[drbwaa]

> That's the lawyer's job, to guide you through ! If they're not doing that, then find a different lawyer.

Yes! And if you happen to know that, and have a good lawyer, then you're all set. But a hell of a lot of lawyers won't volunteer to do this, or aren't competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson, and most people don't know to ask for it.

I have my doubts as to the practicality, but a tool that could summarize and then prompt laypeople go to their lawyer to start that discussion seems like it could definitely have value. I suspect most people interested in this tool may already be knowledgeable enough to ask for a walkthrough anyway, but you could imagine implementations where the summary is presented directly, and could guide more people toward the help they need.

[traceroute66]

> competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson

HUH ? That is literally their job !

Legal document review is bread and butter for lawyers.

Having productive conversations with laypeople is what lawyers do all day every day.

I really don't get your point.

If a lawyer is unable to have a productive conversation with a layperson about a legal document, then they need to be stripped of their qualifications.

[fnordpiglet]

That’s not their job - their job is to make persuasive legal arguments, craft legal language to be ironclad, etc. Similarly a top researchers in CS isn’t employed for their ability to explain CS, despite the fact we employ them to do just that.

[yunwal]

There are plenty of lawyers who are not competent at their jobs, but can be convincing to uninformed laypeople.