Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BallinWitStalin wrote:
Jesus Christ, this part still gets me:

"At Games Workshop we are looking for people who will do their best to understand the needs of the company and to put those needs first when they are at work. Because of this we believe that what you are like, hence the attitude your show to work and the way you choose to behave is even more important than your skills or experience. "

Yeah, cause it's not like skills and experience aren't important in a highly skill-and-experience based field like law.

I work in research and you can better fething believe I hire based on demonstrable skill and experience.

Man what a weird hiring policy.

But I guess hiring based on attitude instead of skills gets you exactly this in job postings:
"attitude your show to work"

Cause screw knowledge of the english language, you know? He had the right attitude....

It's the english language that was wrong!

Had to read that twice, the second time I read it with the Power ranger theme playing in the back of my head.

Maybe they need someone to run their contests legally

 Polonius wrote:

 stanman wrote:

the way you choose to behave is even more important than your skills or experience.

So even after the CH case they still want a yes man lawyer rather than somebody that will steer them away from multi-million dollar follies.

It could be, but that's actually usually not the case. At least in the US, most organizations hire attorneys based on attributes (personality, acadmeic success, etc) rather than on skills or experience. Most in-house counsel work within a framework created by the upper managment, and they'd rather have somebody that will learn and will fit in than somebody that is an expert.

Once you have an educated, licensed attorney, it really doesn't take that long to teach them what they need to know. And fresh applicants are less likely to have bad habits...

It's always nice having Polonius post in a thread.

"Ask not what your lawyer can do for you, ask what you can do for your lawyer"

Such as list the salary. Lawyers are funny about that, the better they are the more money they want.

It would at least let them know if it was worth the time to write the application letter letting them know how super excited they are.

This looks like a job for straight out of University Lawyer Man!

wonder how long the one joining will be in his new job

Adder Ant wrote:
wonder how long the one joining will be in his new job

[Mel Brooks]Pull![/Mel Brooks]

The Auld Grump

Or maybe they just want an employee with a good attitude, pertaining to actually putting effort into their work and having good work morale.

Pretty common sentence in job postings and usually means exactly that and not "being an attack dog." Most companies rather take someone with limited experience and excellent will to learn and good morale, than an expert who does his job half-assedly, doesn't care for it enough, or isn't motivated to do his job properly.

But hey, it's GW so even their job posting must be evil.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Or maybe they just want an employee with a good attitude, pertaining to actually putting effort into their work and having good work morale.

Pretty common sentence in job postings and usually means exactly that and not "being an attack dog." Most companies rather take someone with limited experience and excellent will to learn and good morale, than an expert who does his job half-assedly, doesn't care for it enough, or isn't motivated to do his job properly.

But hey, it's GW so even their job posting must be evil.

I haven't seen many job adverts saying "attitude is more important than skills". Sure attitude is important, as it's easier to teach skills* than attitude, but that's what interviews are for; decide if someone has the skills and then see if they fit.

*Assuming, of course, you already have someone with the skills to do the teaching. We hire people who aren't familiar with the way we do things, if they seem competent and would fit in, we're in a position to do that. If GW has no current in-house legal staff, hiring a good attiude but poor lawyer is not going to work because they are never going to get better. And if there was a good in-house legal team, the chapterhouse thing wouldn't have happened.

They likely just want someone who's an accredited lawyer (I believe there's a regulator with registration/licensing requirements for practicing lawyers), who will do what they want, even when it's legally stupid.

The kinds of people that made the Chapterhouse case as big a debacle Attitude Rich Environment as it was....

The Auld Grump, like... we own all the legal rights to grenade launchers, right? We, like, own all that.

What GW really needs is an in-house Psychotherapist.

Can you imagine them taking a Warshak test

"What do you see here?"

"I don't know but I'm pretty sure we own it."

 RunicFIN wrote:
Or maybe they just want an employee with a good attitude, pertaining to actually putting effort into their work and having good work morale.

But hey, it's GW so even their job posting must be evil.

It's not evil, it's just really bad. I honestly can't imagine a lawyer reading that and getting a feeling of confidence.

 warspawned wrote:

Can you imagine them taking a Warshak test

A what now?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 warspawned wrote:

Can you imagine them taking a Warshak test

A what now?

I think he meant Rorschach test.

Dude....

 Accolade wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Or maybe they just want an employee with a good attitude, pertaining to actually putting effort into their work and having good work morale.

But hey, it's GW so even their job posting must be evil.

It's not evil, it's just really bad. I honestly can't imagine a lawyer reading that and getting a feeling of confidence.

It's a perfectly fine job posting, particularly for in house counsel. That they didn't post the salary is a bit off putting, but in the US at least, in house counsel jobs are always prized for their stability and better work life balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Dude....

Clearly you didn't judge him on attitude.

Here's my application letter.
I love the Games workshop hobby and writing cease and desist letters.I also enjoy Copyrighting things(eg:Space marines) older then my company,Money(for you) and YOUR IP. I think I might just get the job.....

Did you remember to include your severed pinkie in the envelope?

No, I think Warspawned is onto something. A warshak test is a very specific, biased, wargaming version of a Rorschach test (one that has to have WAR in the title) where the random shapes form the impressions of grenade launchers, shoulder pads, roman numerals etc. etc. You know - stuff GW owns.

I got the perfect man for the job!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The kinds of people that made the Chapterhouse case as big a debacle Attitude Rich Environment as it was....

The Auld Grump, like... we own all the legal rights to grenade launchers, right? We, like, own all that.

and Plasma.....and Fur....and Skulls.....and Halberds.....and Roman Numerals.....and.......

Steelmage99 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The kinds of people that made the Chapterhouse case as big a debacle Attitude Rich Environment as it was....

The Auld Grump, like... we own all the legal rights to grenade launchers, right? We, like, own all that.

and Plasma.....and Fur....and Skulls.....and Halberds.....and Roman Numerals.....and.......

 agnosto wrote:
I nominate Polionius or Weeble for the post.

I am not a lawyer. But then I don't think GW is actually looking for a lawyer, per se. I expect that GW is looking for someone with a lawyer-ey attitude and the right GW team spirit.

I understand hiring positions like retail manager for attitude over skills. The skills for that job are very basic, using a computer, being organized and keeping the store looking good, etc. The position of IP lawyer at a $200M+ company takes a few more skills and they aren't easy to teach. GW wants another yes man that will take anything to court no matter how ridiculous. Then they can throw him under the bus and blame our legal system (again) when things don't go their way due to their lack of even basic knowledge of IP laws. The term space marine has been around since at least 30 years before the company was founded. Not to mention that it's a combination of two very basic words in common usage. Suing an author for using that term is like Ferrari suing Road and Track for using the term "fast car". The fact that they even took that to court shows their ignorance and arrogance when it comes to IP laws. What kind of lawyer would want to work for a company that will keep handing them unwinnable cases and then blaming them when things fall apart in court?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Unless GW have learnt something from the CHS case, they're looking for an attack dog that's going to be enforcing their IP through threats of legal action. They described in the CHS case that they hold a file of 'evidence' on many competitors they think could be their next targets. GW are still apparently pushing for the 'attitude not skills' approach to recruiting which suggests to me they don't want a lawyer who will give solid, honest advice, they want someone they can tell what to pursue and expect them to somehow form the case.

Any experienced lawyer will dig into GW's recent history to see why they need a new in-house lawyer and alarm bells will go off, GW will have to find someone who is either inexperienced or just doesn't care that it's not good for their career.

I should hope that what GW is looking for is simply someone to handle contracts, employment issues, copyright and trademark registrations, that kind of thing. GW really shouldn't be looking to get litigious anytime soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The kinds of people that made the Chapterhouse case as big a debacle Attitude Rich Environment as it was....

The Auld Grump, like... we own all the legal rights to grenade launchers, right? We, like, own all that.

To be fair, they probably thought they owned it because nobody at GW uses anything as a reference other than their own imaginations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Or maybe they just want an employee with a good attitude, pertaining to actually putting effort into their work and having good work morale.

But hey, it's GW so even their job posting must be evil.

It's not evil, it's just really bad. I honestly can't imagine a lawyer reading that and getting a feeling of confidence.

It's a perfectly fine job posting, particularly for in house counsel. That they didn't post the salary is a bit off putting, but in the US at least, in house counsel jobs are always prized for their stability and better work life balance.

This is also one of the reasons why women are disproportionately represented among in house corporate counsel positions.

 Toofast wrote:
I understand hiring positions like retail manager for attitude over skills. The skills for that job are very basic, using a computer, being organized and keeping the store looking good, etc. The position of IP lawyer at a $200M+ company takes a few more skills and they aren't easy to teach. GW wants another yes man that will take anything to court no matter how ridiculous. Then they can throw him under the bus and blame our legal system (again) when things don't go their way due to their lack of even basic knowledge of IP laws. The term space marine has been around since at least 30 years before the company was founded. Not to mention that it's a combination of two very basic words in common usage. Suing an author for using that term is like Ferrari suing Road and Track for using the term "fast car". The fact that they even took that to court shows their ignorance and arrogance when it comes to IP laws. What kind of lawyer would want to work for a company that will keep handing them unwinnable cases and then blaming them when things fall apart in court?

I don't think you understand what they're hiring for, or why.

In house counsel does a range of things, from IP, to employment law, to products liability/personal injury, to transactional work with suppliers. As a rule, they alternate between advising the senior managment on legal issues, complete routine transaction work themselves, and work with outside litigators when a case goes to trial.

So, you are correct that being an IP lawyer takes a lot of skills. First, that's not what's being posted, as this is a general in-house counsel positon. Second, basic legal skills are often highly transportable. Even in the law, there are entry level or near enough to entry level positions.

In a well run legal environment, that actually takes mentoring seriously, they really are better off taking blank slates and training them up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I nominate Polionius or Weeble for the post.

I am not a lawyer. But then I don't think GW is actually looking for a lawyer, per se. I expect that GW is looking for someone with a lawyer-ey attitude and the right GW team spirit.

Yeah, not only am I not a licensed attorney in merry Olde England, I'm pretty confident my current job is better.

 Vermis wrote:
No, I think Warspawned is onto something. A warshak test is a very specific, biased, wargaming version of a Rorschach test (one that has to have WAR in the title) where the random shapes form the impressions of grenade launchers, shoulder pads, roman numerals etc. etc. You know - stuff GW owns.

Yeah - I totally meant this

In my defence I was doped up on meds and google auto-fill completed it for me, so judge me all you want people

 Toofast wrote:
I understand hiring positions like retail manager for attitude over skills. The skills for that job are very basic, using a computer, being organized and keeping the store looking good, etc.

Speaking as a retail manager (well, one of the hats I've worn in my working life anyway) I beg to differ!

Staying on top of KPIs, handling service issues, ensuring your staff are motivated and focussed (which in itself requires skills between counsellor and lion tamer,) making sure you have enough staff at the right times (and learning to improvise when you can't,) ordering stock, plus frequently needing to step in and do the dirty work, managing pressures from upper management and not letting it adversely effect the staff and doing it all with a positive attitude and a smile on your face is not basic!

What GW hire to run their shops are not managers, they're shop assistants with limited opportunity for socialising!

If you've seen pretty much any other retail manager other than at a GW do their thing and thought it looked easy/basic, then I can assure you they were very good at their job.

One of my Henley Whaling chums is an IP lawyer.

You don't have to be a qualified IP lawyer to work on IP law for a company because you can hire in experts.

You do need the ability to not think the company's management is always right in all circumstances, because they aren't.

That is the key flaw of GW's hiring policy.

As someone who has played all the Phoenix Wright games on the DS (but not the 3DS ones) I feel confident to apply for this.

However my memory isn't good, can anyone else think of any legal heavyweights I could cite?

So far I've got:

Breaking Bad - Saul
The Simpsons - Lionel Hutz
WWE - Irwin R. Shyster (removed, THANKS WAYNE)
Harvey Birdman Attorney At Law - Harvey Birdman
Phoenix Wright series - Miles Edgeworth (I prefer him to Phoenix)
Scrubs - Ted
Futurama - the humanoid chicken lawyer
Judge Judy/the one from the People's Court

who else is a good fit?