I saw discussion on LinkedIn about whether one might use metrics to assess training in contract drafting. Here’s why I think that ain’t happening.
How to Say Clearly and Concisely What You Want to Say in a Contract
First, what’s meant by training in contract drafting? Let’s assume it refers to the kind of training I offer—training in how to say clearly and concisely in a contract whatever you want to say. In other words, training in how to be an informed consumer of contract language. The impact of that kind of training is too broad, too diffuse, and to subject to varied uptake by individuals to allow one to track statistically the effect it has on an organization’s contracts. Even if you assume that an organization is able to accurately track every step in the contract process, there would seem to be no clear basis for attributing any fluctuations to whether the individuals involved are informed consumers of contract language.
You could conceivably use readability tests to assess an organization’s contracts over time, with increases suggesting that the contracts might have become more readable. But readability tests are of marginal use when applied to contracts; see this 2006 blog post. I might do this out of curiosity, but nothing more.
So instead of looking for indirect effects, just assess your contracts! If they exhibit traditional dysfunction, you can confidently assume that you waste time and money at every stage in the contract process, and that you’re exposing the organization to increased risk of dispute. There’s a mountain of anecdotal evidence to that effect, and it’s reckless to ignore it; see this 2024 blog post. Looking instead for some sort of equivalent to a time-and-motion study seems futile. (It brings to mind the old Broadway show and film The Pajama Game, which involves a pajama factory driven by time-and-motion studies. Any excuse for a pic!)
What to Say in a Contract
Maybe what people mean by training is training in what to say in a contract. But it’s unpromising to tackle that in training, if by “training” you mean giving individuals a basis for assessing a circumstance and devising, on their own, how to address it in a contract. There are too many variables to cover, whether your training is live or on-demand, in a conference room or online. And there are too many other sources of guidance—most of it not great—to attribute proficiency, or lack of it, entirely to training.
And more generally, leaving it to organizations to cobble together contract templates through some combination of drafting-by-committee and copy-and-pasting has led to endemic dysfunction. Adding old-fashioned training to the mix won’t change that.
Instead, the best way to address what to say in a contract is through highly customizable automated templates. You present the user with an interview, you offer them guidance, they make their decision, and the system serves up contract language that’s clear, concise, and relevant. (That’s what Adams Contracts is working on.)
The Upshot
Helping people be informed consumers of contract language is valuable, as it helps them navigate the choppy waters of contracts. You won’t be able to measure the effects, but that doesn’t make them any less real. And training in contract substance won’t fix what ails contract templates, so looking to measure the effects of that training seems beside the point.
