5 ms·

I think worse than that, lawyers are now involved. Given the cost of retaining counsel, the likelihood of either of them getting $26-30K out of this now seems r

I think worse than that, lawyers are now involved. Given the cost of retaining counsel, the likelihood of either of them getting $26-30K out of this now seems remote. One or both need to smell the coffee, and realise this is a great path to both walking away with nothing...

dogleash 5y ago
I don't get why "lawyers getting involved" is cast as such a big deal, either in the one partner's tweet or here. Like yeah, bringing in a lawyer can signal there's about to be a nasty fight, or if they're drastically unequal parties it's often a power move by the bigger guy. But if (as claimed) it's for something like drafting a contract to formalize a deal that's already been negotiated to near-completion, it's a no-brainer to have one. That's a few billable hours for peace of mind that the transaction was handled thoroughly and correctly.
- ac29 5y ago
  I think the point is they are fighting over only ~$50k (and some likely worthless equity), and involving lawyers could easily eat a majority of that money. And that's assuming they never go to court, in which case all of that money and then some will go to legal fees.
  - dogleash 5y ago
    I may have miss-communicated. I was saying "lawyers involved" is not a meaningful demarcation point about costs. How the two partners choose to use those lawyers is. For example, again, involving a lawyer to draft paperwork to memorialize a contract you're already in alignment on is perfectly normal and a relatively light cost of doing business. But choosing to vindictively run up each-other's billed hours is the opposite. I'm sorry that my previous post wasn't clear that I was communicating the possibility space. That possibility space is important because in these kind of transactions, no matter how amicable or nasty, a lawyer is going to be involved to some extent. Therefore it's meaningless to talk about whether or not "lawyers involved."
wintermutestwin 5y ago
Founder disputes (especially at this level) should be resolved through mediation before resorting to adversarial legal battles. Divorcing couples pay 1/10th by going this route.

dogleash 5y ago

I don't get why "lawyers getting involved" is cast as such a big deal, either in the one partner's tweet or here. Like yeah, bringing in a lawyer can signal there's about to be a nasty fight, or if they're drastically unequal parties it's often a power move by the bigger guy. But if (as claimed) it's for something like drafting a contract to formalize a deal that's already been negotiated to near-completion, it's a no-brainer to have one. That's a few billable hours for peace of mind that the transaction was handled thoroughly and correctly.

ac29 5y ago
I think the point is they are fighting over only ~$50k (and some likely worthless equity), and involving lawyers could easily eat a majority of that money. And that's assuming they never go to court, in which case all of that money and then some will go to legal fees.
- dogleash 5y ago
  I may have miss-communicated. I was saying "lawyers involved" is not a meaningful demarcation point about costs. How the two partners choose to use those lawyers is. For example, again, involving a lawyer to draft paperwork to memorialize a contract you're already in alignment on is perfectly normal and a relatively light cost of doing business. But choosing to vindictively run up each-other's billed hours is the opposite. I'm sorry that my previous post wasn't clear that I was communicating the possibility space. That possibility space is important because in these kind of transactions, no matter how amicable or nasty, a lawyer is going to be involved to some extent. Therefore it's meaningless to talk about whether or not "lawyers involved."

wintermutestwin 5y ago

Founder disputes (especially at this level) should be resolved through mediation before resorting to adversarial legal battles. Divorcing couples pay 1/10th by going this route.