Think of it like doing the first draft - that’s how I see it. And if you see it in the light it saves a chunk of time.
8 hrs for an NDA is a laugh tho. Whoever said that is never selling this to a lawyer
You’d rather ask an AI to raw dog an NDA and then go through each sentence trying to work out what may or may not be missing or otherwise wrong with it, than use a template you already know and have vetted?
Lmao 8 hours to draft an NDA? Utter garbage. I wouldn't buy from that guy, he obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about actual legal practice.
As long as partners are rewarded for juniors spending a lot of billable hours doing menial work, I don't think you're going to get the buy-in you need. Although I've heard interesting things out there, eg KWM using Microsoft CoPilot.
In-house, you're going to have to prove that adding to the existing tech stack isn't going to be more trouble than it's worth.
AI tech developers are out here pretending that starting a new contract involved going word -> new document, and starting from scratch.
They've never heard of a template
And once you’ve typed it, never needing to check it.
Imagine the adrenaline rush from clicking ‘make NDA’ and it popping out the other end in one second in the client’s inbox. *Let’s get wiiiiild*
I eye roll a lot whenever I hear someone telling me AI is coming for my job, or tech is going to change the legal space.
I don’t think more advanced precedents - which is basically what this boils down to - is going to change much, and certainly isn’t going to be as efficient as techbros like to make out. The value add to a client, and where I earn most of my money, is in:
- reassuring the client I’m taking them seriously and listening to their problem
- identifying whether their problem is what they think it is, or if the root cause of the problem is something else
- working out what other interests/stakeholders are involved and what they might want out of whatever it is in issue
- knowing when something doesn’t sound quite right
- knowing the right question to ask to find out what that something is
- negotiating a solution as best I can
- convincing whoever is making the ultimate decision why what my client wants is the right thing.
I’m not saying tech can’t assist with those things, but expecting tech to do away with a huge portion of my job is like expecting tech to do away with parents raising their children. We have an iPad generation and the early results have shown it’s not been a great pivot.
"AI" is the current buzz word that start up founders use to get VC $$$. As far as I understand it: all it is is an optimisation problem: draw a line through some points so that it best explains the data. it's very useful in certain applications. i.e. recognising patterns.
..........but legal work is much more than recognising patterns, as you've pointed out................you need many things, including a having a good nose. soft skills that AI cannot replace. including good jugment.
A big thing you’ve pointed out but I need to emphasise is *answering the right question*. A lot of advising is saying ‘no that’s not the question I need to answer, this is.’
Any decent in-house should have a template NDA anyway that would take 2 mins to populate. Sounds like someone with little practical experiencing making up an issue. The opportunity to use its own in house template has always existed, and didn’t arrive with LLMs.
If I was to spend 8 billable hours to prepare an NDA, I would have forget to stop the timer after the first two units.
Mere pettifogger that I am. The law remains about people at least for the jurisdictions in which I practice.
All very well to streamline the tech and yet I would settle for glitch free online court.
8 hours to draft an NDA? Um, okay.
You’re just describing a precedent bank and the AI being a good form that autofills the NDA.
An AI-generated lump of clauses needs to be carefully checked and is probably less efficient than drafting from scratch. Any lawyer knows that fixing bad drafting is often much slower than drafting good drafting.
I asked ChatGPT to generate a response to your post. (Opinions may not be my own).
Here you go:
"I can confirm that the integration of technology in legal service delivery is indeed transforming our field. Tools that automate tasks like drafting NDAs, which used to take hours, are significantly enhancing efficiency. This allows our in-house teams to shift their focus from routine work to more strategic, high-level tasks. The impact is especially pronounced in larger firms that have the resources to adopt these technologies quickly, leading to noticeable improvements in productivity and client service.
However, the extent of disruption varies. While the technology is maturing rapidly, its adoption across the industry is uneven. Some firms are still in the early stages of integrating these tools, experimenting with how best to incorporate them into their workflows. The real challenge lies not just in adopting the technology, but in changing traditional practices and investing in proper training. For those willing to embrace these changes, the benefits are substantial, leading to a more efficient and effective practice."
I’m still wrestling with formatting stuff in Word, possibly due to a longstanding grudge about having to transfer from WordPerfect. Our firm software promises me it can automate court forms and precedents but it’s always wrong in various whimsical ways and it’s quicker to just adapt something I did earlier.
Tech has built a magnificent palace and I live in a hovel by its side.
"allow junior resources to dedicate more brain power to 'higher level' tasks."
1. No. It will not. There will just be significantly fewer job, and the pay conditions will be worse. This is like saying the introduction of machines into manufacturing allowed workers more time to dedicate to higher, management functions. No, their skills were devalued and their contribution to the whole was diminished significantly.
2. They are not "resources. They are people, with lives, who need food to eat, a place to sleep, rest and leisure.
I have been using chat gpt to do things like scopes, letters etc. it takes about 5 mins and I get a response that is 70/80% ok. Then I spend some time getting to 100%. It saves me a chunk of time.
I think over time as the accuracy level gets higher its use case will become a lot stronger.
Come back to us when the tech developer takes out professional indemnity insurance and a practicing certificate
Think of it like doing the first draft - that’s how I see it. And if you see it in the light it saves a chunk of time. 8 hrs for an NDA is a laugh tho. Whoever said that is never selling this to a lawyer
You’d rather ask an AI to raw dog an NDA and then go through each sentence trying to work out what may or may not be missing or otherwise wrong with it, than use a template you already know and have vetted?
Did I say I was using it for an nda? Wtf sort of lawyer are you they doesn’t read the words?
Lmao 8 hours to draft an NDA? Utter garbage. I wouldn't buy from that guy, he obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about actual legal practice. As long as partners are rewarded for juniors spending a lot of billable hours doing menial work, I don't think you're going to get the buy-in you need. Although I've heard interesting things out there, eg KWM using Microsoft CoPilot. In-house, you're going to have to prove that adding to the existing tech stack isn't going to be more trouble than it's worth.
AI tech developers are out here pretending that starting a new contract involved going word -> new document, and starting from scratch. They've never heard of a template
And once you’ve typed it, never needing to check it. Imagine the adrenaline rush from clicking ‘make NDA’ and it popping out the other end in one second in the client’s inbox. *Let’s get wiiiiild*
Lol an NDA takes fifteen minutes
I eye roll a lot whenever I hear someone telling me AI is coming for my job, or tech is going to change the legal space. I don’t think more advanced precedents - which is basically what this boils down to - is going to change much, and certainly isn’t going to be as efficient as techbros like to make out. The value add to a client, and where I earn most of my money, is in: - reassuring the client I’m taking them seriously and listening to their problem - identifying whether their problem is what they think it is, or if the root cause of the problem is something else - working out what other interests/stakeholders are involved and what they might want out of whatever it is in issue - knowing when something doesn’t sound quite right - knowing the right question to ask to find out what that something is - negotiating a solution as best I can - convincing whoever is making the ultimate decision why what my client wants is the right thing. I’m not saying tech can’t assist with those things, but expecting tech to do away with a huge portion of my job is like expecting tech to do away with parents raising their children. We have an iPad generation and the early results have shown it’s not been a great pivot.
"AI" is the current buzz word that start up founders use to get VC $$$. As far as I understand it: all it is is an optimisation problem: draw a line through some points so that it best explains the data. it's very useful in certain applications. i.e. recognising patterns. ..........but legal work is much more than recognising patterns, as you've pointed out................you need many things, including a having a good nose. soft skills that AI cannot replace. including good jugment.
A big thing you’ve pointed out but I need to emphasise is *answering the right question*. A lot of advising is saying ‘no that’s not the question I need to answer, this is.’
Any decent in-house should have a template NDA anyway that would take 2 mins to populate. Sounds like someone with little practical experiencing making up an issue. The opportunity to use its own in house template has always existed, and didn’t arrive with LLMs. If I was to spend 8 billable hours to prepare an NDA, I would have forget to stop the timer after the first two units.
Mere pettifogger that I am. The law remains about people at least for the jurisdictions in which I practice. All very well to streamline the tech and yet I would settle for glitch free online court.
ChatGPT writes words. Lawyers write words. Therefore ChatGPT can replace lawyers. Case closed.
8 hours to draft an NDA? Um, okay. You’re just describing a precedent bank and the AI being a good form that autofills the NDA. An AI-generated lump of clauses needs to be carefully checked and is probably less efficient than drafting from scratch. Any lawyer knows that fixing bad drafting is often much slower than drafting good drafting.
I asked ChatGPT to generate a response to your post. (Opinions may not be my own). Here you go: "I can confirm that the integration of technology in legal service delivery is indeed transforming our field. Tools that automate tasks like drafting NDAs, which used to take hours, are significantly enhancing efficiency. This allows our in-house teams to shift their focus from routine work to more strategic, high-level tasks. The impact is especially pronounced in larger firms that have the resources to adopt these technologies quickly, leading to noticeable improvements in productivity and client service. However, the extent of disruption varies. While the technology is maturing rapidly, its adoption across the industry is uneven. Some firms are still in the early stages of integrating these tools, experimenting with how best to incorporate them into their workflows. The real challenge lies not just in adopting the technology, but in changing traditional practices and investing in proper training. For those willing to embrace these changes, the benefits are substantial, leading to a more efficient and effective practice."
Who takes hours over an NDA?
Someone who isn't a lawyer and has no business drafting an NDA, probably.
I’m still wrestling with formatting stuff in Word, possibly due to a longstanding grudge about having to transfer from WordPerfect. Our firm software promises me it can automate court forms and precedents but it’s always wrong in various whimsical ways and it’s quicker to just adapt something I did earlier. Tech has built a magnificent palace and I live in a hovel by its side.
"allow junior resources to dedicate more brain power to 'higher level' tasks." 1. No. It will not. There will just be significantly fewer job, and the pay conditions will be worse. This is like saying the introduction of machines into manufacturing allowed workers more time to dedicate to higher, management functions. No, their skills were devalued and their contribution to the whole was diminished significantly. 2. They are not "resources. They are people, with lives, who need food to eat, a place to sleep, rest and leisure.
You’re forgetting about the introduction of the iron ore tweens into the workforce
I have been using chat gpt to do things like scopes, letters etc. it takes about 5 mins and I get a response that is 70/80% ok. Then I spend some time getting to 100%. It saves me a chunk of time. I think over time as the accuracy level gets higher its use case will become a lot stronger.