Despite my initial cynicism from having dealt with too many lawyers for most of my professional life (and having a number in my family), I actually thought that David and Brad gave a very insightful, even moderately analytical and quantitative talk. Consider the following business case they make -- which granted, makes a few assumptions that one could question -- in how to justify the involvement of counsel based on their definition of value (i.e., "the probability of a benefit multiplied by likely value of the benefit). To wit...
Let's take a contract featuring a clause with a termination for convenience provision for $1MM. Add another clause with a termination for change of control of vendor ($500K). Then make the assumption that there's a 10% change of chance of change of control and a 50% change of wanting to terminate upon such a change. Then do the math: $500K * 10% * 50% = $25,000. For the single clause, the value is roughly $25K based on the assumptions they provided (if you toss tomatoes at the "maths" and the inputs/assumption here, direct them their way -- not mine. I'm just the messenger 😉 Still, assume a cost to the clause of $10K (which is conservative) based on legal time to frame and negotiate as well as delayed implementation of a few days, and you see at least one framework to make the contract lawyers justify their existence.
Still, let's not give legal and contract meddlers a free supply chain pass just yet. Here's your lawyer joke of the day to remember the DNA of these folks: