83,022
edits
Private practice lawyer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
'''''Will'' say''': “This time-line is very aggressive. We don’t have ''time'' for a term-sheet: Let’s go straight to docs.”<br> | '''''Will'' say''': “This time-line is very aggressive. We don’t have ''time'' for a term-sheet: Let’s go straight to docs.”<br> | ||
'''''Won’t'' say''': “Seems fine to me. No comments.” | '''''Won’t'' say''': “Seems fine to me. No comments.” | ||
===The loss of [[subject matter expert]]ise=== | |||
The sainted history of the [[eye-ess-dee-aye]], and how its carriage has descended through the ranks of solemn wizardry to its present low state, pushed about by school leavers in failed communist states is recounted in our [[downgrading]] article. The negotiation of standard master agreements — especially the securities financing ones — has now passed so far down the “value chain” that private practice lawyers are positively destructive to the negotiation process, having none of the “[[metis]]” required to competently advise. It is amusing, but alarming, when apparently sophisticated asset managers outsource their contract negotiation to second-tier law firms anxious (late in the day) to get a piece of the derivatives action, who then resolutely bugger everything up for everyone else, not understanding counterintuitive but nonetheless foundational aspects of the market and insisting on indemnities, close-outs for settlement failures, and to reserve rights to seek consequential losses by way of damage. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Inhouse counsel]] | *[[Inhouse counsel]] | ||