If both parties feel there is a fit, the client should check the consultant's references. That, Leahy says, should confirm the initial gut feeling that the fit is right. If both of these steps leave a business owner with positive feelings, what gets put down on paper should work, she says. Leahy feels that for small projects, a follow-up letter outlining what is to be delivered, the deadlines and the costs is probably sufficient. That's a hard boundary to define, says Kreitler.
Many projects are too small, in terms of time or dollars, to warrant costly legal scrutiny.
Others involving large sums of money, careful coordination with company teams or other outside consultants, proprietary or confidential information, or missions critical to the company in some other way need to be carefully crafted. Failure to clearly define any one of these elements right from the start increases the potential for dissatisfaction with the consulting relationship. Kreitler points to ownership of any end product, such as a software program or training manual, as an example. Intellectual property laws, however, give ownership to the consultant unless a written contract specifies otherwise. Similarly, consultants need to be free to use their general knowledge on projects for many companies.