Client demands to use a contract that sounds fishy claiming it is from a big law firm, won't use my standard contract

Question

What do you do when you encounter a contract that feels like it was written in the 1800s and has weird clauses?

An old startup client who wishes to switch to a long term bi-monthly payment model is now demanding that I sign a contract that has a bunch of fishy terminology. They claim that it is the consultant contract from their big law firm. I asked them to please use a standard contract and provided one for them, but they are sticking to their strange contract on the basis that it is from their big law firm.

I have encountered big law firms having junior associates and interns handle their (underperforming) startup clients, so I wonder if this is also due to the incompetency of the attny they have access to.

I'm considering dropping them, but they have been persistent. On the one hand, they could be clueless. On the other hand, this could be malicious. Neither seem like good cases.

Answer 1

It's easier and cheaper for them to use their own standard contract since they don't have to pay a lawyer to review a contract from you and every other contractor they work with. Most of my own clients do this.

Your options seem to be:

• Have a lawyer to review their contract, discuss anything that might be a concern, and work with the client to discuss any potential changes to the terms
• Walk

Answer 2

As stated the options are for your lawyer to review at cost ,or refuse job. I would in that case ask for a 'review fee' payable in advance to cover legal expenses of a review of their terms, and not refundable [The Important Part], if no satisfactory terms can be mutually agreed.

Some legal firms and professional associations, would help with review at lower cost, as part of what you get when you join an association of professionals.