Tag Archives: law

HERBERT SMITH AND THE TIMES ONLINE – DIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION – CAUSE FOR CONCERN OR A TRENDY BANDWAGON?

-Submission-

Diversification can be defined as providing all things “different” with an opportunity to argue in front of an ironclad tradition that prefers to continue entertaining what it knows and is comfortable with, rather than attempting – and subsequently failing miserably – to genuinely explore the currently nebulous and precarious void that is “different.” “Different,” “being different” and “different for the sake of being different,” however, are not only theoretic conceptualizations or normative pedestals onto which all hope for change is often placed, at times by the academic zealots of yesterday, but also equally invested tyrants that continue to aggravate the very social blister that they tirelessly try to cure. What creates a cause for concern then, is not that “different” has continued unfettered, but that “different” is actually beginning to retaliate after years of neglect and abandonment. Its owner, the carnivorous open market, is no longer interested in supporting its petulant thirst for surreptitious inequality and behind the scenes collusion. All of a sudden, the pretexts of merit, no longer carrying with them sufficiently wealthy and compelling substance to dictate otherwise, are incapable of negotiating with the claws of impending defeat.

To the foot-soldiers of the legal profession, marching to the beat of “different” may make public relations sense, an anomaly that modernity has failed to address. But to the efforts of those who genuinely wish to incorporate “different” so as to find perspective, open previously unexploited markets and deconstruct the myths that drive assumptions, “different” is but a platitude that is to be recycled for the purposes of extracting, pound-for-pound, the value of having access to a global, rather than a local, pool of opportunities. And so, the question that asks whether the legal profession would benefit from aligning itself with the regurgitation-friendly complications of retaining “different,” is but a foregone conclusion. “Different” is and should be, first and foremost, a choice, albeit one that may be influenced by the amount of black ink that is drying on a balance sheet at any one time. Conversely, “different” should not be a reflexive reaction to a frenzied political charade of mind-numbing populism that imposes a preference for homogeneity by replacing pragmatic business considerations, realties and choices, with a homogenized mix of merit, affirmative action and academic fist-pumping. This would be a complete waste of time, the end result of which would offer a valueless bag of equally harmless hypothermic solutions to a problem that is at best non-existent, given that “different” is and should be, as it has already been mentioned, the outcome of a choice and not the prerogative of an anticompetitive regime.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under affirmative action, diversity, herbert smith, law, politics, submission, the times

The Terms of YOUR Agreement, Explained

Who cares if the disingenuous ant wanted to fight the mischievous caterpillar. Let’s be honest, really honest about this two-toned machination that only started becoming a problematic after the loaded-gun effect entered into the equation. So she was provoked! Big deal, alright! Matters of this complicated nature are a daily occurrence and by no means should be treated as statistical anomalies that fail to materialize. Her defence lawyer argued many-a-times, in previous proceedings, the ant’s propensity or for you schoolchildren of a more respectable social class, proclivity, for a pugilistic one-two after the ingestion of four pints into its depressed cavity.

Either way, you’re all insane, utterly mind-numbed. If you really believe the prosecution in this instance, you are only creating precedence for what is already quite obvious, namely that the man-made statute, erected for the benefit of the public at large, is now being appropriated by those with sufficient ulterior motives, to make me want to discontinue vomiting following a session of gorging on “propaganda popcorn.” Ah, such unnecessary evils.

My suggestion to the mother caterpillar is to stop playing one petulant child off another and rear-end herself into a different cause, preferably at a speed that can provide for her injury as well. No, nothing less than that proposition can ever be entertained and if less is suggested, I shall decree with the intention to repress and if my perfect state of imperfectness ripens by that point in time, oppress as well. Regardless, this cultural drama is creating a state of affairs in which I cannot, at least this time, do my best to avoid. Circumstantial evidence aside, my self-diagnosis is telling me that if I continue, psychological harm might just be recoverable, provided that my persuasive essay grades are high enough to convince a toothless but no less effective geriatric, perched atop an infant’s stool and with the moral savvy of a, pardon me, inflatable orangutan (sans the orange hair), that I, above all others, need legal treatment in every sense of the two words. Take this offer as you find it, I am not willing to sacrifice more of my continued perseverance, so that you may find yourself yelling at a television set without probable cause but most likely with an insanity conviction shortly after the foundation for the prosecution, a blind congregation of near-sighted bats, with four-year plans and a penchant for ridiculously low-rates, discovers that inside your chaotic but surely idiotic exclusion clause, you have hidden the terms “in no way” and “liability,” so as to inflict upon those less brilliant, a harm that lacks both an intention to ridicule and the act itself.

This all brings me back to my initial claim, in which I have every right to demand that I be reimbursed for my losses under the Fake Names Act 1429. My black-belt in corruption shall be honoured and principle will succumb to your will only insofar as you will bend to my desire for corrective justice in the playground. It is time the elephants met me in my office, or, if so desired, down at the Zoo, where we all can partake in the ginger petting of innocuous animals for the promotion of the public good. Otherwise, if the dinosaurs get here first, and I do mean what I say, I will only be open to negotiations if they furnish me with polyester dentures – must be made somewhere, anywhere will not suffice – and a carton of desperate vocal chords that were stolen from a location I will provide you with once I have made myself aware of what it is that I want to steal.

Repudiate at your own risk, but I do warn you that the offer is final and if you provoke me, unilaterally, arbitrarily and absolutely binding too.

Note: If you find the act of swallowing hard, please seek professional advice from a confectionary salesman. They’re trained to alleviate matters of such discomfort and will only recommend the most noxious of pleasantries, if of course, such are deemed necessary to cure your anxious but rather macabre depression.

Leave a comment

Filed under abstract, agreement, contract, law, life, philosophy, rant

READER POLL: DO YOU? [YES/NO]

Do you believe that judges, from your own experience or knowledge, purposely although not always explicitly, undertake to create or construct ambiguous, aberrant and anomalous arguments, when establishing their reasons for why a case is to be judged a certain way, so as to promote and encourage the contentious nature of our litigious society with the intent to serve the self-interests, financial or otherwise, of lawyers and those occupying legal positions?

YES/NO? [feel free to comment]

1 Comment

Filed under contentious, financial, interests, judges, law, motives, poll