Inhouse counsel: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
Inhouse counsel are different from [[Outhouse counsel|outhouse lawyers]]: more work-shy; less heroic about the number of hours on the bounce they can ensure catatonic [[tedium]] before being stretchered out.  
Inhouse counsel are different from [[Outhouse counsel|outhouse lawyers]]: more work-shy; less heroic about the number of hours on the bounce they can ensure catatonic [[tedium]] before being stretchered out.  


But then, without the [[time and attendance]] yardstick, the sole dimension of sustained concentration when gripped in the jaws of [[boredom]] and confusion is no great advantage. Undoubtedly, there are better ways of describing a lawyer’s worth that time spent, though that is not to say anyone in the legal team has yet nutted out what they are.
=== The difficult subject of [[value]] ===
But then, without the [[time and attendance]] yardstick, the sole dimension of “sustained concentration whilst gripped by the jaws of [[boredom]] and confusion” is no great advantage.  
 
Undoubtedly, there are better ways of describing a lawyer’s worth than simple time spent, though that is not to say anyone in the legal team has yet nutted out what they are.


=== The difficult subject of [[value]] ===
In this and many other ways are the private and inhouse incentives inversions of each other. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a [[profit centre]] — one who profits from ''discord'': the more of it, and the longer it takes to untangle, the better — an inhouse lawyer resolutely is ''not''. Inhouse counsel don’t generate revenue: they can’t — they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just by coincidence: the [[legal department]] is by its very ''[[ontology]]'' a [[cost centre]].   
In this and many other ways their incentives are inverted. Where a [[private practice lawyer]] is a [[profit centre]] — one who profits from ''discord'': the more of it, and the longer it takes to untangle, the better — an inhouse lawyer resolutely is ''not''. Inhouse counsel don’t generate revenue: they can’t — they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just by coincidence: the [[legal department]] is by its very ''[[ontology]]'' a [[cost centre]].   


This does not stop giddy [[general counsel]], [[from time to time]], alighting on the idea that perhaps they might like to ''be'' a [[profit centre]].   
This does not stop giddy [[general counsel]], [[from time to time]], alighting on the idea that perhaps they might like to ''be'' a [[profit centre]].   
Line 22: Line 24:
“But many of our lawyers are commercial and creative, and they ''do'' contribute to the successful execution of banking deal flow,” the [[General counsel|GC]] will think to herself. She may even articulate this to her management committee, and they will agree: inhouse lawyers are frequently vital. “So, why should we not be credited with our contribution?”
“But many of our lawyers are commercial and creative, and they ''do'' contribute to the successful execution of banking deal flow,” the [[General counsel|GC]] will think to herself. She may even articulate this to her management committee, and they will agree: inhouse lawyers are frequently vital. “So, why should we not be credited with our contribution?”


Here, if she is lucky, a brave soul on that committee will object: for it is easy to be carried away, but there are many simple, axiomatic answers to this question: the importance of segregating those whose mandate is ''defensive'' from those whose role is to seek out reward — that kind of thing. One can quickly become bogged down with distracting details and lose sight of the wood for all the argumentative trees. But there is a single word which should bring a GC to her senses if carried away with such a frolicsome idea: “[[Enron|''Enron'']]”. ''[[Enron Corporation|Enron]]'' is what happens when you turn a control function into a profit centre.
Here, if she is lucky, a brave soul on that committee will object: for it is easy to be carried away, but there are many simple, axiomatic answers to this question: the importance of segregating those whose mandate is ''defensive'' from those whose role is to seek out reward — that kind of thing. One can quickly become bogged down with distracting details and lose sight of the wood for all the argumentative trees.  
 
But there is a single word which should bring a GC to her senses if carried away with such a frolicsome idea: “[[Enron|''Enron'']]”. ''[[Enron Corporation|Enron]]'' is what happens when you try to turn a [[control function]] into a [[profit centre]].


{{sa}}
{{sa}}

Navigation menu