Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
2 added 39 characters in body
source | link

There are typically two parties on any contract, call them buyer and seller. Contracts can be drafted that are neutral, or they could be friendly to either the buyer or the seller.

I can see a case where one party says "I really want this deal;" I want you to draft a contract that protects my interests, but is friendly to the other side, to get them to sign. In this case, the lawyer would draft an "other-party" friendly contract.

But suppose the client says, "I want my rights protected, I want you to draft a "tough" (unfriendly) contract that they might walk away from, one that will separate the men from the boys." The lawyer protests and says something like, "We"While what you are proposing is legal, we need to go easy on these people; they're minorities." The lawyer then produces a "soft" contract and pushes the client to sign, but s/he later regrets this.

Does the lawyer have the right to do this? Or is this a potential conflict of interest?

There are typically two parties on any contract, call them buyer and seller. Contracts can be drafted that are neutral, or they could be friendly to either the buyer or the seller.

I can see a case where one party says "I really want this deal;" I want you to draft a contract that protects my interests, but is friendly to the other side, to get them to sign. In this case, the lawyer would draft an "other-party" friendly contract.

But suppose the client says, "I want my rights protected, I want you to draft a "tough" (unfriendly) contract that they might walk away from, one that will separate the men from the boys." The lawyer protests and says something like, "We need to go easy on these people; they're minorities." The lawyer then produces a "soft" contract and pushes the client to sign, but s/he later regrets this.

Does the lawyer have the right to do this? Or is this a potential conflict of interest?

There are typically two parties on any contract, call them buyer and seller. Contracts can be drafted that are neutral, or they could be friendly to either the buyer or the seller.

I can see a case where one party says "I really want this deal;" I want you to draft a contract that protects my interests, but is friendly to the other side, to get them to sign. In this case, the lawyer would draft an "other-party" friendly contract.

But suppose the client says, "I want my rights protected, I want you to draft a "tough" (unfriendly) contract that they might walk away from, one that will separate the men from the boys." The lawyer protests and says something like, "While what you are proposing is legal, we need to go easy on these people; they're minorities." The lawyer then produces a "soft" contract and pushes the client to sign, but s/he later regrets this.

Does the lawyer have the right to do this? Or is this a potential conflict of interest?

1
source | link

Under what circumstances is a lawyer permitted to draft documents "friendly" to the other side?

There are typically two parties on any contract, call them buyer and seller. Contracts can be drafted that are neutral, or they could be friendly to either the buyer or the seller.

I can see a case where one party says "I really want this deal;" I want you to draft a contract that protects my interests, but is friendly to the other side, to get them to sign. In this case, the lawyer would draft an "other-party" friendly contract.

But suppose the client says, "I want my rights protected, I want you to draft a "tough" (unfriendly) contract that they might walk away from, one that will separate the men from the boys." The lawyer protests and says something like, "We need to go easy on these people; they're minorities." The lawyer then produces a "soft" contract and pushes the client to sign, but s/he later regrets this.

Does the lawyer have the right to do this? Or is this a potential conflict of interest?