3 ms·

A root cause... is that we lawyers are trained to regard zealous advocacy for the client's cause (read: desires) as one of our highest duties. In her book "The

A root cause... is that we lawyers are trained to regard zealous advocacy for the client's cause (read: desires) as one of our highest duties. In her book "The Argument Culture," linguist Deborah Tannen tells about wanting to do video interviews in different companies. If she could get a verbal agreement from the company heads, everything always went fine. However, if the company brought in its attorneys, it was never possible to negotiate an agreement-- even if the company heads themselves directed the attorneys to make it happen. See https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/argsake.htm https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/argsake.htm

dctoedt 15y ago
> if the company brought in its attorneys, it was never possible to negotiate an agreement-- even if the company heads themselves directed the attorneys to make it happen. There are several reasons for this. Here's one: Sure, "make it happen" is what the company heads say now. But suppose problems arise later. And suppose it turns out that one of the lawyers missed something. Sure as shootin', that's where fingers will be pointed -- "why didn't you warn me about that?" So the lawyer's instinct, and incentive, is to look under every rock, to call the client's attention to every possible pitfall, lest he be blamed later for not having done "his job." It exacerbates the problem when the lawyer doesn't have enough business experience to know what's likely to be an acceptable risk. (This can be true even of senior lawyers.) You end up with two opposing counsel arguing over who's right, not having the maturity of judgment to know when it's less important to decide that than it is to get ink on the signature lines and let the parties get on with their business together.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Interesting analysis, @dctoedt. Given what you say about its toxic incentive structure, it's no wonder that the legal profession is held in such frequent contempt. I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that lawyers suffer from alcoholism and depression at rates noticeably higher than the population in general (grim consolation for the rest of us, I assure you). You've also done a great job explaining the phenomena noted in the (excellent) link provided by @dmlorenzetti. Given that lawyers often have more to gain by (slowly) killing deals than making them happen - at least not quickly or easily - I can see why it's good policy to keep them at a safe distance from anything that HAS to go through. As one savvy executive put it "you want them on tap, not top."
  - dctoedt 15y ago
    Late update: I posted a much-more-detailed analysis (with lots of embedded Dilbert cartoons as illustrations) at http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2011/06/why-we-lawyers-can-seem-like-such-weasels/ http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2011/06/why-we-lawyers-can-se....

dctoedt 15y ago

> if the company brought in its attorneys, it was never possible to negotiate an agreement-- even if the company heads themselves directed the attorneys to make it happen. There are several reasons for this. Here's one: Sure, "make it happen" is what the company heads say now. But suppose problems arise later. And suppose it turns out that one of the lawyers missed something. Sure as shootin', that's where fingers will be pointed -- "why didn't you warn me about that?" So the lawyer's instinct, and incentive, is to look under every rock, to call the client's attention to every possible pitfall, lest he be blamed later for not having done "his job." It exacerbates the problem when the lawyer doesn't have enough business experience to know what's likely to be an acceptable risk. (This can be true even of senior lawyers.) You end up with two opposing counsel arguing over who's right, not having the maturity of judgment to know when it's less important to decide that than it is to get ink on the signature lines and let the parties get on with their business together.

alexqgb 15y ago
Interesting analysis, @dctoedt. Given what you say about its toxic incentive structure, it's no wonder that the legal profession is held in such frequent contempt. I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that lawyers suffer from alcoholism and depression at rates noticeably higher than the population in general (grim consolation for the rest of us, I assure you). You've also done a great job explaining the phenomena noted in the (excellent) link provided by @dmlorenzetti. Given that lawyers often have more to gain by (slowly) killing deals than making them happen - at least not quickly or easily - I can see why it's good policy to keep them at a safe distance from anything that HAS to go through. As one savvy executive put it "you want them on tap, not top."
- dctoedt 15y ago
  Late update: I posted a much-more-detailed analysis (with lots of embedded Dilbert cartoons as illustrations) at http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2011/06/why-we-lawyers-can-seem-like-such-weasels/ http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/2011/06/why-we-lawyers-can-se....