>As for the workload, that's a bit like saying there's no point in having a CIO because all the computers work fine 95% of the time.
So you are suggesting having a /desktop IT/ guy as a founder, because computers break? really?
I mean, yeah, lawyers are important. But if you need more than ten grand in lawyer time while you are still three people in the garage, not getting paid? you are doing it wrong.
In fact, I would say that nearly always, if you are spending more money on lawyers than accountants, you are doing it wrong. The IRS is way bigger and scarier than any DMCA take down, and the best way to protect yourself is with an accountant. (I mean, yes, when the IRS comes knocking, yeah, maybe you want a lawyer, too. But you want the accountant all the time.)
Even so, personally? I'd spend cash on the accountant, rather than making them a founder.
Desktop IT people are important, too- but again, when you are still three people in the garage, do it yourself, or pay the neighbour's kid to do it.
Really, I think having /too much/ lawyer involvement too early can be a problem, too- in many of the ways that having too much desktop IT too early can be a problem. I mean, as your company grows, yes, you will want rules. It's reasonable to then tell people that they need to keep their data on the network drive, and that the desktops will get wiped when they have problems, and in some cases, even, to say that only IT can install programs.
Just like later on, yeah, you want some sort of hiring process to make sure you aren't, you know, discriminating, or just hiring the manager's kid brother or something. But early on? Hell yes, I'm going to give my brother a call when I need something he can do. I trust him; I know what he can do. And yeah, that's not really acceptable once you get going and are a big company. But using your personal network (which is inherently discriminatory) is a pretty big advantage when you are small.
Or hiring contractors. Yeah, at a big company you need to make sure they are on the 'preferred vendor' list or whatever, and that they have this and that certification and insurance. A lawyer will give you 20 good reasons why this is important (and I'm sure those are good reasons.) but when you are small? that will kill you. No; when you are small? yeah, I know someone that knows about ARM-based embedded systems. Let me give her a call, and hire her if she's free.
I mean, yeah, I'm sure there are good reasons for following all the rules all the time, and those become important when you are big. That's what lawyers are for. But, that kind of friction at the beginning? that's going to kill your company.
And I'm not saying lawyers aren't important, either. they can really save your ass. I do think it makes sense to have some sort of relationship with a lawyer, so you have someone to ask questions of, and to go to when you get in trouble. But, personally? I just see so much more risk from screwing up my taxes than from getting sued (I know several people in debt for life because they thought they could do their business taxes themselves. I don't know anyone that has gotten sued that badly, or even if it's possible to get sued that badly.) so I'd spend more on the accountant.
But either way? I don't want the lawyer /or/ the accountant involved in my day to day operations, at least not until I'm a whole lot larger.
So you are suggesting having a /desktop IT/ guy as a founder, because computers break? really?
I mean, yeah, lawyers are important. But if you need more than ten grand in lawyer time while you are still three people in the garage, not getting paid? you are doing it wrong.
In fact, I would say that nearly always, if you are spending more money on lawyers than accountants, you are doing it wrong. The IRS is way bigger and scarier than any DMCA take down, and the best way to protect yourself is with an accountant. (I mean, yes, when the IRS comes knocking, yeah, maybe you want a lawyer, too. But you want the accountant all the time.)
Even so, personally? I'd spend cash on the accountant, rather than making them a founder.
Desktop IT people are important, too- but again, when you are still three people in the garage, do it yourself, or pay the neighbour's kid to do it.
Really, I think having /too much/ lawyer involvement too early can be a problem, too- in many of the ways that having too much desktop IT too early can be a problem. I mean, as your company grows, yes, you will want rules. It's reasonable to then tell people that they need to keep their data on the network drive, and that the desktops will get wiped when they have problems, and in some cases, even, to say that only IT can install programs.
Just like later on, yeah, you want some sort of hiring process to make sure you aren't, you know, discriminating, or just hiring the manager's kid brother or something. But early on? Hell yes, I'm going to give my brother a call when I need something he can do. I trust him; I know what he can do. And yeah, that's not really acceptable once you get going and are a big company. But using your personal network (which is inherently discriminatory) is a pretty big advantage when you are small.
Or hiring contractors. Yeah, at a big company you need to make sure they are on the 'preferred vendor' list or whatever, and that they have this and that certification and insurance. A lawyer will give you 20 good reasons why this is important (and I'm sure those are good reasons.) but when you are small? that will kill you. No; when you are small? yeah, I know someone that knows about ARM-based embedded systems. Let me give her a call, and hire her if she's free.
I mean, yeah, I'm sure there are good reasons for following all the rules all the time, and those become important when you are big. That's what lawyers are for. But, that kind of friction at the beginning? that's going to kill your company.
And I'm not saying lawyers aren't important, either. they can really save your ass. I do think it makes sense to have some sort of relationship with a lawyer, so you have someone to ask questions of, and to go to when you get in trouble. But, personally? I just see so much more risk from screwing up my taxes than from getting sued (I know several people in debt for life because they thought they could do their business taxes themselves. I don't know anyone that has gotten sued that badly, or even if it's possible to get sued that badly.) so I'd spend more on the accountant.
But either way? I don't want the lawyer /or/ the accountant involved in my day to day operations, at least not until I'm a whole lot larger.