Why do we let lawyers write terms and conditions?
I have a contact who wants to be on this show, so he wanted me to send him one of those links where you can schedule an appointment. That’s a perfectly reasonable request. It’s annoying to go back and forth with “how about Wednesday” and that sort ot thing.
But when I looked into it, the terms and conditions were absurd.
For example, Calendly said I was giving them permission to view, share, and permanently delete any of my calendars.
I doubt they would ever do that, but why would I give them permission to do it?
We’re in a weird place where people don’t even read terms and conditions. I usually don’t, it’s just that this one was obvious and right in my face.
I, like most people, just check yes and move on with our lives. We have no idea what we’ve authorized all these people to do.
This raises a couple questions in my mind.
First, why do the lawyers have the final say on these things? They’re often not bringing any money into the organization. In fact, they’re ruining deals with their overzealous protectiveness.
The obvious answer is that they’re limiting risk. That’s one of their functions. And we all know there’s a cognitive bias called “fear of loss,” or “loss aversion.” People are more afraid of loss than they hope for gain.
By the way, if you want a primer on cognitive biases, I wrote about them in the latest issue of The Krehbiel Letter. I’ll provide a link below.
Second, where’s the check on the lawyers? One of the genius elements of the United States form of government is that we have one branch keeping the other branch from going too far.
Who’s keeping the lawyers from going too far?
Everywhere I’ve worked, people say “legal requires it,” and that’s that.
Why?
Why don’t we require them to give us some odds, so we can make an informed decision?
For example, back when I worked on a human resources publication, the lawyers were insisting on very onerous provisions in an employee handbooks, and I said, “What are the chances that this will actually be a problem?” The answer was, “slim.”
Sometimes it’s based on one case in Wisconsin, or something like that, so everybody in the country is being forced by their legal team to follow the decision of one judge in some county in Wisconsin.
Shouldn’t we tell people that? You can’t protect against all risks? Not only is it impossible, but it’s impractical.
Here’s my takeaway. Don’t cave when legal says they want something. Challenge them on it. Make them justify it. Make them put some numbers around their position.
You have to do that all the time. Why shouldn’t they?
-
11:09
atlascott
10 months ago"I'm Thinking About Switching Lawyers. What Do I Need To Know?" [Call 312-500-4500]
2 -
14:31
We The People - Constitutional Conventions
3 months agoNotice of Demand and Trespass Proof of Jurisdiction and Contract
9352 -
10:27
Only the People can Save our Republic
1 year agoMemorandum Right to Practice Law 18 of 19
1.99K1 -
48:59
#TAZADOCTRINE
1 year agoConstructive Notice Of Conditional Acceptaced Used to Discahge Settle and Cose Commercial Debts.
12 -
14:31
We The People - Constitutional Conventions
3 months agoNotice Proof of Claim and Contract, Consent to Contract
1.1K2 -
6:44
We The People - Constitutional Conventions
3 months agoFinal Notice Proof of Claim and Consent to Contract
5762 -
7:36
Barry Zalma, Inc. on Insurance Law
1 year agoPay the Limits as Written
49 -
22:34
#TAZADOCTRINE
1 year agoReservation Of My Rights How I Sign the Name Without Assuming Liability I don't Consent V.C.
7 -
9:41
Barry Zalma, Inc. on Insurance Law
11 months agoCourts do not Make Different Contracts
62 -
6:46
We The People - Constitutional Conventions
3 months agoNotice Proof of Claim to Taxation, by-laws et al
6754