Is it possible the free contracts I find online are actually superior to the ones lawyers are paid to write?
<p>Without going into details - you could figure them out if you really tried :P - I often deal with people wanting a contract to cover a rather obscure situation.  It is one where most states don't have precedent yet, but of the few that do some states don't respect these contracts and at least one does.  The net result is that in most cases we don't really unknown rather or not a contract will be respected until/unless it ends up in court but my advice is that it's always better to have one in case it will be respected then to have none if a situation comes up where you end up in court.</p>
<p>Yes I'm aware of the obvious danger of a contract that may not be respected, but it's a situation that's happening anyways, often does happen without issue, and the contract is just meant as a backup.  People will be doing this rather or not a contract exists.  I do try to stress to everyone the potential risks and the fact that contracts are on average more likely not going to be respected then respected even as I tell them I think it's better to have something then nothing.</p>
<p>I have found a few places that have provided free standard contracts for this situation online, and looked through them to find the one I felt was best written.  I've also seen a number of people who went to a lawyer for a contract and got one written for them.</p>
<p>Looking at the two types of contracts, the free and the paid ones, from my mostly-layman perspective the free ones actually look substantially better.  They tend to be longer, better cover potential issues, and have more fallback statements; which is to say they have three or four slightly different ways getting to approximately the same end goal so that if one line is deemed unenforceable there are still other lines that the court may rule enforceable and thus ensure the main point of the contract stands.</p>
<p>For most of these contracts I see they are for a state that I know does not have precedent for these types of contracts.  I imagine things may be different if one is in a state that does already have a precedent.  Then again so far precedent seems to be &quot;yes we respect them&quot; or &quot;no we don't&quot; with little nuance so I imagine even in a state with precedent you are no worse off with a free contract; worse case you think you have a backup that won't be respected but people should already be going in knowing that's a possible outcome.</p>
<p>In short, even ignoring the expense, It seems like people are better off not going to a lawyer because the free contract is the better one.  I imagine the reason for this is that a lawyer can't be bothered to become an expert in such an obscure situation required to figure out all the edge cases they may want to cover, and knowing both that the contract is unlikely to be tested and ultimately will usually end up being just as likely to be respected, or not respected, rather they throw together a quick generic one or go all out trying to make the best contract they can so they go for the quick easy contract as a 'good enough' solution.  Whereas the free ones online are written by experts in the field who have really tried to create the best contract they possible can.</p>
<p>I'm wondering two things, is my layman perspective correct and the free contracts likely are better to use then the very generic paid ones I see.  Second if the free ones may be superior is it common that this sort of situation comes up, that you can find prewritten contracts that have more effort put into it then a randomly selected lawyer is likely to put into one?  Or is it only because of the lack of precedent that using one contract regardless of your state might make sense?</p>
<p>Slightly off topic bonus question, assuming the free contracts really are superiors why aren't paid lawyers using them as a basis for creating paid contracts rather then writing inferiors ones themselves?  I always see these contracts made available but without explicitly spelled out licensing agreements that I can find, is it going to be presumed a lawyer can't charge for a contract they get from somewhere else, even if they vetted and potentially modified it?</p>

<p>It is possible that a free online contract is superior to one specifically written for your situation, and it is possible that the opposite is true. It is more likely that a curated paid contract is superior, if (a) it is drafted by an attorney who is experienced and specializing in that area, (b) you discuss your goals with the attorney, (c) the issue is complex and jurisdiction-specific. It is more likely that the free contract is superior if (a) the attorney you hire doesn't listen to you, (b) doesn't know the area (e.g. specializes in DUI cases and has never touched a contract), (c) if there is already a well worked-out standard contract form (leases and real estate sales contracts come to mind), (d) deals with a very stable area of law where there is negligible state-to-state difference and (e) isn't powered by ChatGPT.</p>

united-states contract-law