Entrepreneurs value speed and pragmatism. Lawyers aim for perfection. Entrepreneurs make bad lawyers, and vice-versa.

Entrepreneurs are always in a hustle: There is never enough time to get everything done. And just when you think that you are seeing the end of your to-do list for today, you can be sure that a new, unforeseen issue lands on your desk. But the world doesn’t wait for your backlog to clear, so there is just one strategy: Imperfection.

Get stuff done, fast

You will have to cut corners to get everything done on time. But it’s better to have an imperfect solution on time than a pixel-perfect solution too late.

Don’t get me wrong: Working with imperfect solutions doesn’t mean having low ambitions. All those who have worked with me know that I have an unstoppable desire to build good solutions and bold ambitions for the future. But very often, building good solutions takes a lot of steps and lots of time — with each step being an imperfect improvement towards the future grand solution.

Clash of worlds

Enter lawyers.

Spoiler: This isn’t a lawyer-bashing. I respect everyone who has high professional standards, irrespective of their profession. But when I deal with our lawyers, my pragmatism and push for fast but imperfect solutions often clash with lawyers’ attitude of putting down every detail for every possible event. “Let’s cross the bridge when we get there” is a phrase I use constantly, but it doesn’t fit into most lawyers’ universe.

Here is a real-life story from Yonder, the company I co-founded, to illustrate this. Some time ago, we transferred some of our company’s shares from employee shareholders who have left the company. Of course, it makes a ton of sense to engage a lawyer to set up the share purchase agreement. You want it to be in line with your shareholders’ agreement, and you want to be sure that a share transfer cannot be contested in the future, for example in the event of a meaningful exit.

That’s what we did, we set up the share purchase agreement, signed it, and thought the deed was done.

A few months later, the issue popped up again, because our lawyers wanted a retrospective circular board resolution approving the share transfer. I asked why this was needed, as the share transfer was already done and all the board members had signed the share purchase agreements. The lawyer answered that strictly speaking, we don’t need it, but it would still be good to do it for everything to be neat and clear.

Imperfection meets perfection. Nothing to add.

“What’s the worst possible outcome?”

All those who know me will confirm that the occasions I truly haven’t anything to add are rare.

So even though there was nothing to add, I asked: “What’s the worst possible outcome if we don’t set up this retrospective circular board resolution?” The lawyer answered that it might be possible that we would have to set up the retrospective circular board resolution at the closing of an eventual exit. I said: Let’s cross the bridge when we get there.

The lawyer wasn’t happy.

I told my board about this episode. We have some very experienced investors and entrepreneurs on our board who have seen many exits in their careers. One of our board members said: “I have never witnessed an exit event where we didn’t have to sign some documents retrospectively.”

It looks like I’m not alone in my worldview.