Of counsel: Difference between revisions

Oh, whoreson Of!<br>  

Thou unnecessary preposition!<br>  

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>  

But seriously, 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.