious]] to insist upon its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what [[Douglas Adams]] and John Lloyd would call “[[clabby conversation|clabby]]” [[clabby conversation|conversation]]<nowiki/>s.
+Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “[[ditherington]]”.
 ===Measuring legal value===
-All this presents quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity cannot be measured in [[time and attendance|billable hours]]. That is, [[inhouse legal|''in-house'' legal eagles]].
+All this presents quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity ''cannot'' be measured in [[time and attendance|billable hours]]. That is, [[inhouse legal|''in-house'' legal eagles]].
+For those in [[private practice]], it does not matter ''how'' counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding their behaviour is, ''as long as it brings in fees''. Fees, one can measure. Fees, one can ''bank''.
+Legal practice management consultants may help by comparing inputs to outputs; devising metrics to predict the ''optimal amount'' of defensible literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns, but this will not work inhouse, where [[inhouse lawyer|lawyer]]s collect no fees. Here, the putative quest is ''not'' “to produce legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to ''avoid'' generating legal work product wherever it is not absolutely necessary.
+In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense.
-For those in [[private practice]], it does not matter ''how'' counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding  is their behaviour ''as long as it brings in fees''.
+The problem is, you can’t measure this with [[metric]]s or [[key performance indicators]]. Unavoidable legal process — customer [[contract negotiation]]<nowiki/>s, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the [[process]] becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and [[legal]]’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in ''silhouette'': how ''rarely'' is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved.
-Fees, one can measure. Fees, one can ''bank''.
+Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that [[inhouse lawyer]]s sprinkle their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly ''can'' count the ways they don’t: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the box-ticking, form-filling, meeting-attending and perpetually re-advising on issues it is, fundamentally, the business’s job to know already.
-[[Inhouse lawyer]]s collect no fees.
+These “[[key non-performance indicator|key ''non''-performance indicators]]” ''could'' be counted and presented to the [[Opco]] during its weekly stakeholder check in conference call, on an attractive [[slide]], replete with [[RAG status]]es, downward-sloping graphs and Gantt diagrams charting the department’s ascent to a condition of crystal purity, with maximum scope for offering untrammelled, ineffable excellence.
-Legal practice management consultants may help law firms by running [[algorithm]]s comparing inputs to outputs and devise metrics predicting the ''optimal amount'' of literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns but an [[inhouse lawyer]]’s putative — granted, quixotic — quest is not to produce “legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to ''avoid'' generating [[attorney work product|legal work product]] wherever possible. In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense.
+But ''are'' they, in any organisation on the planet?
-You can't measure this with [[metric]]s. Unavoidable legal processes — customer contract negotiations — can certainly be streamlined, widgetised, productionised, but once that is done, they become an operational function, not a legal one, and legal’s contribution to their ongoing success, again can only be measured in silhouette: how ''infrequently'' legal is obliged thereafter to get involved.
+Are they ''heck'', as the Americans say.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Key non-performance indicator]]