3 ms·

I asked a (great) boss I had once if we should get the legal department's opinion on something very minor. They had a great response, which was that nothing-- u

I asked a (great) boss I had once if we should get the legal department's opinion on something very minor. They had a great response, which was that nothing-- unless absolutely necessary by policy or significant risk-- should ever be given to them unless we wanted to wait 6 months for them to tell us "no". YMMV based on the nature of issues your legal folks have to deal with on a regular basis. In our case, anything outside of standard contract review they had a reputation of being a nightmare to deal with.

mynameishere 4y ago
The legal department is useful if your boss wanted to scuttle something. https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-01-31 https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-01-31
iasay 4y ago
That sounds like our purchasing department. AWS always gets business first now because we don’t have to raise a PO
- bombcar 4y ago
  And now you know how AWS works and makes their money.
- boondaburrah 4y ago
  similarly, webapps have eaten desktop software because you don't have to raise a ticket with IT to get approval for a software install.
james_in_the_uk 4y ago
If you are doing something that isn't significantly risky and isn't identified by policy as likely to give rise to a significant risk, then you don't need to ask a company lawyer. If you ask them anyway, it might take a while to get a reply, because they'll be prioritising significant risks.
- ellyagg 4y ago
  But then they also say no.
  - james_in_the_uk 4y ago
    Yes we have a special protocol for time-wasters ;)
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      Ah, so you deploy malicious obstructionism against people with honest questions that want to make sure they stay on the right side of the law.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  There are plenty of things short of significant risk that would be useful to have a professional legal opinion on. You are also making the faulty assumption that policy has sufficient coverage to avoid ambiguities and cover all events. It doesn't. Something not particularly risky, not covered by policy, but touching on a legal matter are not uncommon. Your comment is rather strange in fact given the actual linked article's example.

mynameishere 4y ago

The legal department is useful if your boss wanted to scuttle something. https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-01-31 https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-01-31

iasay 4y ago

That sounds like our purchasing department. AWS always gets business first now because we don’t have to raise a PO

bombcar 4y ago
And now you know how AWS works and makes their money.
boondaburrah 4y ago
similarly, webapps have eaten desktop software because you don't have to raise a ticket with IT to get approval for a software install.

james_in_the_uk 4y ago

If you are doing something that isn't significantly risky and isn't identified by policy as likely to give rise to a significant risk, then you don't need to ask a company lawyer. If you ask them anyway, it might take a while to get a reply, because they'll be prioritising significant risks.

ellyagg 4y ago
But then they also say no.
- james_in_the_uk 4y ago
  Yes we have a special protocol for time-wasters ;)
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Ah, so you deploy malicious obstructionism against people with honest questions that want to make sure they stay on the right side of the law.
ineedasername 4y ago
There are plenty of things short of significant risk that would be useful to have a professional legal opinion on. You are also making the faulty assumption that policy has sufficient coverage to avoid ambiguities and cover all events. It doesn't. Something not particularly risky, not covered by policy, but touching on a legal matter are not uncommon. Your comment is rather strange in fact given the actual linked article's example.