Posts tagged as:

law

I recently came across a LinkedIn question asking about entity selection for a social enterprise. The generic question for a generic business is what people often conceive of as an “easy question” with a simple answer.

Here’s my answer:

Laura, the question you ask is only properly answered in light of more important questions. I’ve posed many of these in my article on social enterprises linked below.

As I tell all my clients starting organizations, you need to start with your goals and business model. (And trust me, every organization has a business model — what comes in, what you do with it, what goes out, and what you do with what’s left over.)

So start by defining what you want to do, on a day to day and big picture basis. Then, you take that description and give it to someone like me, a corporate lawyer, and you can get a specific recommendation that fits your particular circumstances. Those circumstances include the state you’re in, tax considerations, financing matters, distributing surpluses (e.g., profits), and control issues.

I’m very good at what I do, but I can’t give you a specific answer without knowing what your vision is and then sorting through your goals. No one can.

Of course, the answer is the same for every other generic business — there’s no way to properly answer the question without knowing all the details. I can tell you the basic model for a VC-financed tech startup, but I can’t advise you that it’s the right structure for you and your company. Until you get properly customized advice, your choices are to ignore the complexities or to use these sorts of answers to learn how to make a decision.

What areas of the law do you think should have more generic advice? Are there any fields where an 80% solution really works best for a lot of people? What about special needs trusts (an area I’m working myself into in the very near future)?

{ 1 comment }

Here’s a LinkedIn question about LLC operating agreements. The poster wonders whether the operating agreement he received from the entity formation company is a little “generic” and asks the forum for specific advice about what should be included.

The answers point to some provisions that should be included (division of gains and losses, breakup/buyout/dissolution schemes, and tax matters). To their credit, although the typical reader in this situation won’t necessarily see it that way, the lawyers all mentioned that the poster should use a lawyer to get the right agreement.

Just because you can put down the same words on paper that a lawyer uses doesn’t mean you have a good agreement. (Personal example: I recently reviewed a document that the other lawyer assured me was used by several lawyers in that field and “no one had a problem with it.” That claim unfortunately led me to believe that several of the lawyer’s professional colleagues also could not draft well-written agreements. The caveat about copying down words not being the same as drafting applies to lawyers, too!)

After all, there is always a disconnect between the universe of possible terms and those that are right for you and your company and your team and your investors and your business partners and your suppliers and your customers.

This is why we have lawyers. I don’t create value by keeping a generic form secret from you. Good lawyers don’t create value by hiding explanations of the form from you (see my discussion of Wilson Sonsini’s term sheet generator).

Great lawyers create value by giving you reliable outcome-focused answers like these:

  • Here’s the absolute right answer.
  • Here’s the best answer for you, balancing everything in the way that I understand everything that I know is important to you and everything that I know would be important to you if you knew about it.
  • Here’s the mostly right answer for your situation, and the cost of having the wrong answer now isn’t worth the cost of getting the absolute right answer.
  • Here’s a good working answer, and we’ll hedge our bets in case I’m wrong.
  • I don’t know, and we’ll find the answer.
  • I don’t know, but I do know that this is a big freaking deal so don’t do anything until I come back to you with the absolute right answer.

… and explaining those things to you. What I do for clients, across all kinds of engagements, transactions, litigation, counseling, and advising, often falls into one of these big three areas: identifying risks, managing (by eliminating or mitigating) risk, and helping them make informed decisions.

That’s how a lawyer creates value for you. If you’re not getting that, and you don’t have the experience to supply those answers yourself, keep looking.

{ 1 comment }

Draft better contracts by paying attention to words

12 October 2010

This post on the use of the term immediately, one of many similar explorations by Ken Adams, is the sort of thing that attracts me to contract drafting. There is a lot to be said for using the right language to convey an idea: language that is clear, concise, hard to misconstrue, and simple without [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: should I be a social enterprise?

9 September 2010

Here’s a question on quasi-nonprofits that I’ve been hearing more often: Do I need to have a nonprofit status to become a social entrepreneurial enterprise? I found this LinkedIn question to be interesting for two reasons: first, it’s very related to a nonprofit question I field all the time, and second, I have a current [...]

1 comment Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: when should I consider a convertible bridge?

5 September 2010

I have more than one client currently considering convertible bridge notes as a parallel angel/seed round funding technique, and I have one who recently closed a small convertible note that will convert in the upcoming seed round. What’s a convertible bridge note? A convertible bridge note is a not-uncommon financing instrument in venture capital. This [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: What is due diligence?

9 August 2010

Due diligence is the catchall phrase used to describe both the amorphous investigative process that prospective investors and acquirors go through before, during, and after their initial decision to proceed with a transaction with your company as well as the materials (paper, electronic, and Q&A) that they and their advisors receive in response to their [...]

1 comment Read more ›

Why you should back away from reverse mergers

18 June 2010

This LinkedIn question asking about reverse mergers is a question I’ve answered for a lot of entrepreneurs who get pitched by these folks and are invariably misled confused about where, how, and whether this deal brings money into the company. “What is a reverse merger or reverse IPO?” Short answer: “reverse merger” is almost always [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Getting crowdfunding wrong

28 May 2010

Here’s a link to a brief article about crowdsourcing as applied to startups. Grade for this article? Nominally 80% for 4 out of 5 right, but the wrong answer on financing can kill a company. This one gets a #FAIL from me. Hearkening back (or forward, since I don’t know if I’ve posted it yet) [...]

3 comments Read more ›

Tough legal job market is now just plain ugly for some

28 May 2010

I’ve written before about the growing inconsistency between the actual job market for lawyers and the jobs that law schools tell prospective students about. Here’s a recent Above the Law post on a job that really doesn’t appear all that worthwhile, really. This is a downgrade from the $12 job they link to at the [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Is branding a 1st Amendment right?

25 May 2010

This interesting Neuromarketing post on a proposed Australian law to eviscerate the branding value of cigarette packaging is a doozy. Separate from the inherent interest in the notion that the pack may be far more powerful than the cigarette (and I like both Why We Buy and Call of the Mall by Paco Underhill as [...]

0 comments Read more ›