In that vein, I suspect that lawyers unconsciously assume that a pre-packaged form (from a vendor of uncertain substantive expertise) can’t do as good a job of protecting them from later criticism, as would a document that they have custom-tailored to meet the client’s specific needs.

The psychological analysis is different when an industry-standard form is available: Lawyers feel less vulnerable to criticism when they’re using a form that the client’s industry group has blessed.

As an FYI.

Note that in the world of financial transactions, trade associations — e.g., ISDA [International Swap and Derivatives Association; develops OTC derivatives agreements], SIFMA [Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; develops agreements for repurchase, securities lending, and cash forward-settle transactions among others], NAESB [North American Energy Standards Board; develops agreements relating to energy trading] — devote resources to developing form agreements for use by market participants (e.g., investment banks, broker-dealers, and energy companies) who regularly trade in the relevant covered products.

All such agreements generally have a schedule of some sort wherein amendments and elections are made to the boilerplate by the contracting parties.

The agreements developed and published by such trade associations are widely used. Large law firms turn a tidy profit in advising on such agreements as well as negotiating those agreements on behalf of their clients.

Regards.