Jack Stephen's thoughts on Brent's advisor agreement
by Parker · 17 things on Twos
- Initial hesitation
- Disappointing
- Role of attorney is not to be enthusiasm
- Not supposed to take an ownership stake
- Communications are confusing from a lawyer perspective. First as a client. Then board of advisor owning part of the company
- Ethically bound duties, makes it harder when you have a financial stake
- Didn't insist to us to have legal counsel on this agreement
- Sloppy agreement. Doesn't follow a convention
- Substance of the agreement bothers Jack
- Nothing in here about being a lawyer
- 1% could be 5 million if we were a $500 million company (this is for only 1 year also, but he will also be diluted)
- We need a lawyer and he is not going to be a lawyer
- Ownership doesn't make sense
- Advisor with no equity or lawyer for equity
- Look into him more
- Lawyers have to tell you to get another lawyer (according to the bar?)
- You can wait to engage a lawyer when you need them