The Unaccountability Machine: Difference between revisions

The Unaccountability Machine (view source)

Revision as of 15:23, 2 May 2024

1,011 bytes added , 2 May

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ====The role of in-house counsel====
-There is an argument, unstated in much commentary on the case, that the primary role of in-house counsel — not just the GC in her papers to the board, but all lawyers in the organisation — is as the organisation’s moral conscience. They, and their compliance colleagues, are ideally positioned to sit above the fray from where they can challenge the probity of the organisation’s baser commercial instincts.
+There is an argument, unstated in much commentary on the case, that the primary role of [[in-house counsel]] — of not just the [[GC]] when preparing briefings to the board, but all lawyers in the organisation, whatever they happen to be doing— is to act as the organisation’s moral conscience. They, even more so than their [[compliance]] colleagues, are ideally positioned to sit above the fray, from where they can interrogate the organisation’s baser commercial instincts, at least at points where they manifest in legal work product.
-That’s a plausible theory of the game, but it hardly reflects current practice. JC has a tongue in cheek [[history of in-house legal]] which charts the growth of the in-house legal function from a gray fellow in a cardigan behind a desk next to the photocopiers who, wordlessly managed the firm’s powers of attorney, to the weaponised, operationally supported 1,000 strong battle unit we know today.
+That’s a plausible theory of the game, but it hardly reflects current practice. For one thing, in-house [[legal is not in the operational stack]], so doesn’t see the great pitch and yaw of BAU activity that animates the firm’s mortal sinews. At most it would be an exceptional function. But it is not even that.
+JC has a tongue in cheek [[history of in-house legal]] which charts the growth of the in-house legal function from a gray fellow in a cardigan behind a desk next to the photocopiers who, wordlessly managed the firm’s powers of attorney, to the weaponised, operationally supported 1,000 strong battle unit we know today.
 ''No part of that transformation grew out of the yen for a stronger corporate conscience.'' It was about business facilitation, cost management ([[legal eagles]] were meant to be able to call bullshit on their external advisors) and the ''commodification'' of legal services. Precisely, the urge to codify rules and take away the need for anecdotal intellectual reflection about what the firm was doing. In-house legal is an accountability sink ''machine''.
-Doubters are invited to peruse the contemporary thought-leadership of legal visionaries in its natural home: [[LinkedIn]]. There is much delusional halfwittery about [[legal services|legal service delivery]], [[DEI]], how to automate the legal department, demand management, the role of [[AI]] in replacing lawyers. But good luck finding a think-piece that even ''mentions'' the law, let alone anything as nebulous as an in-house lawyer’s obligation to make ethical judgments.
+Nor should it be: the corporate conscience should be imbued in its every representative, in every thing she does. A model that sees legal and compliance as a crack morality squad fighting a multi-front war to quell the infamy that would otherwise well unchecked in every servant’s breast is as ridiculous as it is unhinged.
+Lawyers aren’t even expected to prioritise the law. Doubters are invited to peruse the thought-leadership of divers legal visionaries in its natural home: [[LinkedIn]]. There is any volume halfwittery about [[legal services|legal service delivery]], [[DEI]], the legal process excellence, demand management, the transformational potential of [[AI]]. But good luck finding a think-piece that even ''mentions'' the law, let alone anything as nebulous as an in-house lawyer’s obligation to make ethical judgments.
+It is easy, and tempting, to put this down to an unusual confederacy of [[stupid apple]]s — this suits our personal self-esteem because if so, such a thing could not happen to us. We should not be so sure.
+“It would be nice,” says a valued correspondent, “if counsel were free to have a working moral compass inside their heads to help take open and ethically sustainable courses of action.”
-It is easy, and tempting, to put this down to an unusual confederacy of [[stupid apple]]s — this suits our personal self esteem because such a thing could not happen to us This is the house we have made
+It would. But — thanks to the unaccountability machine — it is hardly likely.