Five Reasons Not to Consider Having Me Revise Your Templates

I suspect that included among the following are the one or more reasons why you haven’t contacted me to discuss whether I might help you revise your templates:

  1. Our contracts are fine. I should know, as I’m a good drafter. The funny thing about writing, as opposed to, say, tightrope walking, is that if you’re left to your own devices, you always think your writing is great, regardless of whether that’s objectively the case. That certainly applies in the realm of contract drafting, which has traditionally done without guidelines. All I know is that I have yet to encounter a contract I couldn’t significantly improve. For an example of what I do, see this blog post.
  2. We’re good, thanks—our outside counsel are redrafting our contracts. If you have outside counsel redraft your contracts, the odds are that your new contracts will contain archaisms, redundancies, misconceptions, and other shortcomings that typify traditional contract language. And you likely will pay a pretty penny for the privilege. In this recent post I considered a bit of drafting by a partner at a major law firm, and I could provide you with countless other examples.
  3. The system works just fine for me as it is, so I’m not inclined to change it. The person directly responsible for a company’s contract process might not be the best person to assess whether the process could be improved. Even if they muster the required objectivity, it may be that they have nothing to gain by shining a spotlight on shortcomings in the company’s contracts. Such concerns can result in office politics trumping the company’s needs.
  4. Overhauling our templates would be more trouble than it’s worth. For this conclusion to be meaningful, you’d have to do a halfway-decent cost-benefit analysis. Otherwise, you’re just opting for inertia. As part of such an analysis, you might want to ask me what I think.
  5. We can’t afford you. Well, my rates are very reasonable. For example, I think it’s safe to say that I’d do any redrafting project much less expensively than any law firm. I charge flat fees, so there’s no risk of unpleasant surprises. And however much I charge, it pales in comparison to the benefits of a contract process that runs more smoothly because your contracts are clearer, shorter, and better reflect your needs.

If you’re tempted to see what I can offer, send me one of your contracts—I’d tell you what I think, at no charge.

***

On a related note, a reader recently let me know that as compared to the AdamsDrafting blog, he’s disappointed with The Koncise Drafter, in particular “the number of posts that appear to be ads for the Koncision product or for presentations you will be doing.”

I understand his point. But I remain a pioneer in a field that staunchly resists change. And no one is paying me a salary. The upshot is that I have to hustle. But I hope that you find acceptable the ratio of ads to information. And at least you can easily spot, and skip if you wish, those posts that tell the world what I do.

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.