By the way | Anyone for skiing?

'Obsequious'. That was the word used by a former colleague of mine recently to describe the solicitors who have suddenly re-established contact and started fawning around him since he made the leap from private practice to head up the in-house legal team of a large national company. He told me of people from whom he's not heard in years, including some with whom he never got along, suddenly showering him with invitations to lunch, tickets for cricket matches and such like.

I have wondered how it would feel to be receive invitations to wine tasting evenings, race days and comedy shows, as opposed to being part of the organisations which extend such hospitality. It might be rather pleasant, I had thought, to be proffered a choice of various firms' Christmas parties for example, and take one's time selecting that with the most appealing theme or convenient venue.

I hadn't considered that such gestures could become an inconvenience, except perhaps during the festive season when I am aware that even the most gregarious characters can feel somewhat under siege. I suppose it all depends on how much the people involved actually like each other and enjoy the pastime on offer. You could conjure up what you perceive to be the best ever client party idea with fire jugglers, vodka shots, ice sculptures and the sickest dubstep DJ of the moment, but if your target market would rather learn about making sushi or go to the opera, then you are likely to spend the night throwing solo shapes around your handbag.

Grand gestures

These days there is also the sticky new issue of the Bribery Act 2010, which came into effect over 18 months ago and is quite rightly being taken very seriously by many clients. I heard a few weeks back that many of the usual attendees to one London firm's now famed annual insurance client skiing weekend paid for their own flights ?and accommodation with the Bribery Act in mind.

Are such grand gestures about to become a thing of the past? I wonder whether it might almost be counter-productive to now shell out such a significant amount of money if all client attendees who graciously accept the extended hospitality will be looking over their shoulders for months afterwards for fear that any work which they send to the host firm could fall foul ?of the Bribery Act. That would be a little topsy turvy.

I am half way through a fairly hectic week as I write this, having returned from my own family's skiing holiday to a court hearing on one of my most complex cases on my first day back. It was followed by a mid-week consultation with leading counsel on my oldest case which has now been rumbling on for almost five years and extends to around 17 bankers boxes of files. It's not exactly been a gentle re-introduction to office life.

Back to court

Incredibly, during my week off no less than three court hearings were listed on the same day, much to the team's chagrin. The odds on that happening must be fairly long. I felt personally responsible for one of them in particular as it was an application for pre-action disclosure in an accountant's negligence case which I have been running without much involvement from other fee earners. We had managed through negotiation to resolve the disclosure of documents issue a few weeks before the hearing, but costs became a sticking point with all sorts of clever legal arguments and point scoring, case law being cited in both directions. Ultimately, both parties had in mind the fact that a judge would have given us all short shrift for wasting an hour of court time to fight about legal fees in isolation, and we reached a happy compromise before I left the office.

My next task, which I am anticipating with some relish, is to write a feisty letter to one of my oldest adversaries. We have had some extremely heated correspondence in the past, and I expect I won't have to wait long for an explosive response.

In addition, after a case management conference earlier this week the court refuse to order a stay for the purposes of engaging in alternative dispute resolution and instead set a tight timetable. The claimant's solicitor sat in court and said that his client will not be able to quantify its loss before the hearing of its summary judgment application in a related case, which will probably not go ahead until April. The same individual has now written to say that we should all consider mediating in March. I can't be the only one left confused by this proposed chronology. Talk about shooting in the dark.

In any spare time, I will contemplate methods by which we solicitors can stay in our clients' collective consciousness without being 'ingratiatingly compliant'. If I have a Eureka moment, you'll be the first to know.