Thanks @Jesse @cbyrnes - I agree keeping the JDs on a tight leash is probably a good idea. However, there is a practical aspect which remains an issue. Proposals change multiple times from concept to final draft - I maintain that a final review by someone with adequate knowledge and understanding of the legal ramifications needs to happen on the final text. I am not suggesting a full legal opinion, I am suggesting - much like happens when legal input is requested now, that a member of the legal working group have a final read and note anything that may need to be adjusted before public voting.
I agree the basics of Code of Conduct violations, or gross regulatory misalignment (e.g. “I propose we do a token / cocaine swap with the Guadalajara Cartel”) can be easily addressed (and should be) at the initial stages of the governance intake.
3rd party legal review is only in cases where either a) we need specific expertise, or b) we have a Conflict of Interest within the resources available. So for example, I don’t see Withers LLP, or Crokes Fairchild being engaged to review the wording of a dealflow project, but I can see a review of a proposal between VitaDAO and a service provider like Molecule where, despite alignment, there is the potential for conflict of interest.
Otherwise, I would expect the internal resources should be sufficient to do what amounts to a sanity check on the governance.