Considering how many unemployed lawyers there are these days, I don't know why any startup wouldn't automatically bring in an attorney as part of the founding team; such a person may not be able to handle all the legal challenges a startup faces, but they'll be able to spot them coming and will know when and how to engage outside counsel. At least in the US, we live in a very legalistic and litigous society: law is not something that gets in the way, it's our society's operating system and a company's legal officer works to ensure the business operates smoothly in that environment, just like the CIO works to keep the business accessible and operable via the internet.
Hiring an experienced lawyer away from a job as general counsel or from an established law firm would be incredibly expensive. Hiring a more junior one (or bringing a moderately experienced lawyer onto the board), not so much.
As for the workload, that's a bit like saying there's no point in having a CIO because all the computers work fine 95% of the time.
>As for the workload, that's a bit like saying there's no point in having a CIO because all the computers work fine 95% of the time.
So you are suggesting having a /desktop IT/ guy as a founder, because computers break? really?
I mean, yeah, lawyers are important. But if you need more than ten grand in lawyer time while you are still three people in the garage, not getting paid? you are doing it wrong.
In fact, I would say that nearly always, if you are spending more money on lawyers than accountants, you are doing it wrong. The IRS is way bigger and scarier than any DMCA take down, and the best way to protect yourself is with an accountant. (I mean, yes, when the IRS comes knocking, yeah, maybe you want a lawyer, too. But you want the accountant all the time.)
Even so, personally? I'd spend cash on the accountant, rather than making them a founder.
Desktop IT people are important, too- but again, when you are still three people in the garage, do it yourself, or pay the neighbour's kid to do it.
Really, I think having /too much/ lawyer involvement too early can be a problem, too- in many of the ways that having too much desktop IT too early can be a problem. I mean, as your company grows, yes, you will want rules. It's reasonable to then tell people that they need to keep their data on the network drive, and that the desktops will get wiped when they have problems, and in some cases, even, to say that only IT can install programs.
Just like later on, yeah, you want some sort of hiring process to make sure you aren't, you know, discriminating, or just hiring the manager's kid brother or something. But early on? Hell yes, I'm going to give my brother a call when I need something he can do. I trust him; I know what he can do. And yeah, that's not really acceptable once you get going and are a big company. But using your personal network (which is inherently discriminatory) is a pretty big advantage when you are small.
Or hiring contractors. Yeah, at a big company you need to make sure they are on the 'preferred vendor' list or whatever, and that they have this and that certification and insurance. A lawyer will give you 20 good reasons why this is important (and I'm sure those are good reasons.) but when you are small? that will kill you. No; when you are small? yeah, I know someone that knows about ARM-based embedded systems. Let me give her a call, and hire her if she's free.
I mean, yeah, I'm sure there are good reasons for following all the rules all the time, and those become important when you are big. That's what lawyers are for. But, that kind of friction at the beginning? that's going to kill your company.
And I'm not saying lawyers aren't important, either. they can really save your ass. I do think it makes sense to have some sort of relationship with a lawyer, so you have someone to ask questions of, and to go to when you get in trouble. But, personally? I just see so much more risk from screwing up my taxes than from getting sued (I know several people in debt for life because they thought they could do their business taxes themselves. I don't know anyone that has gotten sued that badly, or even if it's possible to get sued that badly.) so I'd spend more on the accountant.
But either way? I don't want the lawyer /or/ the accountant involved in my day to day operations, at least not until I'm a whole lot larger.
At least for engineers, part of your professional obligation is not to dilute the value of your services by offering them for free. The equation is obviously a bit different for lawyers, who may work pro bono (only in criminal cases, perhaps?). My point being, it is probably against their professional code to be on retainer for a price far below market value.
> professional obligation is not to dilute the value of your services by offering them for free.
So all of the volunteers who work on open-source projects in their spare time are in violation of their professional obligations?
Guys with the guts to quit their jobs and try to bootstrap a company totally on spec are in violation of their professional obligations?
People who volunteer to provide free technical skills to schools, hospitals, libraries and orphanages in desperately poor Third World countries are in violation of their professional obligations?
Bloggers who write about cool programming ideas for people to read, for free, are in violation of their professional obligations?
This "obligation" simply doesn't make sense.
And besides, the "market value" you cite only exists because buyers and sellers of services are able to freely negotiate with each other to decide on a price.
There is a definite obligation, as a licensed professional engineer, to protect the reputation, and to an extent the scarcity, of engineering knowledge as a resource. I know for sure that, as an architect, it is unethical to do architecture work for friends, family, etc. for free. The examples you gave are straw men, though, except open source.
- Open Source is a really interesting problem, and I'm not involved in that community very much. I suspect a licensed engineer would be averse to writing code for an OS project in their spare time, if it wasn't part of their job.
- Quitting your job and working for yourself isn't the same as offering your services to a third party for free / cheap. If a lawyer was actually an equity partner in a firm, they could set their own salary, certainly it could be less than usual. This is different than what I saw as a contracting/retainer relationship where the lawyer is an independent third-party providing services because they have some free time. Of course, there is probably a lot of red tape involved in creating an in-hour legal department versus contracting this out.
- Providing services to charity, inarguably, provides a net benefit to the profession. Most professional organizations allow for this, provided you're acting in an advisory role. Arguably, actually getting involved in litigation is no longer 'advisory'.
- Writing about cool things and implementing them are two different ideas. Some lawyers provide commentary as a hobby, but this is not interchangeable with the actual service they provide. As a software engineer, writing about a concept isn't the same as implementing that concept for a client.
Remember, this only applies to licensed engineers who belong to a self-regulating professional organization. Just because your job title has 'Engineer' in it, if you didn't take an oath, you aren't really an Engineer.
Actually I'm kind of glad the software industry doesn't fall into this category. I don't want a "professional organization" telling me what I can or can't charge for my work!
You're mistaken, there are people in the industry who are engineers. In some lines of work (architecture, law) membership in a professional organization is required. But if you went to school in an accredited program (most university Software Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, etc.), you can become a professional engineer. It's required to join the IEEE, in fact. The point of the professional organization is to hold it's members to a high standard; part of this is not offering 'bargain basement' services. The reason you don't see a lot of discount medical practitioners and lawyers is arguably because their organization would disbar them. Likewise, hiring a consulting software engineer who is a P. Eng. brings the benefit that if they act unethically, they can lose their certification.
