"The great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"
Too often owners of capital and company executives do not attention enough legal support and quality of the legal services rendered to their companies. They usually remember about this when problems occur – undivided attention of the government authorities towards the business, penalties being applied to the company, excessive debit debts detected, impossibility of right protection in judicial proceeding, advanced kickback, corporate raid presence, impairment of rights and legal concerns - as a rule, when there is no any chances to mend the loss-free situation… Besides, it`s not always obvious despite regardless-of-contract relations and outlaw terms that it is in owners-of-capital and company-executives behalf to fix rights and legal concerns in form of law plainly, peremptorily and definitely in order to ensure their guarantees and legal remedies. In many cases it`s not efficient and sufficient enough to assure the impact of financial leverage and stripping the structures assets: you may at most succeed in retrieving half of the capital therewithal sinking fractions of business interest.
The sole prerequisite of this course is the malpractice, set up on the legal services segment, resided in narrow setting tasks and terminating concern with respect to the particular cause. Ensuing consequences are complete botch-up network which instead of solving the company`s problems, vice versa: make impossible to negotiate and amend the mutual contradictions.
When applying outsource legal services the source of problem is the fact that your company is being just “one-of” so it`s impossible for legal consultants to penetrate and delve into essence of the certain company`s processes and problems.
If you`ve chosen a variant when applying own (internal) jurists there is a possibility for them to position as an entirely subsidiary branch:
- Executing in obedience issued directions, operating within the frame of narrow division of authorities and performing legal assistance in a formal mode. These would be substantiated by the “non-meddling” rules therefore they fail to explain the state of their non-responsibility as being obeyed superior orders and taking a position being not due
- When commissioning a donation contract to be made - you`ll get it even if there is sale-purchase contract considered as applicable, as far as donation fits you best and none of them wants to upset you that under the competent authority`s claim any court will declare your donation contract being a sale-purchase contract with whole far-reaching adverse effects such as fines and penalties for evasion of tax liabilities or duties – the jurisconsults could always argue that guilty are government and system default not your stuff`s legal incompetency and ignorance
- You`ll never obtain analysis and interpretation of legal modifications (legislation and judicial practice provided), profound development of legal measures and activities to be undertaken in order to correspond to changing circumstances having no interests impaired – for the reason of existing law firms and legal agencies – no necessity to take the bread out of their mouth, besides, to demonstrate own proficiency and professional integrity (more often, their lack)…
Because of these, jurists are thought to be a scrounge institute and enormous part of their functions degrade into no one`s obligation and responsibility. But many of you have no apprehension that even company site content generates legal consequences - in other words, the jurist should admonish you what to publish and what to slip over.
In case when you have managed to avoid problems specified above it`s always advantageous to be taken a detached view allowing to appraise the real level of legal service thus improve it, and to be given recommendations for advancement in legal aspect of business itself.