First off, Susie, I do mean to congratulate you for looking out for yourself.
Every contract represents an agreement, and to my mind, editing the listing contract is just a negotiation - you (through your attorney) want concessions, your listing broker might want some of their own.
The way I read it, your attorney wants you to be able to back out of a sale and not be liable for a commission, for you to be able to use your broker's marketing to attract a buyer and pay half of the commission, wants you to be able to walk at will from the listing agreement without recourse, and then there's the services bit which is somewhat ambiguous. And in return, you're offering . . . the opportunity to market your property through the listing term without compensation, which is what we normally do.
Anyway. Since I'm not really familiar with the listing contract used in your parts, there are a couple of generalities that I would object to, even if I really wanted to take on the task of marketing your home.
#1. We brokers expect to get paid - at least here in Seattle - for delivering a full price and terms offer to you. Should you reject that offer, we expect to get paid. If you agree on an other than full price and terms offer, and you default on the contract, we expect to get paid.
#3, we don't have a clause like that in our listing agreement, but I'm not sure why I'd want to limit my avenue of recourse necessarily. #4 is funny; some companies will let you walk at will, others won't. I still may insist on having my expenses comped, however.
#5 is interesting, what constitutes a "service?"
#6 is outrageous, and I wouldn't agree to it. Big surprise, a buyer drives by the property and a seller comes out and says, I can save you half the commission! There is a type of listing for that, it is called the "open" listing. Not only that, but our MLS would not accept that clause - cooperating brokers do not want to show properties where the seller may have a buyer in their back pocket (we do have a "prospect exclusion" clause in case you actually already have a buyer in mind, but that's another story.)
#7, at least in Washington State, is just stupid - it's essentially saying, I don't want any of the agents in the listing office to bring me a buyer that they represent. I am fine with my not being a dual agent, but I'm not fine with cutting off a segment of the market.
In closing. You are to be commended, and I wouldn't do it.
All the best,