<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Investing in Your Templates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Adams</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/comment-page-1/#comment-37617</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/#comment-37617</guid>
		<description>Martin: I don&#039;t think conceit has anything to do with it.

Every contract that comes across my desk could do with help ranging from a good scrubbing to a complete rewrite. I&#039;m in a position to notice that because the language of contracts is my livelihood; I don&#039;t have to worry about doing any of the things an in-house lawyer has to worry about. Saying that in-house lawyers aren&#039;t experts in contract drafting is rather like observing they&#039;re not experts in particle physics: I don&#039;t think it would be reasonable to expect otherwise.

But I wouldn&#039;t want terminology to get in the way of my point. Maybe &quot;specialist&quot; would be less loaded a term than &quot;expert.&quot;

And in any event, the distinction I&#039;m offering has nothing to do with understanding substantive law, a company&#039;s business, or transaction mechanics.

In an attempt to reflect the above points, I&#039;ve revised my post to say &quot;they aren&#039;t specialists in contract language.&quot;

And &quot;self-serving&quot; means &quot;serving one&#039;s own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others.&quot; So to the extent that it&#039;s a pejorative term, I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything self-serving about my post. I&#039;m just the messenger; shooting me wouldn&#039;t make the world of contract drafting any less messy.

I agree that making an outsider entirely responsible for a company&#039;s contract drafting would likely be a disaster. When I redraft a company&#039;s templates, I work very closely with the in-house lawyers so I become intimately familiar with their business and the issues involved.

Finally, this blog isn&#039;t a business-development tool, at least not directly. Instead, it&#039;s a means for me to explore issues and to get feedback. But I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a bad thing to remind readers occasionally that in addition to putting online, in regular doses, what I hope are interesting posts, I also need to earn my keep.

Ken</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Martin: I don&#8217;t think conceit has anything to do with it.</p>
<p>Every contract that comes across my desk could do with help ranging from a good scrubbing to a complete rewrite. I&#8217;m in a position to notice that because the language of contracts is my livelihood; I don&#8217;t have to worry about doing any of the things an in-house lawyer has to worry about. Saying that in-house lawyers aren&#8217;t experts in contract drafting is rather like observing they&#8217;re not experts in particle physics: I don&#8217;t think it would be reasonable to expect otherwise.</p>
<p>But I wouldn&#8217;t want terminology to get in the way of my point. Maybe &#8220;specialist&#8221; would be less loaded a term than &#8220;expert.&#8221;</p>
<p>And in any event, the distinction I&#8217;m offering has nothing to do with understanding substantive law, a company&#8217;s business, or transaction mechanics.</p>
<p>In an attempt to reflect the above points, I&#8217;ve revised my post to say &#8220;they aren&#8217;t specialists in contract language.&#8221;</p>
<p>And &#8220;self-serving&#8221; means &#8220;serving one&#8217;s own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others.&#8221; So to the extent that it&#8217;s a pejorative term, I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything self-serving about my post. I&#8217;m just the messenger; shooting me wouldn&#8217;t make the world of contract drafting any less messy.</p>
<p>I agree that making an outsider entirely responsible for a company&#8217;s contract drafting would likely be a disaster. When I redraft a company&#8217;s templates, I work very closely with the in-house lawyers so I become intimately familiar with their business and the issues involved.</p>
<p>Finally, this blog isn&#8217;t a business-development tool, at least not directly. Instead, it&#8217;s a means for me to explore issues and to get feedback. But I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a bad thing to remind readers occasionally that in addition to putting online, in regular doses, what I hope are interesting posts, I also need to earn my keep.</p>
<p>Ken</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/comment-page-1/#comment-37606</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/02/04/investing-in-your-templates/#comment-37606</guid>
		<description>&quot;Your lawyers know your business better than anyone, but face it—they aren’t experts in contract drafting. At best, they’ll produce contracts that are representative of mainstream contract drafting; in other words, they’ll be a long way from optimal.&quot;

Your blog is a marketing vehicle so self-serving is fine, but above quote is, in my opinion and experience, as concieted as it is plain wrong. Many of the best contract drafters I know are internal lawyers. While many external expert lawyers technically maybe be above average contract drafters, they lack business knowledge which tend to result in horrible results, which must be subjected to extensive internal rework.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Your lawyers know your business better than anyone, but face it—they aren’t experts in contract drafting. At best, they’ll produce contracts that are representative of mainstream contract drafting; in other words, they’ll be a long way from optimal.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your blog is a marketing vehicle so self-serving is fine, but above quote is, in my opinion and experience, as concieted as it is plain wrong. Many of the best contract drafters I know are internal lawyers. While many external expert lawyers technically maybe be above average contract drafters, they lack business knowledge which tend to result in horrible results, which must be subjected to extensive internal rework.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

