Loading…
4
A senior partner told me my engagement letters were too vague after a client dispute last fall
He was right. I had been using the same template for years. A client refused to pay for extra research I did on a regulatory change that came up mid project. I thought it was covered under "additional services" but the partner pointed out it wasn't spelled out clearly enough. I rewrote the whole thing to list specific scenarios like mid project law changes and what they cost. It felt picky at first but I haven't had a payment fight since. Has anyone else had to tighten up their scope language after a disagreement?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
danielowens2mo ago
Didn't you used to think detailed scope language was just lawyer overkill? lol. I was totally the same until I got burned on a project where the client assumed extra revisions were included. It sucked but now I get why people spell everything out.
6
margaret5512mo ago
Haha yeah I used to roll my eyes at scope language too. Now I'm the one adding bullet points like a maniac lol. It's literally just protecting yourself from the "oh I thought that was included" conversation. One time I had a client try to add three extra rounds of revisions after we agreed on two. Never again. Learned that lesson the hard way. Better to look a little paranoid upfront than fight for your payment later.
4
the_rose2mo ago
Wait, you actually said that once? omg @danielowens that's gold. Getting burned by a client who expects infinite revisions is basically a rite of passage.
2