That was before I started studying law. From that point on, it was more and more a world of uncertainty for the young McLeod. I found it frustrating at first. There was never a clear answer, and no matter how reasonable I thought I was being and how firmly I stated my opinion, there was always at least one other side to consider. Facts and counterfacts; cases upon cases, present-day rationality countermanded by consideration of precedent.

But then I began to relish the arguments. I enjoyed the twists and turns of a seminar-full of bright and energetic fellow seekers of the wig, all eager to stamp their opinion on the debate. And when we’d settled, a good professor would always have a final wrench to throw into the works. 

And soon I realized there was a good living to be made out of those twists and turns. Simple resolutions didn’t pay the mortgage. The gap between issue and outcome was where all that lucrative to and fro could take place, and that’s where I met with success. 

Corporate law. A wonderful thing, characterized by unlikely claims driven by correspondingly powerful rhetoric. These corporations, they have what they call their core competencies and legal is an unwelcome necessity. But in my view, those competencies are just the fields on which we sow the seeds for bountiful future legal harvest. There’s no corporation without representation, you might say.

I get excited every time I see some corporate big-wig stand up and make some legally indefensible claim or another. Or commit to the undeliverable. Perhaps put the entire organization in jeopardy of some sort. There’s my curtain call.

Oh yes — I’ve heard many a vice president’s words read back to me in court.

And that was the fun of it. Ziegler was my last hurrah, my final opportunity for triumphant courtroom obfuscation; at career-end, a chance to forge a few more spectacular settlements on the anvil of indeterminacy.

Donoghue and Stevenson I remember were very keen to consult on that fish project. I had experience, of course — well-known to my corporate legal colleagues — in liability mitigation. Many a cadit quaestia  under my belt, especially in cases of uncertain consequence. I don’t mean to sound conceited, you know, but I cannot think of anyone else who could have pulled off casting that alleged global petroleum price-ring as a mistaken and  guileless agreement inter rusticos, with a little bit of non est factum thrown in to cover the bases. In fact I think that was the case Donoghue had in mind, but I steered them more toward a complete denial in the matter of the fish, and I saw a year or more of litigation potential there along with the opportunity to launch a good few careers among the junior attorneys. 

Anyway the whole McAlister thing has certainly provided me with a soft landing after jumping out of the Ziegler balloon. I was overdue for getting out. It’s a young man’s game. There’s a lot of litigation on the horizon for Food, and for Drugs. Not sure I have the enthusiasm for it any more. No — but I am looking forward, of that you can be sure. 

Reasonably sure, I should say. As always, it all depends.