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.
Ken,
Inertia and delusion. That’s me.
I’ve always looked askance at this type of application, as from my perspective it is a BigCo or BigFirmLLC type of tool that seeks to push responsibility for drafting down to the lowest common denominator-drafter within such organizations. I work for a SmallCo and while I find it interesting, and certain of my concerns (e.g., security) have been somewhat allayed, I fail to see the point.
I know the moving parts in my well-oiled templates, and it is easy enough to go to my library, pick one, change the moving parts, save, review and send it out to the other side. How can paying $200 a month and having to rely on internet connectivity (I travel and am frequently up in the air – literally) increase my productivity and benefit my company?
When Andy says “Instead of editing a template or precedent contract, the user answers an intelligent questionnaire that captures the terms of the transaction. *** With one click, the user can implement hundreds of instances of optional text throughout a document, instead of having to consider and manually input each of those changes in a Word document”, doesn’t that denigrate the enhanced functionality of Word, especially in this latest version? And even though the “terms of the transaction” are captured, won’t I be reading (and re-reading!) this document start to finish (and back again!) to make absolutely certain that it fits the deal?
Again, in BigCo or BigFirm where cookie-cutter transactions are common, great tool. But out here in the other 80% of the legal drafting world, I’m not so sure….
Fitz: Within an organization, document assembly is useful when the organization handles lots of a given kind of transaction involving an element of customization. At a law firm, the users (as opposed to the people who put the system and language in place) might be the lawyers within a practice group; at a company, the likeliest users are perhaps in sales and contracts administration.
Yes, a big part of the gains offered by document assembly is that fewer resources are required for document creation. Describing that as “[pushing] responsibility for drafting down to the lowest common denominator-drafter” is to see something unseemly in the process; I don’t think it’s warranted. If document assembly eliminates ad hoc reinventing of the wheel and provides for greater control and consistency, one happy result is that senior legal personnel can remove themselves from part of the process yet increase the quality and efficiency of the work.
ContractExpress.com makes document assembly available to smaller organizations, as less of an investment is required compared with the installed version of the software. But that merely adjusts the cost-benefit analysis rather than changing it entirely: for document assembly to make sense, you do still need a reasonably high volume of cookie-cutter-ish deals. But I don’t think you have to go too high up the food chain for document assembly using ContractExpress.com to start making sense.
By the way, Business Integrity thinks that it’s law firms that are the likeliest users of the current version of ContractExpress.com, as it doesn’t include the process controls that companies would likely require in order to feel comfortable about delegating the contract-creation process to personnel outside the law department.
Ken
I was really excited about this launch and ready to try it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work on a mac. I hope they will come out with a mac version very soon. I know, I could try some virtual windows application, but that is too much hassle right now.
Imke: the ContractExpress Author add-in only works with Microsoft Word 2007 on Windows and not Microsoft Word 2008 on the Mac. The Mac version of Word does not yet offer the same extensibility as the Windows version. This means you can only develop templates on Windows but you can generate documents from those templates on either Windows or Mac.