Outgoings in commercial building

[Dazz]

To an extent I agree. Lawyers usually protect themselves by predicting everything that will go wrong- failure to do so leads to the negligence claims I'm afraid.

That sounds all very well for the lawyer cu.....but what about the deal between the two principal's of the deal....especially if they both wish to proceed ?? The amount of times the head duck's agree in principle, and then it gets shot down in flames over the "yeah but what if scenarios".

The lawyer's butt is covered for sure.....but that's not the point of the deal. What about the over-riding deal that is the point of the discussion. Arguing over the headrest configuration on the deckchairs is one thing, but getting pedantic over it to the point that one principal is advised to scuttle the Titanic is quite another.

But there is some ego- sometimes acting for the landlord I will suggest some non substantive concessions so the other lawyer feels he has had a "win" and have justified their fee. Helps get things signed quicker.

Hmmm, you are naturally wearing your lawyer hat again, and ignoring the principal or head ducks of the deal. The deal between the head ducks is the deal. They are not there to justify your fee or make the lawyers feel like the have professionally 'done their job'.

I have enjoyed the experience of rolling the same senior lawyer twice now in Sydney over separate disagreements. He truly is as weak as water, not matter the prestige of his company and premises. I very much look forward to going into round 3 with him if it ever comes up.

The real ego thing is that I don't like letting clients get "screwed over" as it reflects badly on me and the next time I encounter the other lawyer/landlord/tenant/whatever they will think I am an easy mark and it makes the next battle twice as hard.

cu - you know as well as I do that you boys have so many out clauses to protect yourself its not funny. You simply write down all 74 things you can think of that would be cause for scuttling the deal, and then write to your principal and say "we would strongly advise you not to proceed with this deal" and then leave it in their lap as to what they wish to do. If they take your advice, the deal is dead. My real question is, have you ever said to a client, this is a screaming bargain, you should definitiely proceed with this deal, subject to and conditional upon nothing ?? At some stage with every deal, it must get to this stage.

Once again, the chasm between a deal maker and a deal breaker is vast indeed.

As for lawyers with no personality this is an unfortunate byproduct of HECS and reduced funding to Unis leading to the dropping of the elective courses "Personality 101" and "Wit and Charm 102".

Usually mummy is a senior barrister by that stage and daddy sits on the district court bench and are ever so proud of their clever son / daughter. They are ripe for the milking. I think it just shows poor negotiating skills on the fledgling lawyer if he can't scam a few bucks here or there.

 

[cu@thetop]

That sounds all very well for the lawyer cu.....but what about the deal between the two principal's of the deal....especially if they both wish to proceed ?? The amount of times the head duck's agree in principle, and then it gets shot down in flames over the "yeah but what if scenarios".

The lawyer's butt is covered for sure.....but that's not the point of the deal. It is for the lawyer though!
I have enjoyed the experience of rolling the same senior lawyer twice now in Sydney over separate disagreements. He truly is as weak as water, not matter the prestige of his company and premises. I very much look forward to going into round 3 with him if it ever comes up. I've got one or two on the perpetual back foot- I always enjoy dealing with them.



.. My real question is, have you ever said to a client, this is a screaming bargain, you should definitiely proceed with this deal, subject to and conditional upon nothing ?? At some stage with every deal, it must get to this stage.

I did at least on one occaison for my biggest client. It was on his first commercial construction deal. His wife said no- I said yes (he showed me his figures which I couldn't fault) he followed me and it was (apparently) the turning point to his road to being a multi millionaire


Usually mummy is a senior barrister by that stage and daddy sits on the district court bench and are ever so proud of their clever son / daughter.

Agreed. These are the ones who had it given to them all their life and have never had to fight for anything. Saw one a few years ago from an established legal family go to jail for defrauding his firm's trust account for 6mill to feed a Nigerian scam- academic smarts but nil street smarts. I still smile when I think about itQUOTE]

 

[cu@thetop]

There are always different ways of looking at the same situation.
Say what you will about lawyers and the legal profession but if you owned a nice chunk of office space, who would make a great, long term tenant?
A law firm, maybe? Ever seen one go broke? Cut their fees to the bone during recession? Downgrade their office to cheaper premises?

Good times or bad, the legal profession always seems to do OK and pay the rent and outgoings.

Just a thought ...

I agree with Dazz's views on this- they are usually smart **** tenants.

And I have seen a few go belly up too and sometimes it is not the ones you think.