
The Exquisitely English (and Lucrative) World of London Clerks - ductionist
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-23/the-exquisitely-english-and-amazingly-lucrative-world-of-london-clerks
======
beefman

      As office boy I made such a mark
      That they gave me the post of a junior clerk
      I served the writs with a smile so bland
      And I copied all the letters in a big round hand
      I copied all the letters in a hand so free
      That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy
    
      In serving writs I made such a name
      That an articled clerk I soon became
      I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
      For the Pass Examination at the Institute
      And that Pass Examination did so well for me
      That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navy

------
thriftwy
For what it is worth I fail to see English commercial law cases' results as
anything other than PRNG with weighted mean.

A very, very expensive PRNG which allegedly requires "combining academic
brilliance with emotional fragility".

(I kinda understand that it's not a topic for me-the-peon to grasp)

~~~
eyeJam
Most large commercial lawsuits settle before they ever go to court. From my
anecdotal experience, maybe only 10% go to court. Litigation is a very long
and expensive process. Some files last decades before they resolve. When
litigation is ongoing, both sides are engaging in legal wrestling to try and
get the most favorable position. Once one side has gained a clear advantage,
they will start pressuring the other side to settle. Its very expensive to go
all the way to court and then lose, so most corporations will concede and
settle once they lose the upper-hand. Therefore if a case does finally make it
to court, its because (1) both sides have a decent chance of winning, or (2)
one side - or both - hate each other so much that they refuse to settle. The
first option, (1), is the most common: the case is so close that its
essentially a coin flip. Remember, you only hear about the cases that go to
court, and most settlements are confidential and never hit the news. So the
public's perception of commercial law doesn't include the full picture.

I'm almost positive that litigation will never be fully automated. Some
aspects of it already have (such as document review and discovery). But the
majority of the work (negotiating with the other side, questioning witnesses,
arguing pre-trial motions in court, researching legal questions, writing memos
and briefs, advising clients on strategy) is far too reliant on humans to ever
be replaced.

~~~
stult
> (1) both sides have a decent chance of winning, or (2) one side - or both -
> hate each other so much that they refuse to settle.

There are three other categories of cases you missed and (1) can and should be
divided up further into two categories. The third situation arises when one
party to the suit simply cannot afford to lose under any circumstances but
somehow can still afford to keep paying lawyers indefinitely. Frequently you
will see this with large companies fighting to prevent or delay a class action
or against an adverse regulatory decision which poses an existential threat to
their industry. $50m in legal bills per year doesn't even register against a
multi-billion dollar class action risk.

The fourth situation is when one of the parties has a non-financial incentive
to continue the litigation, often from a political perspective. For example,
when Hobby Lobby in the US sued to get out of the Obamacare birth control
coverage requirement. They would have spent themselves into the ground on that
case because the principle mattered more to the litigants than the cost.

The fifth situation is when one or both parties have bad lawyers. We (lawyers)
don't like to admit how often this happens, but frequently one of the lawyers
just completely misinterprets the law or fails to recognize essential facts.
They may oversell the case to the client and then paint themselves into a
corner which they can't gracefully back out of, and so drag the case out well
past its proper expiration date just to avoid admitting they screwed up.

Regarding your (1) point, the evidence for both sides is roughly evenly
matched in some cases, so the judge or jury's interpretation of the facts will
dictate the outcome. How people weigh and interpret evidence can be incredibly
unpredictable, which may prevent settlement in those cases. In other cases,
the law is unclear or unsettled, whether because previous cases were poorly
decided, a law was poorly drafted, or the issue is truly novel. So unclear law
or unclear facts. In an ideal world, those would be the only reasons that
anyone would ever go to court.

All of these situations are extremely rare. In terms of quantity of cases,
unfortunately people that hate each account for the overwhelming majority,
though that tends to be most common where the parties have a B2C or or close
business associate relationship, or in non-commercial litigation (most visibly
and notably in family law cases). B2B/arms-length commercial relationship
litigation tends by and large to be a more coldly rational affair, though not
without exception.

~~~
eyeJam
You are correct, and I admit that I grossly simplified the situation to make
it succinct.

------
janfoeh

      One anecdote from around the same time, possibly apocryphal, 
      is widely shared. At a chambers that had expanded and was bringing 
      in more money, three silks decided their chief clerk’s compensation, 
      at 10 percent, had gotten out of hand. They summoned him for 
      a meeting and told him so. In a tactical response that highlights 
      all the class baggage of the clerk-barrister relationship,
      as well as the acute British phobia of discussing money, 
      the clerk surprised the barristers by agreeing with them. 
      “I’m not going to take a penny more from you,” he concluded. 
      The barristers, gobsmacked and paralyzed by manners, never
      raised the pay issue again, and the clerk remained on at 
      10 percent until retirement.
    

My command of the English language fails me here. Could somebody explain his
response to me?

~~~
s0l1dsnak3123
I saw this as a veiled threat from the Clerk that they'd drop the barristers
as clients - in other words the clerk wouldn't ask for a penny more
compensation because he wouldn't be passing the barristers any more work.

~~~
zhte415
Indeed. And in this veiled threat contained a promise that as long as the fee
[10%] was paid, the Clerk would continue to work without problem or hassle.

In making so, the cost/risk of the Clerk was minimised compared, in modern
language, to changing vendor. There were no more hidden costs.

No idea why you were downvoted.

------
Bobbleoxs
The point is the 'perceived' dignity by barristers not touching money but only
dealing with their clients on the cases. There is indeed a point that
barristers are often 'academically brilliant and emotionally fragile' and
incredibly eloquent I should add. It is not an optimisation issue or machine
learning issue. It is almost the core of humanity - emotions that we will and
do not want AI to replace. Well, at least for my part.

------
bowmessage
Seems like a business ready for some automation.

~~~
Uhhrrr
>There are solicitors, who provide legal advice from their offices, and there
are barristers, who argue in court. Barristers get the majority of their
business via solicitors, and clerks act as the crucial middlemen between the
tribes—they work for and sell the services of their barristers, steering
inquiring solicitors to the right man or woman.

>Clerks are by their own cheerful admission “wheeler-dealers,” what Americans
might call hustlers. They take a certain pride in managing the careers of
their bosses, the barristers—a breed that often combines academic brilliance
with emotional fragility. Many barristers regard clerks as their pimps.

Managing relationships between lawyers? I think it seems a bit more tricky
than playing Go.

~~~
arethuza
"managing the careers of their bosses"

In Scotland the grouping of advocates with a clerk are known as "stables"
which perhaps describes the relationship more clearly!

