[ineedasername]

I asked a (great) boss I had once if we should get the legal department's opinion on something very minor. They had a great response, which was that nothing-- unless absolutely necessary by policy or significant risk-- should ever be given to them unless we wanted to wait 6 months for them to tell us "no".

YMMV based on the nature of issues your legal folks have to deal with on a regular basis. In our case, anything outside of standard contract review they had a reputation of being a nightmare to deal with.

[iasay]

That sounds like our purchasing department. AWS always gets business first now because we don’t have to raise a PO

[boondaburrah]

similarly, webapps have eaten desktop software because you don't have to raise a ticket with IT to get approval for a software install.

[bombcar]

And now you know how AWS works and makes their money.

[mynameishere]

The legal department is useful if your boss wanted to scuttle something.

https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-01-31

[james_in_the_uk]

If you are doing something that isn't significantly risky and isn't identified by policy as likely to give rise to a significant risk, then you don't need to ask a company lawyer.

If you ask them anyway, it might take a while to get a reply, because they'll be prioritising significant risks.

[ineedasername]

There are plenty of things short of significant risk that would be useful to have a professional legal opinion on.

You are also making the faulty assumption that policy has sufficient coverage to avoid ambiguities and cover all events. It doesn't. Something not particularly risky, not covered by policy, but touching on a legal matter are not uncommon.

Your comment is rather strange in fact given the actual linked article's example.

[ellyagg]

But then they also say no.

[james_in_the_uk]

Yes we have a special protocol for time-wasters ;)

[ineedasername]

Ah, so you deploy malicious obstructionism against people with honest questions that want to make sure they stay on the right side of the law.