Can a solicitor dismiss the paragraph “It is anticipated …” as meaningless?

I cannot think it right as a matter of law that the solicitor can dismiss the paragraph “It is anticipated …” as if it were meaningless and overridden either by the paragraph in which the hourly rates are set out or by the paragraph in which the criteria of Yule v. Saskatoon are set out. If, as a matter of construction, the hourly rate paragraph or the Yule paragraph destroys the prediction paragraph, the instrument is inherently contradictory and it would follow that, although a solicitor who is advising a client on a contract with a third party would be a fool if he allowed his client to execute an inherently contradictory instrument, he is nonetheless able to do so when he is the contracting party.