Legal cartoons and humorous comment (c) Paul Brennan. All rights reserved.

I decided on 101 reasons as I didn’t want to depress the entire legal profession by having 1,001.
Paul Brennan, Lawyer, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Modern Partnership


Dear John

I chose my partners at a time when “partner” meant “business partner”. We all knew exactly where we stood. Now, the situation is regrettably confused.

DT

Dear DT

As the use of the word “partner” has expanded to suggest romantic attachment many single business partners clearly hoped that this would be the solution to their lonely lives, especially the ugly ones. It was subtle at first, just hints that there was something more than a business relationship such as the use of the word “darling” or love” at the end of sentences, but soon it became “where were you last night?”, “You never listen to me” and even “Where’s my slippers?”. Many partners could not stand it and stormed out slamming the door.

Such was the concern in legal circles that lawyers have been permitted to incorporate, and we were immediately relieved that we no longer had to use the word “firm” as that seemed to have gone the same way as the word “ripe” let alone the word “member”.

It was a useful reminder to us that words that were regarded as perfectly innocent before the war are now a mine field. We immediately embarked on a review of our precedents deleting reference to words and phrases which could cause offence such as briefs, discharge, hung jury, motion, bond, age and restraint.

This is not to criticise those lawyers who have decided to remain in traditional partnerships. For the first time, many have been able to discuss their true feelings. Late nights at the office instead of going home to their spouses were not quite what they had seemed after all.