General counsel: Difference between revisions

The main challenge for a modern-day [[general counsel]] is justifying {{sex|his}} position at all. He likes to be seen as a visionary — an agent for change; a revolutioniser — whilst being nothing of the sort: one does not rise to the top of a profession designed to systematically beat creative thought out of its practitioners<ref>The [[doctrine of precedent]], anyone?</ref> by being a left-field kind of guy. A [[GC]] will therefore speak frequently of his grand strategic vision and consuming fascination with technological development. When {{sex|she}} is not consenting to video-interviews for the firm’s [[intranet]], a good GC will be advocating “resource fluidity”, commissioning detailed, multi-dimensional [[risk taxonomy|risk taxonomies]], or extolling the potential benefits ([[and/or]] existential threat, depending on whom he is addressing) of ''[[cyber]]''<ref>Yes, she will call it that.</ref> or [[artificial intelligence]] to discharge the traditional role of a qualified legal advisor. [[Chatbot|Chatbots]], you see, will shortly replace humans for cross-border marketing and regulatory advice.  

The [[General Counsel]] will talk a great game, but will hand practical management of the 90 minutes to his ball-breaker of a [[COO]], a [[management consultant]] without the first clue about the law, let alone what a modern [[legal department]] actually does, who in turn will saddle jobbing lawyers with the hard-yards of thinking up something meaningful way of filling out the boxes in his [[PowerPoint]] [[deck]]. Jobbing lawyers who, you’d think, would be better spending their time managing risk, rather than inspecting their navels looking for it.