On this day, 1815: “Vive l’Empereur!”

Shortly before 7.30 p.m. Napoleon played his final card, despatching the Guard up towards the crest of the ridge that ran from La Haye Sainte to Hougoumont, in what Andrew Roberts describes in Waterloo, Napoleon’s Last Gamble, as “the last great military manoeuvre of a hard fought battle”. In little more than 30 minutes it was over, ‘La Garde recule!‘ and the French army broken.

More on 42 days

Marshall Grossman’s post Electing Obama, the Supreme Court and American Exceptionalism in HuffingtonPost.com is well worth reading for his take on the importance of Obama’s candidacy. I was very struck by his comments on law, and his reference to James Harrington,

“To be sure the signers of the Declaration of Independence represented the enfranchised classes of Englishmen, but they also knew the difference between a republic and a kingdom and they understood the significance of a government based on a written constitution. Writing under a pseudonym in the Boston Gazette in 1774, John Adams both asserted the English origins of the new republic and its aspiration to something different when he famously quoted the English republican theorist James Harrington’s call for an “empire of laws and not of men,” strategically substituting the word “government” for Harrington’s “empire.” We have in the last seven years seen a sustained and often successful effort to replace that government of laws with something closer to the royal prerogative against which Harrington wrote in 1656.”

In Gordon Brown’s Britain, we are inexorably moving back towards that royal prerogative. 42 days is just one more step along that journey.

Salute David Davis

Sunday lunch is always good for verbal fisticuffs with the children. Today, Father’s Day, was no exception, but there was a difference. Neither of the two younger children (twenty and eighteen) see anything wrong with 42 days, don’t mind CCTV (although both were surprised to hear that you cannot walk down the High Street in Exeter without being tracked) and are seemingly indifferent to the Orwellian dystopia to which this government is taking us. Gran, however, had the final word, “My generation fought to ensure it didn’t happen”. My fear is that their generation will not even notice. A good post Media groupthink and Mr Davis earlier today in John Naughton’s online diary, Memex1.1, linking to Henry Porter in The Observer,

Here was a man who threw dignity and prospects to the wind in order to defend ‘the relentless erosion of fundamental freedoms’.

Selling time

Deepak Malhotra’s post From narrative to value in Legal Village early in the month caught my eye. This sums up the dilemma for law firms:

“Law firms sell time and legal skills. From the perspective of in-house counsel, we buy legal outcomes. There is a huge difference between process and end result. Until we start talking the same language, I see that this debate about fees is going to remain and its intensity will only increase. This is where the hourly rate is limited, because the hourly rate is process and it implies that it operates independent of outcome.”

Selling time is not what we should be doing, and things are changing. How quickly is another matter. The problem is that it is considerably easier to sell time than value, and when I have argued the matter with my partners (most of whom are wedded to the chargeable hour), their usual reply is that if it works, why change it. The point they are missing is that either we will have to change, or clients will change us.

S words

Succession and Strategy: two words that most lawyers do their best to avoid. Succession because it implies mortality and loss of control; and strategy because it asks us to consider a horizon somewhat more distant than the end of the partnership year. We ignore them, however, at our peril. One of my favourite blogs is Jordan Furlong’s Law 21- Despatches from a legal profession on the brink. It may be Canadian but what applies that side of the water does this side as well. See Jordan’s post Surving a succession crisis.