|
In launching a venture, use a good lawyer to help you define what is the best legal structure for your venture, who owns what piece of that venture and on what earn-out terms, if any, who has rights to any IP developed by participants in that venture, and who has what authority to run things, either as owners controlling the ultimate management of a company or as directors/officers having strategic or operational control over how things are done. And do all this with tax, securities law, and other legal bounds in mind. Are there hazards to founders as they roll along in the earliest stages without the benefit of lawyer review or guidance? Of course. And those hazards lie precisely in failing to understand what needs to be done or in how to do it. But lawyers cost money and every founder is or should be cognizant of the need to budget wisely for such costs. So there is room for good DIY guides and services. Indeed, in today's era, DIY guides and services are great and can be valuable: one of the great distinctives of our modern startup era lies precisely in having savvy and informed founders (except for serial entrepreneurs, this was a relative rarity at or before the bubble era). So, yes, by all means, do educate yourself and do use lawyers wisely so as not to overpay or overdo the legal pieces that are secondary (albeit important) to your venture. I encourage what the author is doing here and hope it lives up to its promise. That said, I don't believe a DIY guide should include arbitrary rules or procedures. In particular, I disagree that a founders' agreement is an essential first step on the path toward startup launch. In 30 years of specializing in this stuff, I have seen such agreements in very few startups. They can be helpful but there are no arbitrary rules about the need to use them. A founders' agreement is after all a formal legal document. It locks in relationships and commitments - meaning, if you agree to its terms, your failure to conform to such roles and commitments can have legal consequences. And, while that can be fine, and while it can certainly go a long ways towards limiting the hazards mentioned above that a lawyer would normally deal with, it can also be frustrating for founders to front-load legal things at a time when the venture is in greatest flux. In many cases, you can wind up trying to define in the abstract, and hence lock in, roles and relationships that are by definition still not settled. As always, the goal is to use good judgment and common sense while educating yourself to the maximum extent possible either through DIY guides/resources or with the help of lawyers. But do not think that there is only one process for getting to the goal of a good launch. If a founders' agreement fits your needs (and if the author offers a good one), by all means use it to your benefit. If not, don't get stymied by the thought that you have failed to meet some pre-condition to launch that really does not exist. |
The example given in the original post sort of proves this point. The OP makes "developing and managing of the software development" and "managing of the tasks" CEO responsibilities. It's not clear how those terms are defined, but it arguably suggests that were the CEO to focus on biz dev instead of coding or if a CTO decides to prioritize one bugfix over another without consulting the CEO, someone is now in breach of a legal agreement.