Of counsel: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Of counsel (view source)

Revision as of 15:32, 24 February 2022

704 bytes added , 24 February 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|work|}}{{d|Of counsel|/ɒv/ /ˈkaʊns(ə)l/|adj}}
+{{a|people|
+[[File:Of Council.png|450px|frameless|center]]
+}}{{quote|
+“Oh, whoreson Of!<br>
+Thou unnecessary preposition!”<br>
+:''King Edward Lear'', V, viii}}{{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 indentured associate — nor the other — a [[partner]]. Someone having the chops and general ninjery to ''be'' a [[partner]], but who the partnership cannot at some level abide, or at least bring themselves to share their lollies with.
 “''Of'' counsel”.
-Now 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 up your mind how to feel 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 much too dreary to recount in any detail here.<ref>Click [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_90_357.authcheckdam.pdf here] if you really must.</ref>
+Now 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 that this is originally an American phenomenon that has begun leeching into the waters of the international practice, nor that the American Bar Association has a formal opinion on the subject of what to call people you can’t quite make up your mind how to feel 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 that [[opinion]] is much too dreary to recount in any detail here.<ref>Click [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/formal_opinion_90_357.authcheckdam.pdf here], if you ''really'' must.</ref>
-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.
+But the most pressing question is ''why''.
+Why “''of''” counsel?
+Perhaps this prepositional curiosity speaks to a fundamental essence: in the same way that you might be “of fire”, or she “of water”, ''I am of counsel''.
+Or does it indicate that the subject is in some way ''un''elemental? That there is something to be desired about the fulsomeness with which they present for duty: is their input some kind of contrivance; a fragrant proxy of proper, full-blown counsel: a hastily confected ''preparation'' of counsel; a half-hearted ''hint'' of counsel; ''l’aire du conseil'', and ''this'' is why no-one will admit them to the partnership?
+Answers on a postcard.
 {{sa}}