82,891
edits
The Unaccountability Machine: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
We should not underestimate the overwhelming power of ''[[plausible deniability]]''. | We should not underestimate the overwhelming power of ''[[plausible deniability]]''. | ||
====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. | |||
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. | |||
''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. | |||
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 | |||