[Column] How to Make Effective Lawyer Requests: Information Sharing Determines Success

2026-01-29

✅ Key Takeaways

📋 Specifying your “position, background, and priorities” when requesting contract reviews enables lawyers to respond much faster and more accurately
📤 Sharing the version you sent to the counterparty after the review makes counter-proposal responses smoother
📝 Creating engagement letters is mandated by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ Basic Rules on Duties of Practicing Attorneys; lawyers who don’t propose this should raise concerns
💡 Lawyers are “risk translators,” and information sharing with clients produces high-quality work products

Table of Contents

Introduction

This article explains how to request legal services from lawyers from a practical perspective.

Recently, I received a brief email from a first-time client that simply said, “Please review this contract draft.” With only this information, I couldn’t determine how to proceed with the review, so it took several email exchanges before I could actually begin the review. This experience inspired me to write this article.

When requesting legal work from a lawyer, how you make the request significantly affects the quality of the work product and response speed. Even when requesting the same work from the same lawyer, the results can differ depending on how you make the request.

In my daily practice handling various requests, I encounter cases where I feel “this client provides accurate information and is very easy to work with,” and cases like the above example where “information is insufficient and multiple confirmation exchanges are necessary.” In the former case, lawyers can work efficiently, ultimately providing cost-effective services to clients.

This article focuses primarily on contract review requests, explaining request methods that lawyers find “easy to work with” and practical techniques for clients to get better results. I will also touch upon the surprisingly unknown obligation to create engagement letters.

Differences Between Problematic and Helpful Requests

The Essential Difference Between “Hands-Off” and “Information-Providing” Requests

Lawyer requests generally fall into two patterns:

❌ Hands-Off Request

"Please review this contract"
(Attached file only, no background information)

✅ Information-Providing Request

"Please review this service agreement with Company X.
We are the service provider and this is our first transaction with them.
Since they are a large company, we would like to keep modifications moderate.
We are particularly concerned about the liability clause and intellectual property ownership."

What’s the difference? The latter request includes the following information that lawyers need first:

Your position in the transaction (client/vendor, buyer/seller, etc.)
Relationship with counterparty (first transaction, existing customer, power dynamics, etc.)
Priorities (seeking zero risk or looking for practical compromise?)
Particular concerns (client’s areas of interest)

With this information, lawyers can accurately understand the client’s intent and provide precise advice.

Why Request Quality Determines Work Product Quality

Lawyers are legal experts, but they are not experts in your business. Industry customs, transaction background, and internal decision-making processes need to be explained by clients.

When information is insufficient, lawyers may face the following situations:

Overly cautious reviews that propose impractical modifications
Missing points that clients truly care about
Multiple rounds of follow-up questions, consuming time and costs
Unable to provide appropriate advice on counter-proposals due to lack of context

Conversely, with sufficient information, lawyers can appropriately assess legal risks while respecting clients’ business judgments. This is why “request quality determines work product quality.”

Complete Guide to Contract Review Requests

Contract review is one of the most frequent requests in corporate legal practice. Here, I explain truly practical request methods.

Information to Provide When Making Requests

Clarifying Position and Background

The first information needed for contract review is your position:

Are you the seller or buyer?
Are you the client or service provider?
Are you the lender or borrower?

Even for the same contract, the points requiring attention differ completely depending on position.

The following background information is also important:

Transaction history (new transaction or continuing relationship?)
Power dynamics with counterparty (equal relationship or counterparty dominant?)
Past trouble experience (have similar transactions had problems?)

For example, if you provide information that “this is a first transaction with a large company counterparty,” the lawyer understands that “overly aggressive modifications might risk losing the deal entirely” and can provide advice considering practical balance.

Communicating Priorities

Various approaches exist for contract reviews:

Perfectionist approach (identify all risks, aim for zero risk)
Practical approach (point out only critical risks, keep modifications moderate)
Speed-priority approach (tight time constraints, check only important points)

Which approach is appropriate depends on the case. Lawyers cannot provide appropriate reviews without knowing client priorities.

Examples of effective communication:

"The deadline is approaching, so please point out only critical risks"
"We plan to continue transactions, so please be somewhat cautious in the review"
"The transaction amount is large, so please examine the details thoroughly"

Sharing risk tolerance is also important. All contracts involve some risk, but “what level of risk is acceptable” is a business judgment for clients.

By conveying policies like “we don’t seek zero risk” or “we accept risks within practically reasonable ranges,” lawyers can provide realistic advice.

Requesting Modification Approaches

In contract reviews, “how much to modify” is also an important judgment point.

Background of “Please Don’t Change Too Much” Requests

For example, the following circumstances might exist:

The counterparty prepared a standard contract, and major modifications are unlikely to be accepted
Oral agreements already exist with the counterparty, and the contract reflects those
The trust relationship with the counterparty is valued, and excessive legal assertions should be avoided

Sharing such background enables lawyers to propose not “comprehensive rewrites” but rather “minimum necessary modifications.”

It’s also effective to clearly distinguish:

Non-negotiable points (clauses that must be modified)
Negotiable points (clauses that can be conceded if counterparty won’t accept)
Desirable but optional points (would like to add but can tolerate without)

With this information, lawyers can present modification proposals with prioritization.

The following is a point not often discussed in other articles.

After receiving review comments from a lawyer, clients examine them, create a modified version, and send it to the counterparty.

What’s important here is sharing the version you sent to the counterparty with your lawyer as well.

Why is this important? When a counter-proposal (modification proposal) comes back from the counterparty, the lawyer needs to know:

Which modifications the lawyer pointed out were reflected
Which modifications the lawyer pointed out were declined
Whether the client added any independent modifications

By sharing the sent version in advance, when a counter-proposal arrives, the lawyer only needs to check the differences from the sent version, making analysis much faster.

The ideal flow looks like this:

📁 Contract Version Management Flow

Step 1: Original draft received from counterparty (v1) → Send to lawyer for review

Step 2: Lawyer's commented version → Client considers

Step 3: Version sent to counterparty (v2) → Also share with lawyer ★Important★

Step 4: Counter-proposal from counterparty (v3) → Send to lawyer

→ By sharing v2, differences with v3 are immediately clear,
  making it obvious "which modifications were accepted/rejected"

When sharing the sent version with your lawyer, the following information is additionally helpful.

Example status report:

"I sent the contract we discussed to the counterparty.
Attached is the sent version.

【Implementation Status】
- Your suggested liability cap addition → Implemented (Article 10)
- Extension of confidentiality period to 5 years → Implemented (Article 15)
- Addition of termination grounds → Declined (considering relationship with counterparty)

If there's a counter-proposal, I'll consult with you again."

With this type of report, lawyers can understand:

Which modifications the client deemed important
Reasons for declining modifications (business judgment)
What should be done next

Examples of Faster Counter-Proposal Response

Comparing cases without and with sent version sharing:

❌ Case Without Sent Version Sharing

Counter-proposal received
→ Lawyer reviews entire document to find what changed
→ Cross-references with original review comments
→ Time-consuming

✅ Case With Sent Version Sharing

Counter-proposal received
→ Lawyer checks only differences from sent version
→ Immediate analysis and advice
→ Speedy response

In my experience, cases where clients share sent versions often complete counter-proposal responses in less than half the usual time. This provides cost benefits for clients as well.

Comparing Specific Request Email Examples

Let’s look at actual request email examples based on the above content.

❌ Poor Example

Subject: Contract Review Request

Mr./Ms. Attorney

Thank you for your continued support.
Please review this contract.

Attached file: contract.pdf

With this request, the lawyer needs to confirm:

What type of transaction is this contract for?
What is the client’s position?
How urgent is this?
Are there any particular concerns?

This results in a question email from the lawyer, consuming time.

⭕ Acceptable Example

Subject: Service Agreement Review Request

Mr./Ms. Attorney

Thank you for your continued support.

Please review this service agreement with Company X.
We are the service provider.
I'm particularly concerned about the liability clause.

Best regards,

Attached file: Service_Agreement_CompanyX_draft.pdf

While information is still lacking, minimum information is provided. However, the lawyer would like more information to provide more accurate advice.

✅ Best Example (Initial Request)

Subject: [URGENT] Service Agreement Review Request (Company X)

Mr./Ms. Attorney

Thank you for your continued support.

Please review this service agreement with Company X.

【Background】
- We are the service provider receiving work from Company X
- This is a first-time transaction partner with a good reputation
- Since they are a large company (over 1,000 employees),
  we would like to keep modifications as moderate as possible

【Schedule】
- They have requested to conclude the contract within next week
- Due to the approaching deadline, identifying only critical risks would be helpful

【Particular Concerns】
- Liability clause (Article 10): No cap is set, which seems risky
- Intellectual property ownership (Article 8): All rights to deliverables belong to the counterparty

【Modification Approach】
- We would like to avoid comprehensive rewrites
- We want to minimize additional clauses
- We would appreciate practical modification proposals for the above two points

Thank you very much.

Attached file: 20260127_Service_Agreement_CompanyX_v1_original.pdf

With this request, the lawyer can immediately begin the review without additional questions. Understanding the client’s priorities, the lawyer can present modification proposals conscious of “practically reasonable compromises.”

Subject: [REPORT] Sent Company X Contract (Sent Version Shared)

Mr./Ms. Attorney

Thank you for your continued support.

I sent the service agreement you reviewed to Company X today.
Please find the sent version attached.

【Implementation Status】
- Your suggested liability cap setting → Implemented (added to Article 10)
  Set cap as "within contract amount"

- Extension of confidentiality period (3 to 5 years) → Implemented (modified Article 15)

- Addition of termination grounds → Declined
  Reason: Considering relationship with counterparty, decided not to assert strongly in initial transaction

- Intellectual property ownership → Partially implemented (modified Article 8)
  While deliverable rights belong to counterparty, added rights for us to use in portfolio

Company X's counter-proposal is expected within next week.
I will consult with you then.

Best regards,

Attached file: 20260128_Service_Agreement_CompanyX_v2_sent_version.pdf

With this type of report, the lawyer enters the following state:

Can understand client’s decision-making process
Can prepare for next counter-proposal response
Can analyze counter-proposal while grasping differences from sent version

Effective Request Methods for Other Cases

Effective request methods also exist for cases other than contract reviews.

Contract Drafting Requests

When we are creating a contract rather than reviewing one provided by the counterparty, the following information is helpful:

Template availability (do you have templates of similar past contracts?)
Trade practices (are there industry-specific customs or terminology?)
Prioritized clauses (what matters require particularly detailed provisions?)
Counterparty attributes (individual or corporation? What scale?)

Rather than lawyers creating contracts from scratch, modifying based on templates often produces contracts more aligned with actual practice.

Litigation Consultations

For litigation and dispute consultations, chronological organization is most important:

When did what happen?
What exchanges occurred?
What evidence exists?

Prioritizing evidence is also effective. Rather than providing all materials, indicating “this is particularly important evidence” helps lawyers efficiently grasp cases.

Advisory Consultations

For daily consultations with retained lawyers, sharing question background and intent is important.

Effective communication examples:

"This question is necessary confirmation for proceeding with XX business"
"I'm asking because I want to avoid △△ risk"

Understanding background enables lawyers to present alternatives like “for that purpose, this method is also available.”

Version Management and Document Organization Techniques

In contract exchanges, version management is extremely important. Using appropriate file naming conventions avoids confusion.

Recommended File Naming Convention Examples

The following format is recommended:

Format: Date_ContractType_Counterparty_Version_Status.extension

Examples:
20260127_Service_Agreement_CompanyABC_v1_original.docx
20260128_Service_Agreement_CompanyABC_v2_lawyer_comments.docx
20260129_Service_Agreement_CompanyABC_v3_sent_version.docx
20260205_Service_Agreement_CompanyABC_v4_counter.docx
20260206_Service_Agreement_CompanyABC_v5_final.docx

With this naming, you can tell at a glance:

When the version was created
What status it is (original, commented version, sent version, etc.)
Which is the latest version

Recording Modification History

Using Word’s track changes feature clarifies “what was modified.”

When lawyers review, they generally turn on track changes and add comments. If clients also turn on track changes when creating modified versions, lawyers and counterparties can easily grasp modified portions.

For contract exchanges, using cloud storage (Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, etc.) is effective beyond email attachments.

Especially when multiple versions exist, storing all versions in a cloud shared folder avoids situations like “where was that version?”

Common Traits of Clients Lawyers Find “Easy to Work With”

From my experience working with many clients, clients that lawyers find “easy to work with” share common traits.

Speed of Response

Clients who respond promptly when lawyers have questions or need confirmation allow cases to proceed smoothly.

Of course, immediate responses aren’t always possible. Even in such cases, simply saying “confirmation will take time, so I’ll respond by [date]” helps lawyers plan their schedules.

When you share background on “why this decision was made,” lawyers can understand your decision-making process and apply it to future advice.

For example, if you declined a modification proposal the lawyer suggested, explaining the reason (e.g., “considering relationship with counterparty” or “couldn’t get internal approval”) helps consider the next approach.

Process Transparency

As emphasized in this article with “sharing sent versions,” maintaining process transparency is very important.

By knowing what clients are doing, lawyers can provide appropriate advice at appropriate times. Conversely, in situations where “the contract was concluded before we knew it,” lawyers have no way to be involved.

Attitude of Asking Honestly About Unknowns

Clients who honestly ask “I don’t understand this, please explain” about legal terminology or complex clauses can ultimately avoid troubles.

Lawyers explain assuming clients understand, but understanding may actually be insufficient. Saying “I don’t quite understand this part” enables lawyers to explain more carefully.

Specificity of Feedback

After case completion, feedback on “how was this response” helps lawyers improve future services.

Candid feedback like “I wanted faster response” or “I wanted more detailed explanation” is valuable information for lawyers.

Request Patterns That Consume More Cost and Time (Patterns to Avoid)

Conversely, the following patterns tend to consume cost and time.

Information Trickling

A pattern where initially saying “just a simple review is fine,” but later “actually, there’s this circumstance…” and additional information emerges.

Since lawyers reviewed based on initial information, when important information emerges later, the review needs to be redone.

The countermeasure is providing detailed background information as possible at initial request.

The pattern of not sharing the sent version emphasized in this article.

When only counter-proposals are suddenly sent after receiving lawyer review comments without sharing how you responded, lawyers cannot grasp the process and analysis takes time.

The countermeasure is sharing sent versions and negotiation progress with your lawyer.

Frequent Policy Changes

A pattern where initially saying “as moderate as possible” but later “please assert strongly after all.”

Of course, policies may change depending on circumstances. In such cases, explaining “why the policy changed” helps lawyers respond.

The countermeasure is explaining reasons for policy changes.

Ambiguous “Make It Perfect” Demands

Though rare, requests to “review perfectly” appear clear but are actually ambiguous.

The definition of “perfect” varies by person. Making all risks zero is impossible, and overly cautious reviews may be impractical.

The countermeasure is clarifying priorities rather than “perfection.”

No Response After Delegating to Lawyer

A pattern with no response to questions or confirmations after delegating to a lawyer.

Without client instructions, lawyers cannot proceed to the next step. Long periods without response stall cases.

The countermeasure is maintaining responsiveness, or if difficult, communicating “confirmation will take time.”

Engagement Letters Are Mandatory (Duty Under Professional Rules)

Here I touch upon an important point that is surprisingly unknown.

When engaging a lawyer, in principle, you must conclude an engagement agreement in writing. This is a lawyer’s duty stipulated in the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ Basic Rules on Duties of Practicing Attorneys, aimed at protecting clients.

JFBA Basic Rules Article 30

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ Basic Rules on Duties of Practicing Attorneys Article 30 stipulates as follows:

Article 30: When accepting a case, a lawyer must create an engagement letter including matters related to attorney fees. However, when circumstances make creating an engagement letter difficult, it shall be created after such circumstances cease.
2. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, when the accepted case involves legal consultation, simple document preparation, or matters based on advisory contracts or other continuing contracts, or when other reasonable grounds exist, creating an engagement letter is not required.

In other words, responses like “verbal agreement is fine” or “we have a trust relationship so no need for a contract” constitute rule violations.

What to Do If Engagement Letter Creation Isn’t Proposed

If a lawyer doesn’t mention creating an engagement letter, clients should confirm.

Effective confirmations:

"When can I receive the engagement letter?"
"I would like to confirm the contract content in writing"

Be cautious if the lawyer responds with:

“No need for such formalities”
“We’ve had a long relationship”
“We can settle costs later”

These may constitute rule violations and increase future trouble risks.

Items to Confirm in Engagement Letters

Engagement letters should at minimum clearly state:

1. Scope of Engagement

Clarify what will be done and to what extent. For litigation, confirm the level (first instance only? Through appeal?).

2. Attorney Fees

Confirm retainer and success fee amounts and payment timing, hourly rates for hourly billing, and handling of expenses and per diem.

For contract review, lawyer fee market rates are generally 50,000-200,000 yen for standard contracts (varies with transaction amount, contract volume, whether negotiation is included).

3. Termination Conditions

Confirm whether client-initiated termination is possible and cost settlement methods in such cases.

4. Reporting Obligations

Confirm progress report frequency and methods.

5. Contract Termination and Withdrawal Conditions

Confirm under what circumstances lawyers can withdraw.

Benefits of Having Engagement Letters

Engagement letters benefit both clients and lawyers.

Client Benefits:

Cost predictability
Clarity of work scope
Evidence in case of troubles

Lawyer Benefits:

Clarity of work scope (preventing unlimited demands)
Basis for fee claims
Future dispute prevention

In other words, both parties benefit.

Practical Considerations

Caution is needed regarding cases where engagement letters don’t arrive after verbal engagement.

After consultations or initial meetings where you agree to “proceed,” formal engagement doesn’t exist until engagement letters are sent.

Recommended flow:

1. Initial consultation
2. Quotation and approach presentation
3. Engagement letter execution ← Formal engagement here
4. Retainer payment
5. Work commencement

If work has begun without a contract, clearly request “please provide the engagement letter.”

Exceptional Cases

In the following cases, simplified documentation may be permitted:

Only simple legal consultation (not continuing work engagement)
Extremely urgent cases where contracts are promptly created later

However, even in these cases, documentation should follow afterward.

Actual Disciplinary Cases

In fact, cases exist where lawyers received disciplinary action due to not creating engagement letters and not clearly explaining costs, leading to client troubles.

This is not merely “industry custom” but a professional rule that must be observed.

Lawyer’s Honest Opinion

I personally consider engagement letter creation the first step in client trust relationships.

Clarifying “what will be done to what extent” prevents expectation mismatches. Showing costs in writing allows clients to engage with confidence. If misunderstandings occur, contracts allow calm verification.

Not “contracts are impersonal” but rather “contracts enable secure engagement”—this is a healthy professional relationship.

Mindset for “Utilizing” Lawyers

Finally, I discuss mindsets for better relationships with lawyers.

Lawyers Are “Risk Translators” and “Companions”

I consider lawyers’ role to be translating legal risks into language clients can understand.

Explaining “what contract clauses legally mean” and “what risks exist,” and providing materials for clients to make business judgments, is lawyers’ work.

And lawyers are clients’ companions. Understanding clients’ businesses and aiming for goals together as partners.

As repeatedly stated in this article, information sharing is the most important element in collaboration with lawyers.

You may feel “conveying information takes time,” but this is investment. Taking time initially to share information smooths later processes, ultimately saving time and costs.

Business Judgment Client-Led, Legal Judgment Lawyer-Led

Lawyers are legal experts, but clients are business experts.

Business judgments like “should we proceed with the transaction despite this risk” should be client-led. Lawyers provide legal information necessary for that judgment.

Conversely, legal judgments like “what legal effect does this clause have” should be lawyer-led.

Understanding this role division enables more effective collaboration.

Benefits of Building Long-term Relationships

I recommend building long-term relationships with lawyers rather than one-off engagements.

Working continuously with the same lawyer enables deeper business understanding and more precise advice. Clients also understand lawyers’ styles, smoothing communication.

While retainer agreements are one method, even without them, building relationships where “I consult this lawyer for anything” offers significant long-term benefits.

Conclusion

This article explained request methods to lawyers, focusing particularly on contract reviews, with practical techniques.

Reconfirming Key Points

Key points to reconfirm:

Information provision at request: Clarifying position, background, and priorities is important
Sharing sent versions: Sharing versions sent to counterparties with lawyers makes counter-proposal responses significantly smoother
Version management: Using appropriate file naming conventions avoids confusion
Information sharing investment effect: Initial time investment smooths later processes
Lawyers are companions: Building relationships where information is mutually shared as collaborative work is important
Creating engagement letters: Mandated by JFBA Basic Rules on Duties of Practicing Attorneys; lawyers not proposing this may be in rule violation

Clients and Lawyers Are Equal Partners

Relationships between lawyers and clients are not “hierarchical” but equal partnerships.

Clients as business experts and lawyers as legal experts bring together respective expertise, aiming for best results.

For this, communication quality determines everything. Practicing methods introduced in this article makes collaboration with lawyers more effective, ultimately leading to “beneficial requests.”

Next Topic Preview

Next time, I will address “How to Choose the Right Lawyer,” explaining points for selecting lawyers and important matters to confirm before contracting.

I will particularly touch upon checklists to confirm in initial consultations, determining communication style compatibility, and differences by firm size. Please look forward to it.