Those are valid points, and I've seen it from both sides - as a lawyer and as a businessperson. But one of the things missing from your comment is that good lawyers are protecting their clients from the possibility of things going wrong in the future.
Contracts are often unclear and are often broken. Sometimes things just don't work out. Regardless of how, litigation often ensues. That's when the value of a lawyer becomes apparent. It's easy to complain about lawyers during the negotiation - they often needlessly inject themselves into the process - but it would be worth considering that a good lawyer is trying to protect you in case things go wrong. Look at the Frank McCourt case for an example of where the lawyering was poor and it had a disastrous impact: http://www.minnlawyer.com/jdr/2010/09/17/legal-malpractice-c...
I agree. I think it would be stupid to sign any moderately complex agreement without a lawyer having been through it, and having informed you about what you are signing. (I certainly wouldn't sign that.) I also think it would be stupid to have a moderately complex agreement that was not drafted very clearly. And if things go south, you definitely need competent legal counsel.
My entire point was that lawyers like to inject themselves into the process of negotiation, often feel like they are generating value, but in reality tend to generate billable hours and negative client value at the same time.
Comments
Those are valid points, and I've seen it from both sides - as a lawyer and as a businessperson. But one of the things missing from your comment is that good lawyers are protecting their clients from the possibility of things going wrong in the future.
Contracts are often unclear and are often broken. Sometimes things just don't work out. Regardless of how, litigation often ensues. That's when the value of a lawyer becomes apparent. It's easy to complain about lawyers during the negotiation - they often needlessly inject themselves into the process - but it would be worth considering that a good lawyer is trying to protect you in case things go wrong. Look at the Frank McCourt case for an example of where the lawyering was poor and it had a disastrous impact: http://www.minnlawyer.com/jdr/2010/09/17/legal-malpractice-c...
I agree. I think it would be stupid to sign any moderately complex agreement without a lawyer having been through it, and having informed you about what you are signing. (I certainly wouldn't sign that.) I also think it would be stupid to have a moderately complex agreement that was not drafted very clearly. And if things go south, you definitely need competent legal counsel.
My entire point was that lawyers like to inject themselves into the process of negotiation, often feel like they are generating value, but in reality tend to generate billable hours and negative client value at the same time.