Let’s say that you represent a 40% shareholder in a corporation. You are reviewing a shareholder’s agreement which says that in certain circumstances (death, disability, termination of employment) your client is required to sell his or her shares at fair market value. So far, so good.
Let me start by saying that I really, really, like accountants. I had deep and valued relationships with a number of accountants when I practiced law, and they were by far my best referral sources. Many became good friends. So, the negative stories which I am about to tell relate to a tiny minority of the accountants who I came across.
Here is a conversation that I had with lawyers from time to time. I would provide in a contract that interest would be payable at 18% if my client was not paid on time.
Over my many years practicing business law I formed some strong opinions. Here are two of them which relate to shareholders agreements:
I only know two things about franchising. Here they are.
While I was practicing law, I often came across clients who operated a successful business that they wanted to franchise. They had the idea that they could sign some agreements and then other people would send them money, with very little effort being required on their part.
Death: My favourite topic in a shareholders agreement.
What I like about the death provision is that it is usually not controversial, especially if the shareholders do not have an inkling about who is likely to die first.
Back when I was practicing law, I used to say that my greatest skill was doing lunch. I did an awful lot of lunch with some pretty good business development results. I have previously written about how I used my lunch meetings to develop personal relationships. You can read about that here: Eating Your Way to A Great Client Base
During my lunch meetings with potential clients, I often used the power of doubt to sell my legal services.
I have decided not to pick on Big Law today for a change. Let’s talk about smaller firms with entrepreneurial founders instead.
Sometimes lawyers call me and tell me about how they feel about their law firms. They don’t call me if they are happy. They call me when they want out. Out of the firm, out of their practice area, out of private practice, out of the practice of law altogether. Out of something.
I have heard a good number of tales of woe. One interesting theme is around the flaws of law firm founders. Serious flaws. The type of flaws that drive good people to head for the exits. I have termed this Founder Deficiency Syndrome. It sort of has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Saint Augustine is reported to have said that “resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.”
There was once a law firm which had a particular department which experienced some turn-over in its associates. Lots of turn-over, actually.
The department in question was headed by a lawyer with a ‘strong personality.’ I am not qualified to give a psychological diagnosis of this lawyer, but if I were, I would probably say that this person was a narcissist. If I was being nice.