Seriously! This is not a troll comment so kindly pay attention.
The above comment is one of the most idiotic and uninformed comments on LI.
Generally speaking, in most professions law/finance/mgmt consulting/etc etc. 90%+ professionals dont do cutting edge work and are employed for run off the mill tasks that dont really test their proff. competence. In fact, in most corp. jobs an overwhelming majority is engaged in copy paste type work.
Now, clerical/low end/compliance work related comments etc. alluding that work of a corp lawyer is not valued. It depends on the lawyer, practice area and expertise. Corp lawyers - anti-trust, fin tech, IP, debt, complex M&A work are valued in the market a lot. They get complex matters/deals done which are untested, device complex structures and assist in developing market leading products that test the boundaries of law.
Furthermore, a lot of corp lawyers also play a big role in corp law policy making which is really an invaluable contribution.
So if you are not one of those, try and do some cutting edge work and then see the diff. in how you are treated and valued.
Also, the above is true for litigation too. Not every litigation lawyer who appears in routine matters and drafts petitions, plaints etc. is doing a great job. Doing cutting edge work like the lawyers who argued the cryto case in SC is what is valued.
Hope this response makes sense to all those who agree with the above comment and the comment from Good Morning Dear who only seem to know the PE lawyer drafting universe.
Yes, they do. Lord Denning, regarded as probably the greatest English judge of the 20th century, had in fact studied mathematics at Oxford before taking up law. And before becoming a judge he was King's Counsel.
To facilitate entry of people from fields other than law, in England there is a bridging exam to enable non-law graduates to practise law. (Probable reason: they bring a different perspective).
The above comment is one of the most idiotic and uninformed comments on LI.
Generally speaking, in most professions law/finance/mgmt consulting/etc etc. 90%+ professionals dont do cutting edge work and are employed for run off the mill tasks that dont really test their proff. competence. In fact, in most corp. jobs an overwhelming majority is engaged in copy paste type work.
Now, clerical/low end/compliance work related comments etc. alluding that work of a corp lawyer is not valued. It depends on the lawyer, practice area and expertise. Corp lawyers - anti-trust, fin tech, IP, debt, complex M&A work are valued in the market a lot. They get complex matters/deals done which are untested, device complex structures and assist in developing market leading products that test the boundaries of law.
Furthermore, a lot of corp lawyers also play a big role in corp law policy making which is really an invaluable contribution.
So if you are not one of those, try and do some cutting edge work and then see the diff. in how you are treated and valued.
Also, the above is true for litigation too. Not every litigation lawyer who appears in routine matters and drafts petitions, plaints etc. is doing a great job. Doing cutting edge work like the lawyers who argued the cryto case in SC is what is valued.
Hope this response makes sense to all those who agree with the above comment and the comment from Good Morning Dear who only seem to know the PE lawyer drafting universe.
To facilitate entry of people from fields other than law, in England there is a bridging exam to enable non-law graduates to practise law. (Probable reason: they bring a different perspective).
"device complex structures" = tax bachane ke liye 4 alag companies incorporate kar diya
"developing market leading products" = mortgage ko bracket mein Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) bol diya
"test the boundaries of law" = the rules are confusing, case law nahi mila
"fin tech lawyer" = I understand neither finance nor technology par naya RBI circular aaya hai ispe
"cutting edge work" = client ne email mein 'blockchain' likha hai