Private practice lawyer: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Lawyers may be obliged by entry-barrier perpetuating regulations to maintain [[professional indemnity insurance]] but their no-claims bonus is safe. Even when it all goes [[pear-shaped]] — deals like this often do — it will be impossible to trace that failing back to them: How could anyone, not across that whole body of information, hope to? The germ of dissolution, if it is their fault, will be so deeply buried in some third side-letter to the series proposal for the fourth tranche of the mezzanine financing leg that no-one else has a hope of ''finding'' it, let alone seeing it for the smoking gun it purportedly is. | Lawyers may be obliged by entry-barrier perpetuating regulations to maintain [[professional indemnity insurance]] but their no-claims bonus is safe. Even when it all goes [[pear-shaped]] — deals like this often do — it will be impossible to trace that failing back to them: How could anyone, not across that whole body of information, hope to? The germ of dissolution, if it is their fault, will be so deeply buried in some third side-letter to the series proposal for the fourth tranche of the mezzanine financing leg that no-one else has a hope of ''finding'' it, let alone seeing it for the smoking gun it purportedly is. | ||
'''''Will'' say''': “This time-line is very aggressive. We don’t have ''time'' for a term-sheet: [[let’s go straight to docs]]”. | |||
'''''Won''’t say:'': “Seems fine to me. No comments.” | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 17:39, 26 September 2020
|
People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.
|
There is a rake’s progress of attorney from private practice lawyer to inhouse counsel to structurer (with sickly branches peeling off towards human resources and head-hunter: whether those latter feeble strands are some kind of nascent Darwinian evolution we are witnessing in real-time, or simply a descent into decadent madness is a question on which the different constituents have their own opinions).
But those who stay the course, who don’t evolve, or adapt, but keep within their darkened partnerships, thriving in that gloomy cove, are a tough breed. They are like cockroaches — or, more flatteringly, Toyota Hiluxes — they will do whatever you ask, and will just keep going until you tell them to stop. The more tedious, the more compendious, the more laden with unmanageable complexity, the better. They may not sleep for three days; their complexions may take on a clammy green sheen, they may subsisting on tea, pizza and prescription amphetamines, but they will endure, their massive command of structural and documentational complexity intact.
Lawyers may be obliged by entry-barrier perpetuating regulations to maintain professional indemnity insurance but their no-claims bonus is safe. Even when it all goes pear-shaped — deals like this often do — it will be impossible to trace that failing back to them: How could anyone, not across that whole body of information, hope to? The germ of dissolution, if it is their fault, will be so deeply buried in some third side-letter to the series proposal for the fourth tranche of the mezzanine financing leg that no-one else has a hope of finding it, let alone seeing it for the smoking gun it purportedly is.
Will say: “This time-line is very aggressive. We don’t have time for a term-sheet: let’s go straight to docs”. Won’t say:: “Seems fine to me. No comments.”