82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. | ||
“''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> | |||
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. | 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. |