>>70955186Genuinely what scandal? A non-practicing lawyer reviewing a template of a contract that has no practical value? It's nuts that people are so up in arms about this when the first takeaway should be
>Holy fuck this guy is a terrible lawyerI mean how the fuck do you review a legal document without authenticating it first? You're pretending to be a fucking lawyer and you don't even get that right?
>It'll never hold up in court!What court? The contract isn't even specified to any actual court, how is this even something people are taking seriously?
>It's a slave contract!It's a franchise. Did you somehow sleep through both economics and civics?
