Of counsel: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{a|work|}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv/ /ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|adj}} The Bob Cunis of the law firm: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a partner. Someone w...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|work|}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv/ /ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|adj}}
{{a|work|}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv/ /ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|adj}}


The [[Bob Cunis]] of the [[law firm]]: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a [[partner]]. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to #''be'' a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with.  
The [[Bob Cunis]] of the [[law firm]]: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a [[partner]]. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to ''be'' a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with.  


Why “''of'' counsel”? It is part of the sacred oath sworn by American lawmakers that their role is to perplex, befuddle and stretch the layperson’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. Perhaps this prepositional curiosity springs from the same well. Perhaps it speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, ''I am of counsel''. Look, I’m reaching here.
Why “''of'' counsel”? It is, of course, part of the American lawmakers’ sacred oath to perplex, befuddle and stretch the laiety’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. So we should not be surprised to find that the American Bar Association has a formal opinion on the subject of what you call people you can’t quite make your mind up about<ref>Number 90-357, of 10 May 1990 of the ABA’s ''Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility'', since I know you were about to ask.</ref>, nor that it is too dreary to recount in much detail here.
 
For us, the most pressing question is ''why''. Why “''of''” counsel?  Perhaps this prepositional curiosity springs from the same well. Perhaps it speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, ''I am of counsel''. Look, I’m reaching here.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Partner]]
*[[Partner]]
*[[General counsel]]
*[[General counsel]]
{{ref}}

Revision as of 16:44, 23 February 2022

Office anthropology™


The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click to expand:

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

Of counsel
/ɒv/ /ˈkaʊns(ə)l/ (adj.)

The Bob Cunis of the law firm: neither one thing — an associate — nor the other — a partner. Someone with the chops and general ninjery to be a partner, that the partnership cannot for some reason bring themselves to share their lollies with.

Why “of counsel”? It is, of course, part of the American lawmakers’ sacred oath to perplex, befuddle and stretch the laiety’s credulity to breaking point: this we know. So we should not be surprised to find that the American Bar Association has a formal opinion on the subject of what you call people you can’t quite make your mind up about[1], nor that it is too dreary to recount in much detail here.

For us, the most pressing question is why. Why “of” counsel? Perhaps this prepositional curiosity springs from the same well. Perhaps it speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, I am of counsel. Look, I’m reaching here.

See also

References

  1. Number 90-357, of 10 May 1990 of the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, since I know you were about to ask.