WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN YOUR LAWYER
I get what you mean about the “worst-case scenario” stuff. I used to roll my eyes at some of the things my lawyer would insist on—like, do we really need a clause about someone’s goat wandering onto the property? But then, years ago, I had a deal where a neighbor’s fence line was off by a foot, and suddenly that “overkill” clause about boundary disputes saved me a ton of headaches. Didn’t see that one coming.
Still, I’ve definitely pushed back on a few things that felt like pure legalese, and honestly, nothing bad happened. Sometimes it feels like a judgment call—if it’s something that could actually happen in your area or with your kind of project, maybe keep it. If it’s just boilerplate that doesn’t fit, I’ll ask if we can skip it.
Ever had a lawyer dig in their heels about something you thought was pointless, but it turned out they were right? Or the opposite—where you left something out and it was fine?
Sometimes it feels like a judgment call—if it’s something that could actually happen in your area or with your kind of project, maybe keep it.
Totally agree with this. I’ve had lawyers insist on clauses about things like “acts of God” or weird insurance requirements for a simple paint job. Most of the time, I push back if it feels out of touch with reality. But once, I skipped a clause about delays due to supply chain issues—then COVID hit, and I was stuck. Lesson learned: sometimes their paranoia pays off, but I still question stuff that seems over the top.
It’s wild how those “out there” clauses sometimes end up being exactly what you need. I’ve definitely had the same reaction to lawyers overcomplicating things—so much legalese for what feels like a straightforward project. But then, every once in a while, something unpredictable happens and you see their point. I still think it’s smart to question anything that doesn’t make sense for your actual project, but yeah... I’ve learned not to dismiss the weird stuff outright. It’s a balancing act.
I still think it’s smart to question anything that doesn’t make sense for your actual project, but yeah... I’ve learned not to dismiss the weird stuff outright.
I get what you’re saying, but sometimes I wonder if lawyers just add extra clauses to cover every possible scenario—like, are we really planning for a meteor strike here? I’ve had contracts where I pushed back on a few things and it turned out the “weird stuff” was actually about some obscure city code. Ever had a clause you fought against actually end up saving your skin later?
WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN YOUR LAWYER
I’ve definitely rolled my eyes at some of the “doomsday” clauses before, but I get why they’re there. Had a situation once where a contract had this odd bit about “unforeseen utility easements”—I almost cut it because it sounded like legal overkill. Turns out, halfway through grading, the city flagged an ancient water line nobody knew about. That clause meant we didn’t eat the cost for rerouting everything. Never thought I’d be grateful for that kind of legal paranoia.
Still, I do think there’s a balance. Sometimes lawyers want to cover every possible angle, and it can bog things down or even scare off partners who aren’t used to that level of detail. I try to push back when something feels like it’s just adding friction, but I’ve learned to ask more questions before cutting anything. It’s wild how often the “weird stuff” is actually based on some obscure code or a horror story from another project.
Curious—has anyone ever had a clause they insisted on removing, only to regret it later? Or maybe the opposite: kept something in you thought was pointless, and it ended up being a lifesaver?