Contract Teardown

Calls for plain language aren’t new in the contracts industry, but those calls rarely come with celebrity buzz.

Musician Kanye West changed all that when he went to Twitter to complain about his many contracts with the recording industry. Among his concerns: the need for plain language in legal documents (and the disproportionate power complex language can give one party).

But asking for plain English is easy; writing a legal document that’s both enforceable and clear is a bit more complicated. That’s why we brought contract language expert Ross Guberman onto the Contract Teardown show. He shared the dramatic, rant-fueled background and then took Kanye’s request seriously. Ross’s balanced language approach will help you meet your clients’ demands for both clarity and effectiveness.

The sense is that someone is trying to pull a fast one on me...and that's a damaging conclusion from many perspectives. No one wants clients to conclude that. Ross Guberman

Questions In This Episode

  1. How are businesses shifting to using plain language?
  2. Is using plain language realistic? 
  3. What contract language is unnecessarily archaic and what isn’t? 
  4. How can you rewrite a contract to be understandable without losing the original intent? 
  5. Why is a shift to plain language important?

Plain Language Contract Drafting K-Notes Download Now

Kanye West’s Contract

Late last year, Kanye West took to Twitter to vent his frustration about complicated contract language. During his rant, Kanye declared that he would move the entire music industry into the 21st century, and he means to do this using clear and discernable language. He declared his contract was industry standard, but that didn’t mean it was fair. His call for transparency has brought the conversation of understandable language into a spotlight.

Changes Businesses are Already Making

Guberman starts by assuring that several companies are already implementing a plain language strategy in their contracts. For example, LinkedIn has made some effort to provide easy-to-understand language. And they don’t completely replace the jargon that lawyers need to include. Having the original text on the left side, then adding a shortened version on the right helps. Although, there is a concern here. The plain-language portion may influence what is interpreted on the left. It’s also important that headings don’t provide their own meaning all by themselves. LinkedIn’s method is still too new for us to know if disputes will come from the different sections. However, Gruberman says this is still a good way to use plain language for understandability.

Exclusion of Liability

Another example is General Electric. They have before and after sections. The before section has all the original wording, complete with legalese. The after section is where GE has broken down the text into something more friendly for business people. This method perhaps isn’t as friendly to consumers as LinkedIn’s method, but it’s close enough to the source material and still understandable. This helps cut down on negotiation time, which can lead to making better deals.

Profit Sharing

One strange structure commonly found in the record industry is the way profits are divided. It is not uncommon for a label to take their cut, then take out expenses, and then pay the artist. Artists like Kanye feel that they are being cheated. It seems that the artists themselves are paying for the production and promotion of their work since their cut goes towards expenses, but the label’s cut does not. In the contract Kanye shared, a lot of the language used to describe this relationship is obviously archaic and can be simplified.  

Profit Sharing Agreement Before

Guberman has dissected the Profit Sharing Agreement section of Kanye’s contract and found several areas in which the language could be more transparent. Some of the phrases are unnecessarily complicated. The way that Gruberman has identified these sections is by using his tool called BriefCatch. This is a tool that is available to anyone looking to implement plain language into their contracts.

Profit Sharing After

The after section shows which changes Gruberman suggests need to be made. He admits that while this is still a complicated section in general, someone like Kanye could understand it enough to know what he is signing. Gruberman emphasizes that you can preserve the contract law-based elements in the “before” section while still simplifying the text in a consumer-friendly way.

Harmful Language to Avoid

Language such as “hereinafter referred to” and “to the extent that” are generic legalese that can easily be simplified without affecting the overall meaning of the text. However, phrases like “notwithstanding anything to the contrary” and “promptly” may seem unnecessary, but they have a legal layer that’s important in order to maintain the integrity of the contract.

Def Jam Amendment Before & After

Using plain language isn’t just a benefit to clients. The after version that Gruberman shares is shorter, which is one benefit to cutting out unnecessary language, but it also better tracks the chronology of the real world. Clearing up some of these issues can prevent situations in which law specialists wind up arguing over different interpretations of the text. Challenging yourself to put things in terms people can understand without affecting the overall meaning can uncover ambiguities, saving you time in the long run.

Maintaining the Integrity of the Contract

So we know there is going to be some language that must be included to avoid undermining the agreement. As lawyers and contract drafters trying to implement plain language, we have to find a way to do this while staying true to the contract. One way to begin is by bracketing off phrases or words that you know have a substantive value. In order to maintain the original intent, some legal jargon and industry terms must remain intact. Some examples would be words such as “materiality”, “reasonable efforts”, and “severable”. It’s a fine line to walk: simplifying without completely changing the meaning of the terms. Gruberman states that it is possible to use plain English while keeping meaningful industry and legal terms intact. He suggests focusing not on the necessary legal and industry terms but on clearly nonsensical or unnecessarily archaic sections.

You don't have to blow the whole thing up in order to meet Kanye West at least halfway. Ross Guberman

Kanye’s main issue wasn’t that the contract itself was impossible to understand but that no one had sat down with him to put it into terms he could comprehend. Having the contract laid out in plain language can lead to fewer problems down the road. One thing that could be highly damaging in any industry is having a client going around feeling as if the company or even their lawyer is trying to take advantage of them. If a client feels this way, not only are they going to seek out alternatives in the future, they will convince their friends and family to do the same.

Kanye West Plain Contract Drafting Language Download Now K-Notes


THE CONTRACT: Kanye West’s Full Contract

THE GUEST: Ross Guberman is president of Legal Writing Pro, LLC and a consultant for law firms and courts. He created the first-of-its-kind editing plug-in BriefCatch .

THE HOST: Mike Whelan is the author of Lawyer Forward: Finding Your Place in the Future of Law and host of the Lawyer Forward community. Learn more about his work for attorneys at www.lawyerforward.com .

If you are interested in being a guest on Contract Teardown, please email us at community@lawinsider.com .


Ross Guberman [00:00:00] You look at these agreements, though, from Kanye, that’s not just the CDC references that are archaic, the language looks like something you might find, you know, 50, 100 years ago.

Intro Voice [00:00:10] Welcome to the Contract Teardown Show from 英雄联盟竞猜线上下注APP v5.3, where legal experts tear down contracts from some of the most well-known companies and high profile executives around the world.

Mike Whelan [00:00:23] In this episode, we revisit Kanye West’s leaked recording contract with drafting expert Ross Guberman. Ross and I dig into Kanye’s request for plain language drafting and whether it’s even realistic. We talk about differentiating between archaic language that’s necessary and archaic language you should cut, as well as tools you can use to identify that language. And examples of a couple of companies tackling the issue. Ross describes a counselor that can thread this very tough plain language needle. So let’s tear it down.

Mike Whelan [00:00:53] Hey, everybody. I’m Mike Whelen. Welcome to 英雄联盟竞猜线上下注APP v5.3’s Contract Teardown Show, where we bring smart friends like Ross Guberman over here to break down some contracts. Ross, how are you today?

Ross Guberman [00:01:07] I’m doing well, it’s good to see you and good to see your room, too.

Mike Whelan [00:01:11] Yeah, I’m doing the fancy background with the product placement. I wrote a book. Everybody go get it.

Ross Guberman [00:01:18] If it works, right?

Mike Whelan [00:01:20] Pretty classy nightstand, Ross. Something’s got a hold your drink place. Russ and I are going to do a pretty fun and weird thing today. A month ago, Kanye West had an emotional breakdown on Twitter. It was pretty awesome because it was specifically about contracts. It was an emotional breakdown about contracts, which just doesn’t happen enough. So, Ross, we’re going to tear down the contracts that Kanye shared. Let me do a screen show real quick to show people what we’re talking about. These are the documents that we’re talking about. This is Kanye’s contracts. We took the full. He dumped them all on Twitter. And it was actually really hard to get through because they were just images. But we at 英雄联盟竞猜线上下注APP v5.3 put them all together in PDF, will make sure that you have a link to it. They are long. There’s a lot going on here. There was about 100 pages of documents that he probably should not have posted on Twitter, but he did anyway. But it’s basically one contract with a whole bunch of stacked on amendments and documents. And so we’re going to go through parts of this. Obviously, we can’t share the whole thing, but we’ll make sure that you have a link to the whole thing in the show notes over at LawInsider.com/Resources. So, Ross, this document, why does it matter? Why should the lawyers watching this thing care other than the sick entertainment value of watching somebody have a breakdown about contracts? What is this document?

Ross Guberman [00:02:46] It’s you know, it’s a great vehicle to take this whole plan, English idea and see if we can, you know, apply it literally seriously or both, because although you say you had an emotional breakdown, he’s hardly the first part of your client to object to contract language.

Mike Whelan [00:03:02] That’s right. And I’m going to share a few images. I will not share the image of Kanye West urinating on his Grammy, though. That was pretty awesome. Before we do, Ross, I want you to tell me about yourself. What’s your background? Where you calling from? What is your story, Ross Guberman?

Ross Guberman [00:03:18] And so I’m the president of legal writing prose, so I’ve been doing workshops and consulting on all different aspects of lawyer writing and judicial writing for a couple of decades now. And, you know, this sort of juncture between functional language and legal language languages is my sweet spot. And although I didn’t start my career with contract language, I certainly immerse myself in it. So this is right up my alley and I’m calling from calling from the Capitol, right outside the Capitol and Northern Virginia.

Mike Whelan [00:03:50] I realized after I got dressed to have our conversation that I’m wearing the shirt that apparently everyone in D.C. wears. I didn’t know this was the thing, but apparently it’s a Twitter meme. So I apologize to both of you D.C. people watching. You meme creators, but you

Ross Guberman [00:04:05] look a little to hip to be from D.C., though, and

Mike Whelan [00:04:08] wearing the shirt. So let’s talk a little bit. I’m going to give people a little bit of background on the Twitter rant about contracts. First is this one from Kanye. He said, we’re going to transparently change every album deal, every publishing deal. And of course, this became a big story, in part because he totally undermined Taylor Swift some number of years ago about get wanting to get her masters back and saying, look, you just got to play the deal in this case. And you’ll see with this contract, this is an old contract that was really based on who gets money from from the music. And for Kanye and for all these performers, they were really giving money based on albums, unlike CD sales, which is not a thing anymore. Right. It’s all digital. It’s all made from events. It’s all made from videos. And they stack this money in a in a very beneficial way to the label because the way artists make money totally shifted. And so Kanye is at this point where he’s like, dude, I got to have some other ways to make money. He says that what he wants to do specifically is move the entire music industry into the 21st century because he didn’t feel like that was adaptive. And the reason that it applies to us is this awesome tweet that all the lawyers got excited about, where he says the first thing that changes about record deals is actually lawyers. We need plain English contracts. A lawyer’s role is to improve deals, not charge for contracts we cannot understand or track. Let’s rewrite the deals to be understandable from first rate. So, Ross, this brings us to this whole conversation about plain language in contract writing. You’ve been dealing with this for a while. Tell me what people are talking about. Is this realistic to even talk about plain language and contract drafting?

Ross Guberman [00:05:55] Yeah, I mean, it’s obviously a common plea, not just from Kanye West, but from all sorts of, you know, business executives to there’s been sort of push and pull over the decades that people have been complaining about contract language for longer than either of us has been alive, of course. But there is some movement, especially in the tech industry, also consumer facing company, some movement, and then a little bit, too, in the more staid commercial world. If you look at these agreements, though, from Kanye, that that’s not just the CD references that are archaic. The language looks like something you might find, you know, 50, 100 years ago. There’s even a reference to a so-called PDF I guest. The first agreement in the series was around the time PDF were new. And the whole thing does feel very, very dated and and remote.

Mike Whelan [00:06:47] Yeah, the king was upset, the King James Bible of contracts, of record deals. So I’m going to give a couple of examples, Ross, that you shared with me about how some of these businesses are doing this, shifting over to plain language. The first is this one from LinkedIn. It’s an exclusion, a liability. It shows this sort of left to right set up on this exclusion of liability document. You got a bunch on the left in a very short sentence on the right. What am I looking at here?

Ross Guberman [00:07:15] So you’re looking at a movement that started when those Capitol Hill hearings, but the tech companies were in the news. So you’re seeing some attempt by LinkedIn. Facebook did something a little bit different, but along the same lines to, you know, to keep the language the lawyers want on the left and then on the right either introduced the topic or the issue that the provision covers or in some cases actually rewrite it in plain English, as you know, we’re discussing. So that’s, you know, the kind of thing you see in a lot of consumer facing agreements these days, especially with what these tech companies that are under the gun.

Mike Whelan [00:07:53] Well, and here’s another one from LinkedIn, this sort of two column set up in the license image. So tell me, is the language on the right? Is this incorporated in in any way? Is this part of the contract or are they saying this is a separate thing? We’re we’re coloring pictures for you so you understand what’s happening here?

Ross Guberman [00:08:11] Yeah, this is a big issue. You can imagine the anxiety the in-house counsel have, right? They don’t want they don’t want what’s on the right to somehow control. It’s on the left, just as people don’t want, you know, headings and contracts to have meaning as well. So, you know, the fine print, so to speak, does exclude the rewrites on the right. But it’s all too new to know whether in any kind of dispute that language would actually be entered as evidence. Right. To be a little bit difficult to argue that. Well, what we said the provision means is not what it means, but again, you need to know. How that how how that would play out.

Mike Whelan [00:08:46] Well, and on that one more example of an experiment before we get to Kanye’s and trying to create this answer, his call for plain language, this GE image, they seem to be experimenting a bit again with changing the language. Is this different than the LinkedIn attempt?

Ross Guberman [00:09:03] Yeah, exactly. I think this is also, frankly, probably closer to what somebody like Kanye West could demand. So there’s this GE aviation series of rewritten contracts. It’s actually gotten a lot of press. Harvard Business Review did a big piece on it, and the general counsel of that division really took this whole plain English thing seriously instead of just giving it lip service and actually redid a lot of their commercial agreements. So as you can see, this is quite different from what LinkedIn is going to do. The you know, the goal is not the same. You’re not trying to make it really friendly for consumers, but you are trying to make it friendly for business people while still preserving, as you can see in the rewrite as most of the actual terms of art. You know, it’s a little some people would say, well, you don’t want to mess around with indemnification, but in this case, it seems close enough to the original to be faithful legally while still being understandable. And according to the general counsel, it’s worked wonders. So it’s cut down on negotiation time and led to better, you know, better deals.

Mike Whelan [00:10:12] Hey, everybody, I’m Mike Whelen. I hope you’re enjoying this episode of the contract tear down show. I want you to do me a quick favor. Push this button right here that will allow you to join 英雄联盟竞猜线上下注APP v5.3 at a premium subscription. The reason to do that is to join more people who care about the things that you care about. You’ll get access to more content like this. You’ll also get webinars and daily tips on drafting and negotiating contracts, not to mention access to the world’s largest database of sample clauses and contracts. They will help you draft better contracts faster. So come join us right now. If you push this button, you’re going to save big. So I want you to do it, take advantage of it. Join me and my friends. If you’re part of a team, just email us if you’re in house or in a law firm. We’re at sales@LawInsider.com. We’ll make sure you get a deal as well. Come join me. Come join my friends. We’ll see you there. Push the button. Let’s get back to the show.

Mike Whelan [00:11:02] Hmm. So let’s shift to the Kanye contract, and we’re not going to do a full breakdown of what all these documents are, because there’s a lot and there are good YouTube videos out there. Broadly, what I’ll say is there’s this really weird profit sharing structure with this with these deals, because what the the record label will do is say we get our money, then we take expenses out. Then you, Kanye, get your money. Normally, it’s sort of reversed. You take expenses out and then people are sharing what’s left. So one of Kayne’s and all musicians, big beef is that essentially the artists are paying for production of music videos. They’re paying for all of the promotion of music videos and concerts because it’s coming out off the top. But first, the record labels getting their money. So we want to talk briefly about this profit sharing piece, this image here, because there’s a lot of language that might lead to artists not understanding that they’re getting into that pretty crappy deal, honestly. So so talk to me about this profit sharing piece. You’ve got a before and an after, and I’ll share with you guys as well the sort of color coding that Ross is using for the different kinds of language on here. So tell me about this before. What do you see?

Ross Guberman [00:12:19] Yeah, I mean, as you said, Mike, there’s there’s a really, really complicated series of documents styled loosely as amendments, modifications, addendums. It’s not always clear what’s what. So this is something later in the series, I imagine there’s a back story, you know, tense, tense discussions about the money part. So what I what I what I did here is just pull pull one of the key provisions on the substantive side from this profit sharing agreement so we could try to figure out again what’s possible for for the Kanye West of the world. And that’s why the color coding comes in.

Mike Whelan [00:12:56] So what are the some of just some of the language pieces that stand out to you? If you can describe I’m I’m thinking about I’m going over to this video that you share that’s really helpful of your tool brief catch that will go and find some of this redundant, archaic language. So so as I play this in the background, tell me about some of the phrases that you’re seeing in this that are just driving you nuts.

Ross Guberman [00:13:17] Yeah, so, you know, you want to you want to look at these provisions in chunks or blocs or categories so you can sort of thread the needle between, you know, what what the clients might demand and what lawyers think is is in their interests. So, you know, there’s a lot in contract language that’s really just generic legaleese the same kinds of things you see in other documents. So, you know, my provision, these are coded blue brief catch picking up on a lot of those. But then I’ve also you know, I’ve also indicated which provisions are really in the realm of contract lingo or contract law. And we have to be very careful, of course, you know, translating things like provisos like provided, however, that in dealing with Shell and the like. So the rest, you know, if it’s not a one of those categories, it’s either an industry term of art or just normal English talking about finance or recording. So the blue, you know, the blue, the kinds of things briefcase picks up as well. There’s a lot we can do. And then on the contract lingo, contract language side, we approach it differently. But there there’s a lot you can do there, as the GE example has shown.

Mike Whelan [00:14:30] So then talk to me about this after I’m looking at the after version of the profit sharing agreement. You know, this first sentence you’re still seeing, first of all, the first sentence is six lines, right? Like you’re you’re still you’ve got a complicated sentence with clauses. You’ve got defined terms of art in there. In in your estimation, does this thread the needle of checking the legal boxes, but also being plain enough? I guess my question is, could Kanye read this, do you think?

Ross Guberman [00:15:01] Yeah, Kanye could read this. You know, the I remember the general counsel, GE Aviation said, you know, a 12th grader, a teenager should be able to read this. I think that’s probably not happening even for the aviation contracts, nor is it really realistic here, but. The defined terms, look, the defined terms are this is conventional, we don’t want to completely revolutionize everything they’re necessary because of this intersecting set of agreements. Right. You need to have some consistency, trying to keep that in there while still, again, capturing the the legal the truly contract law based elements of the original, the proviso, the, you know, the preemption, the classic for the avoidance of doubt and so forth, trying to trying to preserve all that, but not going so far as to worry about sentence length just for the sake of sentence length. Right. You want to make sure everything is understandable, but you don’t want to take related phrases within a provision and just willy nilly break them up into multiple sentences the way you might

Mike Whelan [00:16:08] in a brief. Right, right. So let’s take another example from the Kanye contract. This is the Def Jam amendment. I’m seeing a lot of these highlights. I’ve got blues and I’ve got reds. Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in the recording agreement, I’ve got the word Shall a couple of times promptly. What’s the language that stands out to you as particularly harmful to the understanding of the parties, which is really what a contract is supposed to do, right?

Ross Guberman [00:16:40] Yeah, you really hit the nail on the head. It’s it’s unfortunately the the words and phrases that are operative to. Right. So notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Shall problem, you know, using Shal for both obligations and future events, words that seem familiar, like promptly that have a legal layer causes. They’re not to be I mean, this is classic, completely unnecessary, archaic language you see in a lot of commercial agreements. So those are those are the impediments. Right. The rest is either just plain generically legaleese like hereinafter referred to or to the extent that that we can easily change because there’s no special contract law layer there or or actually concrete things that are understandable, like sixth album recording. Fine. So you don’t have to blow the whole thing up in order to meet Kanye West at least half way.

Mike Whelan [00:17:34] Yeah, I like the phrase sufficient moneys. That’s the name of my new band. It’s sort of a it

Ross Guberman [00:17:40] hasn’t been taken

Mike Whelan [00:17:41] an interpretive sca band and I’m going to have to look for the domain name. Well, I’m looking at the after and, you know, it’s shorter which which tells me something about the the utility of cutting these bits of archaic language. Tell me how this is more understandable again for someone, not a 12 year old, but someone like Kanye in the decision making phase.

Ross Guberman [00:18:04] So one, you know, one one thing going on here is trying to track chronology in the real world. Right. So here’s an amendment. This is what we’re going after. This is a situation we’re in. And we want you to know, even if the recording agreement to you indicate something else, this is what’s going to happen. You’re going to sign the amendment. We’re going to deduct a million dollars. We’re going to pay that to you. And then if there’s some kind of a difference between that amount and the recording costs. Now we know where the funds will come from, so it’s it’s. Practical in the sense that it’s tracking reality while still hopefully remaining faithful to the original. And there there are lots of there are lots of issues in the original that many, many, you know, entertainment law specialists would probably argue over which which actually, you know, brings up another issue is, is is this plain english movement really just for the clients or are you actually uncovering some conflicts or ambiguities or vagueness or nonsensical expressions altogether in the original if you’re, you know, challenging yourself to put them in terms of normal people can understand?

Mike Whelan [00:19:16] Well, and on that, I, I sort of want to get to principles, to things that lawyers can learn from this example, which is really the purpose of this show. One seems to be this issue of I’ve got to check some legal boxes. Right. If I’m the lawyer there, there are terms of art. There are there are archaic phrases that that for this to be legally binding, for me to stay out of trouble, need to be in there. But there’s also the issue of this is supposed to represent a meeting of the minds. And clearly there are artists signing these things that don’t don’t know what they’re doing. So if I’m a lawyer and I’m negotiating with another side and you’re very practical about these things, like although the plain language movement is nice, in theory, you’ve got to negotiate with somebody else who might like that archaic language. What’s the principle here? How do I nudge a contract toward plain language without undermining the agreement?

Ross Guberman [00:20:11] Yeah, I think part of that is really bracketing off, just as you are saying, words and phrases that a lawyer knows have substantive value. Right. So you don’t want to run around changing materiality. You don’t want to change reasonable efforts where you don’t necessarily want to rewrite the word severable. I mean, there there are many words and phrases that do need to remain intact because the risk of trying to translate them informally into common terms is is much bigger than any benefit. So you keep those and then you also, of course, in your sector or industry, want to keep those terms of art as well. So we know recouped doesn’t mean the same thing. And the record business that it means in normal English. Right. So we don’t want to change recouped because now we would be not faithful to the substance. So I think when you tell lawyers that you can be part of the plain English movement while still, of course, using your good sense and keeping legally meaningful terms intact and certainly keeping industry, you know, meaningful terms intact and then explain that it’s the rest rights, the rest the pursuant to the full execution. They’re there of the, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, if any. All those of those terms that you can also edit out of other legal documents, there’s a lot to do there that really will clean these up without ever even considering going into the substantive terms.

Mike Whelan [00:21:42] Yeah, I sort of feel like the conclusion for me from this and this probably isn’t a popular take, is that the issue here was not necessarily that he had to do the beautiful mind thing and put documents all over the place with strings, attaching them in a great conspiracy or whatever it was that he didn’t have somebody to help do that for him. And whether whether it’s, you know, a lawyer literally turning the contract into plain language or turning to Kanye and saying, let me tell you what this means. Ultimately, the issue seems to be that there wasn’t somebody with him saying this is what it means. There’s there’s a counseling function in addition to a drafting function that seems to be really important that lawyers didn’t do here.

Ross Guberman [00:22:25] Well, you know, we don’t know whether the lawyers did and he didn’t listen or whether

Mike Whelan [00:22:29] he did not listen,

Ross Guberman [00:22:31] but definitely something to that. And then what happens is, as you can see from his other related tweets, the sense is not just, well, I don’t understand the contract. The sense is that someone trying to pull a fast one on me. Right. Maybe even my own lawyer is not really looking at the language from my point of view. And that’s, you know, damaging conclusion from many perspectives. No, but nobody wants clients to to conclude that.

Mike Whelan [00:22:56] So, Ross, I appreciate your thoughts on this. It’s an interesting thing. And guys, this is a super long document. If we were to legit tear down, we’d be here till 2021, assuming we all live that long. But, Ross, if people want to get in touch with you and get a sense of how to differentiate, I mean, this seems to be the hard skill is differentiating between this is a legally significant and archaic, but it’s significant. So I have to keep it versus this is archaic and useless. So get rid of it. What’s the best way to get in touch with you to learn these skills?

Ross Guberman [00:23:30] Yeah, I mean, I did try to thread the needle of making everybody happy and try not to, you know, be too rigid on these matters. So the tool, the tool we’re looking at brief catch, you know, there you go. There’s this site, my my other company, legal writing pro. I have a lot of free articles and a lot of these before and after is also on Twitter. I do a lot of these kind of microlevel edits that people seem to like. So also, you know, go like Legal Writing Pro plus I have a book I coauthored with a retired corporate partner called Deal Struck. So, yeah, there you go. That’s probably more than enough. Those are four ways to keep the conversation going.

Mike Whelan [00:24:07] That is perfect. Thank you, Ross. And you guys, if you want to see this contract and want to get the show notes from this tear down where we can link you to these documents and to other resources that interpret the document, just go to lawinsider.com/resources. If you want to be on a future contract tear down. Just email us at Community@LawInsider.com. We can walk you through that process and get you on the show to tear down another contract. Until then, Ross, I appreciate you being here. We’ll see you guys next time.

Ross Guberman [00:24:36] Thanks, Mike.


Ross Guberman
Ross Guberman
President @ Legal Writing Pro LLC
Mike Whelan
Mike Whelan
CEO @Lawyer Forward

More Resources from 英雄联盟竞猜线上下注APP v5.3

Protecting Companies & Employees with Confidential Separation Agreements

When an employee leaves a company, they usually take with them proprietary secrets and other insider knowledge. In order to protect the business, many employers have their soon-to-be former worker sign a confidential separation agreement. These allow both parties to move forward with a shared understanding of what constitutes privileged information. They also clarify other important parting business, such as what the company considers to be non-competition and what constitutes a fair severance package.

How a Well-Drafted LLC Agreement Fosters Good Business

The LLC, or Limited Liability Company, is a unique business entity that has many financial and social benefits. Falling somewhere between a general partnership and a more formal corporation, the LLC creates a layer of protection for individual members and offers great tax incentives. For these reasons, an LLC is a common way to structure small businesses with more than one owner.
泛亚电竞观看直播官网(泛亚电竞今日v7.6 安卓版) fifa电竞(合肥)即时v5.5 安卓版 电竞娱乐(江苏)外围官方 企鹅电竞今日联赛 足球电子竞技(济南)官方入口 英雄联盟竞猜入口手机版