82,891
edits
Weeds: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work| | {{a|work| | ||
{{image|Weeds|jpg|A target-rich environment, yesterday.}} | {{image|Weeds|jpg|A target-rich environment, yesterday.}} | ||
}}{{d|Weeds|/wiːdz/|n|}} | }}{{d|Weeds|/wiːdz/|n|}} ''(usage: into the ~; deep in the ~ etc.)''<br> | ||
A lush undergrowth of spontaneously propagated [[indenture]]s, subscription agreements, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and the like which traditionally provide abundant nesting materials (flax, dry twigs, liability [[carve-in]]s and [[carve-out]]s, [[indemnity]] scoping arguments, [[governing law|governing law and jurisdiction]] clauses, wild [[celery]] and so on) for local [[legal eagle]]s. Sometimes their chicks find these nests so comforting that many spend their entire lives feasting on the rich biodiversity they find there. | A lush undergrowth of spontaneously propagated [[indenture]]s, subscription agreements, [[confidentiality agreement]]s and the like which traditionally provide abundant nesting materials (flax, dry twigs, liability [[carve-in]]s and [[carve-out]]s, [[indemnity]] scoping arguments, [[governing law|governing law and jurisdiction]] clauses, wild [[celery]] and so on) for local [[legal eagle]]s. | ||
Sometimes their chicks find these nests so comforting that many spend their entire lives feasting on the rich biodiversity they find there. | |||
But there are weeds — honestly, no-one cares less whether the [[indemnity]] in a custody agreement carves out [[gross negligence]] or not, and the sooner one realises this the happier one’s life will be — and there are weeds. On one view, any descent into legal analysis of any kind, however fundamental, is a descent into the “weeds”. One sees this attitude most commonly articulated amongst [[inhouse lawyers]]. | |||
===Inhouse lawyers and the fear of the weeds=== | ===Inhouse lawyers and the fear of the weeds=== | ||
The legal department in a commercial organisation, being a cost centre, is a place of entropic stasis. People go there to die. Thus, a popular means of career progression for inhouse lawyers — some would say the only means — is to convert them into ''managers''. The legal details — weeds — are the mark of the unpromotable laggard. The JC is one of those. He was once told, | |||
“JC, if you want to progress in this firm, you must get out of the weeds and | “JC, if you want to progress in this firm, you must ''get out of the weeds''. You know, and ''manage''.” | ||
“Manage? like as in ''middle'' management?” | “Manage? like as in ''middle'' management?” | ||
“Yes! That’s just it!” | “Yes! That’s just it! Admin! Sit on committees! Prepare management information and statistics!” | ||
This is like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. Now he has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spent the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer did so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. ''Anyone'' can be a middle manager. It requires little acumen. In fact, it seems to require a lack of it. Middle management works even better when it isn’t undertaken at all. | This is like buying a cricket bat and using it to play tennis. Now he has no data beyond anecdote to support this assertion, but he still feels it strongly: most people in the world who spent the five or more years it commonly takes to qualify as a lawyer did so because they want to practice law. They do not want to be middle managers. ''Anyone'' can be a middle manager. It requires little acumen. In fact, it seems to require a lack of it. Middle management works even better when it isn’t undertaken at all. | ||