Do you have any issues with thr tech industry selling software licenses?

Because a lawyer selling a contract template, is in many ways, very similar in concept to tech industry selling a software license/seat.

They are both akin to “templates”, and selling IP.

▲

sa46 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The difference is that lawyers typically charge by the hour. Software is not sold based on how long it took to create.

So, if a lawyer bills $1000 for "10 seconds of work", it smells fraudulent.

If $1000 was a flat rate, then it's similar to software: you're purchasing some IP and passing off legal liability to the lawyer. How long the lawyer spent on it doesn't matter.

▲

otterley an hour ago | parent [-]

Why would it be fraudulent if the fee agreement disclosed it?

▲

sa46 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

I understood the OP's point as follows:

The fee agreement was an hourly rate for producing a legal document. The resulting document looks like it took 10 seconds to produce. The lawyer billed $1000 worth of hours.

So, either the document was much more complex than anticipated (in which case the lawyer should have said so), or the lawyer inflated the hours.

	▲	baq 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They bill with hourly granularity

▲

thayne an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it is more akin to paying a software contractor to make something to meet your specific need, and they give you an off the shelf product (which they may or may not have made themselves).

▲

atherton94027 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They still need to proofread the doc and make sure it applies to their client though?

▲

beaned an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

One is transparent and the other feels like a lie.

Not in principle, but in practice.