For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[HVC]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

but if the other company didn't have a lawyer looking for contract loopholes the first company wouldn't need a lawyer to draft the contract. Cyclical evil

[Berkut]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

You don't understand what he is saying.

They may very well be very necessary and important, while at the exact same time producing exactly nothing of value.

They are like a security guardat Wal-mart, at best. A necessary evil, but still just a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line. Ideally, you would not need them at all, and would be better off if your business model could simply get rid of them altogether while avoiding the negative effects of doing so.

[frunk]

I'm sure at some time in the next 20 years someone will come up with an English to Legalese translator that will cover potential litigation that any individual or corporation might face.  At that point most lawyers will be out of a job and meaningful communication will cease.

[Zanza]

Question to the corporate lawyers here: how much of your back office jobs like research or writing documents or whatever was already moved to India or similar places?

[crazy canuck]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

but if the other company didn't have a lawyer looking for contract loopholes the first company wouldn't need a lawyer to draft the contract. Cyclical evil

Its not so much loopholes as creating an agreement that is favourable.  It doesnt necessarily require a lawyer but most times laywers are need to fill in issues that others might not think about.

If nobody in the room thinks about it then they usually end up going to someone like me to litigate over what the law would imply in such circumstances...

[crazy canuck]

Question to the corporate lawyers here: how much of your back office jobs like research or writing documents or whatever was already moved to India or similar places?

Writing documents is a corporate lawyers bread and butter.  Not sure why they would send out their own work.

[crazy canuck]

I'm sure at some time in the next 20 years someone will come up with an English to Legalese translator that will cover potential litigation that any individual or corporation might face.  At that point most lawyers will be out of a job and meaningful communication will cease.

It already exists.  It is called boilerplate language.  I encourage you all to use it becuase it results in no end of work for people like me.

[DGuller]

I imagine the skill is not picking the right legalese words to cover yourself in a certain situation, but rather to think of a situation that you need to be covered for.

[mongers]

.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

Aren't you describing the rule by lawyers, rather than the rule of law?

Presumably if the body of laws were written well enough that the majority of people could understand the vast majority of them, then we'd need far fewer lawyers.   

Hence the rule of law could be seen, understood and appreciated, rather than the light of justice being filtered through mud.   

[frunk]

It already exists.  It is called boilerplate language.  I encourage you all to use it becuase it results in no end of work for people like me.

That doesn't do what I'm talking about.  Boilerplate is a flat one size fits all cover letter that doesn't change what is said.  I'm talking about a dynamic reinterpretation of what someone says or writes into a legally indemnified format that would be sophisticated enough to not change the base meaning while removing any implied legal risks.

[DGuller]

.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

Aren't you describing the rule by lawyers, rather than the rule of law?

Presumably if the body of laws were written well enough that the majority of people could understand the vast majority of them, then we'd need far fewer lawyers.   

Hence the rule of law could be seen, understood and appreciated, rather than the light of justice being filtered through mud.   

The thing is that you can't both write understandable laws, and write laws that cover all situations.

[mongers]

.....

To defend your kind, you can't have a rule of law without lawyers.

Aren't you describing the rule by lawyers, rather than the rule of law?

Presumably if the body of laws were written well enough that the majority of people could understand the vast majority of them, then we'd need far fewer lawyers.   

Hence the rule of law could be seen, understood and appreciated, rather than the light of justice being filtered through mud.   

The thing is that you can't both write understandable laws, and write laws that cover all situations.

Where is that written?


edit:
Yeah, right it too will have been written by a lawyer.

[crazy canuck]

Lawyers are a cost center, and produce literally nothing of value

Yeah, because nobody needs properly drafted agreements.  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?  You are completely discounting the role commercial lawyers play in drafting agreements that have commercially advantageous language and perhaps more importantly the due diligence work that is required in most, if not all, commercial transactions. 

You don't understand what he is saying.

They may very well be very necessary and important, while at the exact same time producing exactly nothing of value.

They are like a security guardat Wal-mart, at best. A necessary evil, but still just a cost that adds nothing to the bottom line. Ideally, you would not need them at all, and would be better off if your business model could simply get rid of them altogether while avoiding the negative effects of doing so.

No, you dont understand what I am saying and for that I apologize.

If you were buying a business presumably you would want to know what it is you are actually buying.  You would also probably want whatever agreement you are making to be enforceable and to ensure that all the important issues are dealt with.  Now you might be some superhuman who knows all this stuff and so, potentially, you might be able to do all of this without assistance.  But as a practical matter there is no way for a the "business plan" to work without having the assistance of someone who could help you with all these matters.

[ulmont]

I'm talking about a dynamic reinterpretation of what someone says or writes into a legally indemnified format that would be sophisticated enough to not change the base meaning while removing any implied legal risks.

People are working on it, but it isn't there yet.  http://www.koncision.com/

Two items to remember:
1) nothing can be put into legalese before someone asks "what's supposed to happen if X?" and
2) specific language is often more dictated by who has the leverage in the deal than by any other factor.

[crazy canuck]

I imagine the skill is not picking the right legalese words to cover yourself in a certain situation, but rather to think of a situation that you need to be covered for.

Its both really.  The worst kinds of lawyers are the ones that simply rely on precedents to draft their agreements without really understanding what the boilerplate language really means.