Adams on Contract Drafting

Automated Contract Creation: One Size Does Not Necessarily Fit All

Posted on by

Although I’m committed to helping anyone who’s interested become an informed consumer of contract language, I think it’s self-evident that automated contract creation is the most effective way to scale rigorous contract language. That’s why I continue to discuss automation with my clients.

Some of you might recall that my software of choice is ContractExpress. That remains the case even though Thomson Reuters acquired ContractExpress last year, with my friend and supporter Tim Allen riding off into the sunset.

But companies have other options available to them. More specifically, a popular choice is contract-lifecycle-management software, the sort of product that promises to handle the contract process from cradle to grave. Invariably, contract creation is given short shrift in CLM software, but once a company has already committed to CLM software, it doesn’t do much good to suggest that they revisit that decision for purposes of contract creation. Furthermore, if little customization is required for purposes of a given template, CLM software might be up to the job.

But a company might face a mixed situation. More specifically, I sometimes find myself in separate discussions with two separate groups at a company. Here’s how that can play out:

One of the groups has made a substantial investment in CLM software, so if I were to help them with automation, we’d be using the CLM product. I assume that the same would apply for purposes of my discussions with the other group, but that turns out not to be the case.

My contacts at the second group are familiar with how ContractExpress works—more specifically, they’ve seen what I do with it. They’ve also been given a demo of the CLM product, and they’re not interested.

Whereas the first group handles a high volume of commercial contracts with limited customization, the second group handles a small volume of complex, high-value deals that might involve a lot of customization. In other words, they operate somewhat like a law firm. As such, the fill-in-the-blanks, switch-out-the-paragraphs functionality of the CLM product doesn’t appeal.

They also like ContractExpress’s “Preview” mode, which allows the user to see, in real time, what effect different choices in the questionnaire have on the contract. By contrast, the CLM product is a black box.

How this scenario plays out at a given company depends on a bunch of factors—the economics might or might not allow one company to opt for both technologies. But I recommend that you bear in mind that when it comes to automated contract creation, different groups in a single organization can have very different needs.

Bonus: go here for the article I wrote with Tim Allen, The Illusion of Quality in Contract Drafting.

Do I Eat My Own Dog Food?

Posted on by

It’s not particularly elegant, but the notion of eating your own dog food is a recognized metaphor in the tech world. Here’s how Wikipedia describes it:

Above is part of a post on Contract-Automation Clearinghouse. To see the rest, go here. Contract-Automation Clearinghouse is where I now put my posts on contract automation and related topics.

Some Thoughts on “Bloomberg Law: Corporate Transactions”

Posted on by

Last week I noticed this post on Dewey B Strategic about Bloomberg BNA’s new product “Bloomberg Law: Corporate Transactions. (Gotta love the colon, which gives it an action-movie-sequel vibe.) For Bloomberg BNA’s own announcement, go here.

Above is part of a post on Contract-Automation Clearinghouse. To see the rest, go here. Contract-Automation Clearinghouse is where I now put my posts on contract automation and related topics.

Change: Fast or Slow?

Posted on by

It’s clear what’s required to improve the contract-creation side of a company’s contract process:

  • adopt a style guide for contract language, most likely by means of a “statement of style” (here)
  • train your personnel in drafting and reviewing contracts consistent with the style guide
  • overhaul your templates consistent with the style guide
  • automate your templates, to the extent that deal volume, deal value, and the level of customization required would make it cost-effective to automate

That’s easily said, but it involves challenges. I wrote about them in this post, but since then I’ve thought further about what it takes to accomplish change.

Above is part of a post on Contract-Automation Clearinghouse. To see the rest, go here.

Contract-Automation Clearinghouse is where I now put my posts on contract automation and related topics.

Is There a Downside to Automated Contract Creation?

Posted on by

If you think of yourself as a committed member of the digerati, The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, by Nicholas Carr, might give you pause.

Carr shows that as much as automation enriches our lives, it can also impoverish. For example, he describes how all-encompassing flight automation appears to have resulted in a “deskilling” of pilots, leading to a new type of aviation accident. And how implementing electronic medical records has had all sorts of unintended effects. More generally, he argues that unthinkingly embracing automation risks making us unwitting and complacent cogs in the machine.

Above is part of a post on Contract-Automation Clearinghouse. To see the rest, go here.

Contract-Automation Clearinghouse is where I now put my posts on contract automation and related topics.