Comments on: Are Law-Firm Contract-Drafting Services a Commodity?

By: Ken Adams

Ken Adams — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:20:56 +0000

Bart: Document assembly certainly does face other obstacles. I tried to limit this post to the point raised in Rees’s post, which I think was limited to the issue of commoditization. My reference in the post to “companies and law firms that otherwise would be good candidates for document assembly” was my way of cryptically acknowledging that other factors come into play. I discuss those factors in the introduction to the second edition of my book. Ken

By: Bart Earle

Bart Earle — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:54:18 +0000

Less than optimal contract language is a barrier to implementing document assembly. Automating drafting requires that lawyers come face to face with the inadequacies in their existing forms. However, there are other formidable barriers, as well. These barriers, not shortcomings of technology, have been and continue to be the major impediment (we have had excellent techonology for many years). At the top of the list I would put a lack of incentives for law firms to adopt document assembly. Lawyers are not facing the kind of pressure to change that would drive them to make the investment of time and money required. That’s Rees’ point as well, I believe.

By: Art Markham

Art Markham — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:52:25 +0000

I also agree. Some contracts genuinely require no input other than the variables, and software that both reduces costs and produces safer and better drafted contracts is not hard to envisage. Given its non-prevalence, perhaps it is harder to execute than conceive.

In some areas where contracts are non-negotiated (e.g. contracts documenting repetitive intra-group financing in banks), in-house departments do already see contract drafting as commodotised, and expect (and receive) consistent, fixed fees to reflect it. However, there will always be some value on the working relationship and on the smoothness of service provided, so it is never entirely about cost. But I think this goes for any commodotised market to a greater or lesser degree, so law would not be unique in that regard.

By: Terence Lee

Terence Lee — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:42:44 +0000

I agree with your argument. Document assembly should commoditize that which should be commoditized and allows attorneys to focus on that which should never be commoditized.

By: Cheryl Stephens

Cheryl Stephens — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:03:24 +0000

I have been saying, for nearly 20 years, that you save time and money in converting to document assembly programs if you convert to plain language first.

You can avoid having so many variables in document packages. You can simplify and make consistent the sentence structures. Simplify a document assembly by simplifying the documents themselves.

Computerized plain-language precedent systems provide greater uniformity of service, confidence in the product and a greater sense of security.