82,891
edits
Litigation lawyer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
But, after the dislocations of recent times, many a [[litigation department]] has, like [[human resources]], come to resemble some kind of [[military-industrial complex]]. Teams have gone from half a junior lawyer, on flexi-time, between spells of maternity leave, to fully weaponised Death Stars of fusty, censorious [[Mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] who will decline to make any call, however safe, or sanction any risk, however remote. | But, after the dislocations of recent times, many a [[litigation department]] has, like [[human resources]], come to resemble some kind of [[military-industrial complex]]. Teams have gone from half a junior lawyer, on flexi-time, between spells of maternity leave, to fully weaponised Death Stars of fusty, censorious [[Mediocre lawyer|solicitors]] who will decline to make any call, however safe, or sanction any risk, however remote. | ||
===Litigation advisory=== | |||
But as the world shakes off the malignities of the last decade; as the business environs drift back to the benign, the pendulum might at last be falling back. So, to keep themselves in silk in times of fair fortune, {{t|litigation}} teams have invented an ''advisory'' function. They encourage their colleagues to consult them, ahead of time, to avoid future angst. They have contrived “risk radars”, invoking some kind of sixth sense for trouble that has proven so far elusive, and “[[Risk taxonomy|risk taxonomies]]”, by which they subdivide the [[future]] by reference to their bitter experiences of the past — all this despite their regular admonitions [[Past results are no guarantee of future performance|not to regard it as any kind of guide to what is yet to come]]. | |||
So “litigation advisory” is a theoretical but not actual function, because no-one in their right mind would ask a litigation lawyer to bless any course of action more contentious than sitting cross-legged in a padded cubicle having first signed a [[disclaimer]]. Signing off hypothetical risk scenarios in the abstract is just not how [[litigator]]s roll. 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 (such as a [[Sullivan and Cromwell]] partner)<ref>Who, thanks to a crafty assumption on page 73 of its [[legal opinion]] ''won’t have underwritten it at all.</ref> and [[socialise|socialised]] to the [[General Counsel]]. | |||
===Litigators as contract consultants=== | |||
So “litigation advisory” is a theoretical but not actual function, because no-one in their right mind would ask a litigation lawyer to bless any course of action more contentious than sitting cross-legged in | |||
Nor are litigation lawyers any better a source of advice about contract drafting than trauma ward surgeons are about motor vehicle engineering. For, what better insight can a [[litigator]] give than, “for Christ’s sake, don’t wind up in court?” What commercial draftsperson didn’t know that? | Nor are litigation lawyers any better a source of advice about contract drafting than trauma ward surgeons are about motor vehicle engineering. For, what better insight can a [[litigator]] give than, “for Christ’s sake, don’t wind up in court?” What commercial draftsperson didn’t know that? | ||