You receive a Master Service Agreement from your largest potential client. The email says "this is our standard template" and asks you to review and return it signed. You open the document—thirty pages of dense legal language with familiar-sounding headings.
Nothing jumps out as obviously problematic. The sections on payment, deliverables, and termination all seem reasonable enough. You've signed similar agreements before.
So you make a decision: you'll handle this internally rather than paying a lawyer to review it.
This is the exact moment when most contract problems begin. Not from obviously bad terms or malicious intent, but from a simple assumption: "It looks fine, so it probably is fine."
The question isn't whether your MSA exists. It's whether it works—for you, for your business model, and for the specific risks you face. Most businesses discover the answer to that question when something goes wrong and it's too late to negotiate better terms.
Here's what a lawyer review actually does, when it's worth the investment, and what happens when you skip it.
Lawyer review isn't about perfection or rewriting every clause. It's about identifying where the Master Service Agreement creates risk and whether that risk aligns with your business reality.
Most reviews focus on six core areas where MSA problems typically hide:
Ownership and IP Clarity: Does the MSA clearly define who owns what you create? Are your proprietary tools and methodologies protected, or does broad language transfer them to the client? Work-for-hire provisions and "in connection with" language can capture far more intellectual property than intended.
Liability Caps and Carve-Outs: Is your liability limited to a reasonable multiple of fees, or are certain categories exempt from caps? Indemnification provisions often sit outside liability limitations, creating unlimited exposure for specific claim types.
Indemnification Scope: Are you defending the client against "claims arising from your services" or "claims relating to the services"? That two-word difference determines whether you're liable only for direct damages you caused or for any claim tangentially connected to your work.
Jurisdiction and Enforceability: If disputes arise, where do they get resolved and under which state's laws? Choice of law and forum selection clauses can force you into unfavorable jurisdictions far from your business location.
Alignment Between MSA and SOWs: Does the master agreement work smoothly with how you actually structure projects? If your MSA requires written SOWs but allows verbal work orders, you have no paper trail proving scope boundaries.
Termination and Payment Triggers: Can the client terminate immediately while you're locked in for 90 days? Is payment contingent on completion, or are you protected if they terminate mid-project?
The goal isn't to eliminate all risk—every business relationship involves some level of exposure. The goal is to understand exactly what you're agreeing to so you can make an informed decision about whether the opportunity justifies the terms.
Not every Master Service Agreement justifies the time and expense of professional review. A short-term, low-value engagement with a trusted partner might be perfectly safe to execute after basic internal review.
But certain circumstances dramatically increase the value of getting legal eyes on your contract before you sign:
Using a "Standard" or Inherited MSA: When a client hands you their template with language like "this is what we use with all vendors," that's a signal. Standard MSAs are typically refined over time to protect whoever drafted them. They're not neutral starting points—they're battle-tested instruments designed to shift risk away from the drafting party.
Operating Across Multiple States: If you're providing services to clients in different states, jurisdiction matters. Some MSA provisions that work perfectly in one state create problems in another. Non-compete clauses enforceable in Texas might be void in California.
Review helps ensure your MSA won't create unexpected enforceability issues.
Hiring Contractors or Freelancers: If you'll use the MSA as a vendor but plan to subcontract work to others, the flow-down obligations matter enormously. Your MSA's insurance requirements, indemnification duties, and IP warranties all need to align with what your contractors can actually deliver.
Scaling Revenue or Client Size: An MSA that worked fine when you were a $500K business can create devastating exposure at $5M. As relationships grow, the financial stakes of termination provisions, liability caps, and payment terms multiply. What was acceptable risk at smaller scale becomes existential exposure as you grow.
Relying Heavily on SOWs: If your business model involves executing dozens of Statements of Work under a single MSA, every problematic provision compounds across multiple projects. A bad indemnification clause doesn't just create one problem—it creates exposure on every single SOW you execute over the relationship's lifetime.
These situations share a common thread: the cost of getting it wrong significantly exceeds the cost of review. When your MSA governs a relationship worth six or seven figures, or when it creates legal obligations that extend for years, spending $1,500 on professional review is cheap insurance.
Most businesses don't consciously choose to accept contract risk. They make reasonable-sounding assumptions that turn out to be wrong. Here are the four we hear most often—and why each one is dangerous:
"It hasn't been a problem yet"
Many companies operate under MSAs for months or years without issues. Projects get completed, invoices get paid, everyone is happy. This creates a false sense of security.
The problem is that MSA risks are latent—they don't reveal themselves until something triggers them.
A design agency worked with a client for eighteen months without incident. Then the client's leadership changed, the new CMO wanted different vendors, and she invoked the MSA's immediate termination clause. The agency discovered too late that they had no protection for work in progress and lost $130K in unbilled time.
The MSA worked fine—until it didn't.
"Our template is industry standard"
Just because language is common doesn't mean it's safe. "Industry standard" often means "this is what larger parties have successfully gotten smaller parties to accept." Unlimited indemnification for claims "relating to" your services might be standard, but it's also dangerous.
The fact that other vendors accepted these terms doesn't make them reasonable—it just makes them normalized.
"We'll deal with issues if they come up"
This assumes you'll have leverage to renegotiate terms when problems arise. In reality, once you've signed the MSA and started work, your leverage is gone. The client has no incentive to amend terms that favor them, especially if a dispute has already surfaced.
Your only negotiating power exists before you sign—after that, you're bound by whatever the contract says.
"The SOW handles the details"
Many businesses focus their attention on individual Statements of Work because that's where the project specifics live. But SOWs operate under the MSA's umbrella terms. Your SOW might perfectly define scope and deliverables, but if the MSA says the client owns all IP "created in connection with the services," you're still transferring your proprietary tools regardless of what the SOW says.
The core insight here is simple: silence in a contract is still a decision—it's just not yours. When your MSA doesn't explicitly protect you, it's implicitly exposing you. And that exposure compounds every time you execute a new SOW.
💡 Think About This:
Most MSA issues aren't obvious on the surface. They hide in provisions that sound reasonable until they're triggered by termination, disputes, or claims. Review equals clarity, not confrontation. Knowing exactly where you stand is the advantage—not discovering your exposure after you've already committed.
The consequences of skipping MSA review aren't hypothetical. They're predictable patterns that play out across thousands of business relationships every year.
Disputes Escalate Faster
When your MSA doesn't clearly define obligations, scope boundaries, and acceptance criteria, minor disagreements become major conflicts. A client's dissatisfaction with one deliverable morphs into a dispute about whether you fulfilled your entire contract. Without clear terms governing what constitutes acceptable work, every discussion becomes adversarial.
Weaker Negotiation Position
If problems emerge after you've signed, you're negotiating from weakness. The client has the contractual advantage and zero incentive to give it up. Your only leverage at that point is threatening to walk away—but if the relationship represents significant revenue, that threat isn't credible.
You're stuck accepting unfavorable terms or risking the entire relationship.
Uncertainty Around Ownership and Liability
When IP ownership isn't explicitly defined, both parties operate under different assumptions about who owns what. You assume you retain rights to your methodologies and tools. The client assumes they own everything "created during" the engagement.
These conflicting assumptions don't surface until you try licensing your IP elsewhere and the client claims ownership.
Similarly, vague liability and indemnification provisions create uncertainty about your actual exposure. You think you're covered by the $100K liability cap. Then a claim arises and you discover indemnification obligations were carved out from that cap, leaving you with unlimited exposure.
Time and Cost Multiply Under Pressure
Fixing contract problems after signing requires formal amendments, which need legal review, negotiation, and mutual agreement. What could have been addressed in an hour during initial review now takes weeks of back-and-forth and costs multiples more in legal fees. And all of this happens while you're trying to deliver work and maintain the client relationship.
The pattern is consistent: problems that would cost $1,500 to prevent during initial review cost $15,000+ to fix after signing. And some problems—like discovering you've transferred ownership of your core IP—can't be fixed at all.
Get a lawyer-led contract review that identifies hidden liability, ownership gaps, and termination risk — delivered in plain English within 24 hours.
👉 Check My MSA Before I SignInternal contract review has real value. Your team knows your business model, understands your operational needs, and can spot obvious red flags in payment terms, delivery schedules, and project requirements.
But internal reviews consistently miss three categories of risk that lawyers are trained to identify:
What Internal Reviews Can Catch
Your team can identify whether payment terms align with your cash flow needs, whether scope definitions match how you actually work, if deliverable requirements are achievable, whether notice periods for termination are workable, and if insurance requirements are within your current coverage.
These are important business assessments. If your MSA requires net-30 payment but your operating model needs net-15 to maintain cash flow, you should catch that internally.
What Internal Reviews Usually Miss
The difference between "arising from" and "relating to" in indemnification clauses creates vastly different liability exposure, but both sound reasonable without legal training. "Work made for hire" is a technical legal term with specific copyright implications that completely transfer ownership—but it reads like standard contract language to non-lawyers.
Provisions that say indemnification obligations are "excluded from the liability limitations set forth in Section X" look like cross-references. They actually create unlimited exposure for certain claim types. Forum selection and choice of law clauses might seem like administrative details, but they determine where disputes get resolved and can force you into jurisdictions with unfavorable legal standards.
Why External Review Focuses on Enforceability and Exposure
Lawyer review isn't about making contracts "perfect" or eliminating every conceivable risk. It's about understanding two specific questions: Will this provision actually do what you think it does? And what's your worst-case exposure if things go wrong?
A good lawyer review identifies provisions that might not hold up in court, spots gaps between what you think you agreed to and what the language actually says, flags terms that create disproportionate exposure relative to the relationship value, and clarifies which risks are business decisions (you can choose to accept them) versus legal mistakes (you're agreeing to something you don't realize).
Most importantly: review doesn't equal rewrite. Many MSAs come back from legal review with targeted edits to 5-10 specific provisions, not wholesale redrafting. The goal is risk clarity, not contract perfection.
Not every MSA review results in red flags and negotiation points. Sometimes professional review confirms that your contract actually does protect you—and that outcome has real business value.
Validation Is a Win
When a lawyer reviews your MSA and says "this is balanced and workable," you gain certainty. You know you're not missing hidden landmines. You can execute SOWs confidently, understanding your actual exposure.
That peace of mind has tangible value—you're not operating under nagging worry that you've accepted terms you don't fully understand.
Confidence Improves Negotiations
When you know your MSA is solid, you can negotiate project-specific terms from a position of strength. You're not second-guessing whether to push back on scope changes or payment timing because you understand exactly what your master agreement says. This confidence prevents you from accepting unfavorable SOW terms out of uncertainty about your baseline protection.
Clean MSAs Move Faster
When both parties operate under a well-drafted MSA, project execution becomes smoother. Disputes don't escalate because the framework for resolution is clear. SOWs get signed faster because the legal foundation is already established.
Clean master agreements reduce friction across the entire relationship.
Review Often Results in Minor Adjustments
Many lawyer reviews identify one or two targeted improvements rather than wholesale problems. Maybe your indemnification provision needs a liability cap. Perhaps the IP language should explicitly protect your pre-existing tools.
Your termination clause might benefit from pro-rata payment protection.
These aren't deal-breaking issues—they're refinements that close exposure gaps. Most clients accept reasonable amendments when they're framed as mutual protection rather than wholesale renegotiation. The worst outcome from review isn't discovering problems.
The worst outcome is signing a flawed MSA and discovering those problems eighteen months later when you have no leverage to fix them.
Whether you need a fast MSA risk review or ongoing legal support, we’ll help you understand your exposure and your options before you commit.
👉 Review My MSA Before I SignNot all MSAs require lawyer review, but high-value relationships, long-term agreements, or contracts with unlimited liability language should be reviewed. If the MSA governs significant revenue, involves proprietary IP, or includes automatic renewals, professional review helps identify hidden risks before you're bound by unfavorable terms.
Review your MSA before signing, when renewing or extending the term, if your business circumstances change significantly, or when disputes arise that expose gaps in protection. Many companies also conduct periodic reviews every 2-3 years to ensure their MSAs still align with current business practices and legal standards.
MSA review costs vary based on complexity and attorney rates, but typically range from $500-$2,500 for a comprehensive review. This investment is minimal compared to the potential cost of disputes, liability claims, or lost IP rights that can result from problematic MSA provisions. Many firms offer flat-rate contract review services.
SMVRT Legal offers a more accessible starting point. Contract reviews begin at $75, giving businesses a practical way to identify major risk areas, ownership issues, and red flags before deciding whether deeper legal review is needed. For many agreements, this early clarity is enough to confirm whether the MSA is workable—or whether escalation makes sense.
Common MSA risks include one-sided indemnification that creates unlimited liability, vague scope language enabling unpaid work, broad IP transfer capturing proprietary tools, asymmetric termination rights leaving you exposed, and conditional payment terms that delay or prevent compensation. These issues often hide in standard-looking language.
Yes. Lawyer review identifies ambiguous provisions that trigger disputes, clarifies risk allocation before problems arise, and ensures the MSA aligns with how you actually work. Clear contract terms reduce misunderstandings and provide framework for resolving issues without litigation. Review is most valuable before disputes occur.
Should you have a lawyer review your Master Service Agreement? The better question is: Can you afford to discover problems after you've already signed?
Every business relationship involves some level of contractual risk. The issue isn't whether risk exists—it's whether you understand and accept it. A lawyer review isn't about achieving perfect contract terms or eliminating all possible exposure.
It's about making an informed decision with full knowledge of what you're agreeing to.
When you skip review and something goes wrong eighteen months later, your options are limited. You can try negotiating amendments, but you have no leverage. You can document everything meticulously to protect yourself, but the unfavorable terms still apply.
You can evaluate whether continuing the relationship is worth the exposure—but by then you've invested significant time and resources.
Or you can review the MSA before signing, understand exactly where you stand, and make an informed choice about whether the opportunity justifies the terms. This isn't about being risk-averse. It's about being risk-aware.
A lawyer review isn't about fixing mistakes—it's about confirming confidence. Whether that review validates your MSA is balanced or identifies provisions that need negotiation, the outcome is certainty. You know what you're agreeing to, you understand your actual exposure, and you can execute the relationship with clarity rather than nagging uncertainty.
Contracts aren't just legal documents. They're risk tools that define what happens when things don't go according to plan. And review is part of responsible growth—investing time upfront to prevent problems that cost exponentially more to fix later.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Master Service Agreements vary significantly by industry, jurisdiction, and business context. You should consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.
SMVRT Legal is a legal-technology platform that provides contract templates, tools, and access to general legal guidance. Read our full Legal Disclaimer.
Questions about your MSA? Get a free risk assessment to see what you're agreeing to.