[jjlustig]

You also are going to quickly run into scaling issues. A main sell is that you have a team of “experts” draft the standard terms. But this means a new “expert” team for every new contract-type AND industry. The same type of contract (e.g., an MSA) can look very different in tech (where most of your expert attorneys work) than in pharma, ag, or oil & gas, for example.

Trust is also a big issue. “Standard” is never really standard. Contract language is always going to be biased towards one side of a deal. Take NVCA forms. They claim to be “model” but the language generally is drafted to favor VCs over founders. How can one trust that your “expert” group is creating truly neutral forms?

This also has malpractice / UPL written all over it. You are representing that your standard contracts are fair and balanced, but then are simultaneously attempting to disclaim liability by stating that you don't provide legal advice about the suitability of your standard contracts. Who bears responsibility if a 100M+ deal goes bust because of your standard contract?

[jakestein]

I agree that ours isn't necessarily the right model for every industry. We do plan to expand beyond tech eventually. When we do that, we would need to work with a new set of attorneys with experience in that field as you suggest.

On your question about how to tell whether the forms are truly neutral, you don't have to take our or the committee's word on it. Since the docs are public and available for free, you and/or your attorney are welcome to review them. Lots of companies have done that and decided that they do represent a balanced standard, but some decide it's not for them.

We work closely with an attorney who specializes in the practice of law. They've helped us to strike a balance between offering something that we hope is useful while not running afoul of the UPL rules.