Litigation lawyer: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
In part this is because they are are short the same option as is any [[risk controller]]: There is no upside from signing off any [[risk]] that has not been fully diffused in a [[circle of escalation]], underwritten in blood by someone else (ideally a [[Sullivan and Cromwell]] partner) and [[socialise|socialised]] to the [[General Counsel]]. But it is not just that: there's a personality element too. [[Litigation lawyer]]s are preternaturally risk averse — [[fear]]ful — by personal disposition. Loose cannon types rarely sign up to be litigation lawyers, and don’t last long if they do.
In part this is because they are are short the same option as is any [[risk controller]]: There is no upside from signing off any [[risk]] that has not been fully diffused in a [[circle of escalation]], underwritten in blood by someone else (ideally a [[Sullivan and Cromwell]] partner) and [[socialise|socialised]] to the [[General Counsel]]. But it is not just that: there's a personality element too. [[Litigation lawyer]]s are preternaturally risk averse — [[fear]]ful — by personal disposition. Loose cannon types rarely sign up to be litigation lawyers, and don’t last long if they do.


Nor are litigation lawyers any better a source of advice about contract drafting than trauma ward surgeons are about motor vehicle safety engineering, though this is not how they see it. But what better insight can a barrister give than, “for Christ’s sake, don’t wind up in court?” If you do wind up in court, hasn’t your contractual architecture already failed you utterly? To be sure, it might be a nice surprise to find the deckchair you are clutching floats, but how much nicer would it be were it still sitting on a level deck whose vessel is still steaming towards the New World?
Nor are litigation lawyers any better a source of advice about contract drafting than trauma ward surgeons are about motor vehicle safety engineering. For, what better insight can a litigator give than, “for Christ’s sake, don’t wind up in court?” If you ''do'' wind up in court, hasn’t your contractual architecture ''already'' failed you utterly? To be sure, it might be a nice surprise to find the deckchair to which you are clinging floats, but how much nicer would it be were it still sitting on the sun-deck of a vessel still steaming towards the New World?


Contract design should avoid icebergs. A litigator can only help resolve whose fault it is should one be hit.  
Contract design should avoid icebergs. A litigator can only help with sorting out whose fault it is should one have been hit. By then, the damage is done.  


Thus, an in-house [[litigation]] team is basically the [[complaints department|complaints division]] of the firm. Be wary when these people wield inordinate influence. In recent times, like its equivalent in the ''Sirius Cybernetics Corporation'', litigation teams have gone from half a junior lawyer, on flexi-time, between spells of maternity leave, to fully weaponised Death Stars of fusty, naturally censorious [[Mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] with no appetite to make any call or take any risk, however remote.
Thus, an in-house [[litigation]] team is basically the [[complaints department|complaints division]] of the firm. Be wary when they wield inordinate influence. In recent times, some litigation teams have gone from half a junior lawyer, on flexi-time, between spells of maternity leave, to fully weaponised Death Stars of fusty, naturally censorious [[Mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] lacking the appetite for any call, however safe, or any risk, however remote.


And that’s assuming [[litigation lawyer]]s really are glorified customer complaint reps. The [[Litigation|alternative]] is worse.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}