Report this comment to a moderator

The Apprentice analysed...

LAWYERS GETTING IT SO WRONG - AGAIN!!! Shakespeare had a briiliant way to describe this kind of half-arsed expression of expertise. It goes something like "he speaks an infinite deal of nothing" and "you spend all day looking for it only to find it wasn't worth the search." Age Discrimination? Sex Discrimination? Mona Lisa? Leadership? How clever you are to flag up these directionless lines of analysis - how your clients must rejoice at the great value for money you present! Sir Alan's point was that Helene was simply coasting in the background, venturing nothing, with a Mona Lisa demeanour designed to camouflage a total absence of any talent save the ability to prevail indefinitely - like the majority of equity lawyers in magic circle (and wannabe magic circle) firms! The "taint" was not her age or experience but the 'cozy carpet' mentality of staying within the established comfort zone. Michael's flaw and strength was identified as his youth - taken at the right age he could turn out to be brilliant; released into the "wild" of legal or business "magic circle" medicocrity he will never grow and will simply take on the mantle of the Mona Lisa with its "keep your head down" safety plan. Michael had to go because he had too far to go to be of immediate use (you mean like the experts here?). Lucinda is a great manager but she is also an insufferable whinger & buck passer (which probably explains her appeal to certain accomplished experts in this), wasting valuable time on over-engineered appraisals (like we have read here?) of what needs to be done instead of just doing it (like Lee & Alex). More lawyers like Lee & Alex (the getting things done type instead of peddling bullsh*t on how to do things type) are what the profession needs, not CV genii with no real knowledge other than how to spin a case that never wins, never gets them into trouble but costs you a lot.

29-May-2008

9:42 am