4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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."