Inhouse legal team of the year: Difference between revisions

Inhouse legal team of the year (view source)

Revision as of 14:18, 2 December 2019

2 bytes added , 2 December 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,040

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|people|}}To bring some rigour to the annual [[Awards]] season, the [[JC]] is pleased to announce the judging criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]] award.
-*'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “first rrequired by open of buisness tomorrow” instruction on your external advisors;
+*'''Timeliness of instructions''': How reliably close you can get to the magical Friday, 6pm deadline before dropping a “drafts required by open of business tomorrow” instruction on your external advisors;
-*'''Inexplicable delay''': For how many days you can leave draft whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death, and which necessitated your legal team rearranging plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on, before deigning to look at the email.
+*'''Inexplicable delay''': How long you can leave a draft whose immediate turnaround you signalled was as a matter of life and death, and which necessitated your legal team rearranging plans for the theatre, wedding anniversaries and so on, before deigning to so much as look at it.
-*'''Can I speak to a partner please''': the degree of disdain you show should junior members of the external team endeavour to answer your elementary questions about the draft they spent sixteen hours preparing;
+*'''Can I speak to a partner please?''': The disdain with you regard junior members of the external team should they try to answer your elementary questions about the draft they spent sixteen hours preparing;
-*'''Red-herring ninjadom''': How comprehensive and particular is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name wherever it should appear in a prospectus;
+*'''[[Red-herring ninja]]dom''': How comprehensive and particular is your knowledge of the punctuation, typography, weight and leading of your employer’s legal name wherever it appears in a prospectus?
-*'''Most pedantic mark-up''': outside the inherent pedantry of the [[red herring]], how prepared are you to make superficial amendments to perfectly sound legal drafting;
+*'''Mark-up pedantry''': Beyond the inherent pedantry of the [[red-herring ninja]], how brazenly superficial are your amendments to your counsel’s perfectly sound legal drafting?
 *'''Throw the associate under the bus''': How shamelessly will you blame the most junior member of outside counsel team — the same one whose name you keep forgetting and whose legal assurances count for nothing in the “can I speak to a partner please” category — for neglecting to prepare and circulate “critical legal documentation” that has, in fact, been in your inbox since 4.30 am on the Saturday morning immediately following your request for it.