I think the main call for using IP lawyers over agents come from the belief that 1) IP lawyers know contract language in a way agents who aren't lawyers won't and 2) they are hired and work directly for author, not for the author and the other party of interest (the publishing house), and in being hired, they take a one-time fee.
I want to know how much is true concerning both points, because only recently (last few years) had I heard information about IP lawyers vs agents.
1) There is an element of truth to this, which is always the path to madness when reading things on the internet. IP attorneys DO know more about contracts than agents. It's just a fact. But most agencies have attorneys
ON STAFF, meaning you get the benefit of the attorney's advice for the same cost. Smaller agencies who don't have staff attorneys generally have them on call, where they can ask questions that come up during the negotiation process.
2) (part 1) Both an IP attorney and an agent work for the author. Neither work for the publisher. To say that an IP attorney is somehow more answerable to an author than an agent is again somewhat misleading. In a perfect world, an agent will always be on the side of the author, but they are also employed by a company with a vested interest in protecting the agency. Quite often, that includes protecting the author. But sometimes, it doesn't. So, in a way, it's correct that an IP attorney will stay with the author longer if the author
is in the wrong. They will advise the author and defend the author who screws up or misinterprets advice the attorney has given. In most cases, an agent will too. But they would likely cut bait if the author endangers the agent, faster than an attorney would.
So, again, an element of truth to muddy the waters.
2) (part 2) As to a "one-time fee". Um, not really. You will seldom get an attorney to accept a flat fee for a contract review or negotiation. It's normally at an hourly rate and I can assure you that my attorney (when required) is FAR more expensive than my agent. Let's use a contract where the author gets an advance of $25,000.00 and never earns another dime on the contract. The agent earns $3,750.00. Total. The IP attorney, on the other hand, charges from $250.00 to $500.00 per hour (mine charges $300.00) for the specialized IP advice they give. The minimum charge for my attorney picking up the file for any reason is a quarter hour (.25). I know enough about contracts to ask him questions about specific clauses. But if I handed him the contract and said, "Tell me whether it's legal," I could wind up with a bill for $5,000.00 or more. And that will happen for each subsidiary right contract, whether or not the deal falls through. The agent charges ONCE and if the sub right fails, there's no charge. They get paid AFTER the deal closes.
So, no. IP attorneys aren't less expensive. They
are
more skilled in contract language but as others have said, IP attorneys have no vested interest in furthering the career of an author.
An attorney will tell you whether it's legal for a publisher to require your next work of fiction to be submitted to them. They won't suggest you limit the fiction to your current genre. They will tell you whether it's legal for the publisher to give you copies of the book when published. They won't suggest how many copies other authors have needed for promo. Etc., etc. There are a million reasons why agents are better than attorneys, and equally as many why attorneys are better. Ultimately, they're better at different things. It's why I have BOTH.