For Contract Drafting, We Already Have the Technology We Need

It’s Wednesday, January 30. This afternoon I’ll be at LegalTech, in New York, hanging out with the ContractExpress team, at booth 324/6.

But I won’t be on the prowl for technology relating to contract drafting and the contract process, because we already have great technology. Document-assembly software that does everything you could want? Check. Software to monitor every step in the contract process? Check. Software to monitor changes from draft to draft? Check. Software that makes it easier to apply an enumeration scheme to contracts? Check. Software that can tell you exactly what’s in a given set of contracts? Check. Software to check for glitches? Check. Software to facilitate collaboration? Check.

Any new software that comes along might be cheaper or might offer incremental improvements in function. But way more significant are two other issues.

First, only a fraction of the potential market is using the technology that’s available.

And second, what matters most is contract content, and that’s not amenable to a technology solution. To develop a contract template that addresses your needs clearly and concisely, reflects up-to-date law and deal structure, and isn’t unduly risk averse, you need serious expertise, experience, and judgment.

Sure, technology, particularly document-assembly software, is invaluable for purposes of leveraging content. But without content that’s been prepared with rigorous editorial control, you’ve got garbage in, garbage out.

If you’d like to say hi while I’m at LegalTech, contact me.

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.

2 thoughts on “For Contract Drafting, We Already Have the Technology We Need”

  1. Ken:

    Perhaps you should pen a series of posts on how existing technology accomplishes the the individual steps of building better contracts? In other words, let’s show rather than tell so that we may persuade.

    Document-assembly software that does everything you could want? Check. Software to monitor every step in the contract process? Check. Software to monitor changes from draft to draft? Check. Software that makes it easier to apply an enumeration scheme to contracts? Check. Software that can tell you exactly what’s in a given set of contracts? Check. Software to check for glitches? Check. Software to facilitate collaboration? Check.

    Invite developers to the table to debate the technology in order to ensure that the technology (and the methodology) is the best. GitHub is proof that even the brightest minds in software development open their code (read: systems) to discussion, debate, and improvement with the end product being better code and hence better software.

    Unless we address the question of how to effectively and efficiently create the best content we will be trapped in the cycle of garbage in, garbage out. GitHub also serves as a model for us to ensure avoidance of garbage in, garbage out and although I know you are not a fan of crowdsourcing content creation I believe GitHub is some evidence that it would indeed work in our world.

    If you build it will they come? If the right collaborative content-generation system is built will the minds that can ensure that the content is not junk come? I believe so but thus far that system hasn’t been built.

    A provocative post as aways…thanks for being a thought leader at this tipping point in our industry.

    Bradley

    Reply
    • Brad: Over the years I’ve written a series of posts about individual technologies. Writing an overview of each of the different categories of technology would require way too much work, and it would quickly get out of date. But maybe I should do a hyperlinked list of the vendors in different categories.

      The technology that matters most to me is, obviously, document assembly. I’m confident in saying that developers in that field would run from the kind of open discussion you have in mind.

      But more to the point, ContractExpress already does everything—and I mean everything—I need. So I don’t worry about the technology. Any future enhancements they offer will be gravy.

      Your comment ultimately gets back to content. No technology is going to make crowdsourcing more dependable. What’s require for rigorous content is language guidelines and subject-matter experts. Enthusiasm isn’t enough. And unless some company or organization of lawyers is willing to stand behind development of rigorous content, it ain’t happening.

      Hey, no one’s ever called me a thought leader before! Maybe I should take the day off to celebrate …

      Ken

      Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.