Fantastic idea, but as a lawyer, it makes me a bit nervous for those who would rely solely on the documents available.
Even if those documents are flawless and cover exactly what someone needs (incredibly unlikely), in many areas the documents themselves aren't necessarily the problem: it's knowing what documents, in combination, you need.
For example, if I want to make a real estate secured loan to someone, what do I need? If you're fairly sophisticated, you might say a Note and a Deed of Trust. Great, but what if that someone is a business or a single asset entity? Should you make the loan? Should you get a guaranty from the principals? Would that guaranty even be enforceable? In many cases, just having access to the documents really isn't enough. There's a reason attorneys are the only profession that get paid to research the very subject they're supposed to be experts in. This stuff is complicated.
I like the idea though, and if you could fill some of those knowledge gaps, this could be really valuable.
I would like to see when the documents have been litigated and under what circumstances. But of course that information is really hard to come by some times.
That being said, if they invested their time and energy into taking the output of the Superior Court docket and documents used there and the arguments made for and against the documents. Well that would be a really cool service.
We think about this stuff a lot, of course. There's no doubt that the "perfect document" is really hard to find, and some documents are way too complicated to be executed without a lawyer. Nevertheless, as some reader said, sometimes you just want to see how a contract looks like, what other people do. For example, few people will sign a termsheet without a lawyer, but they could benefit from seeing the different standards and use Docracy's comparison feature to spot the differences, and distinguish the boilerplates from the juicy clauses. In other words, learn, and understand better what they end up signing, and what their lawyer says. We use the blog and other initiatives (we're organizing a series of free legal workshops here in NY, taught by startup lawyers to entrepreneurs) to inform and educate users, so they can tell when it's time to DIY, and when it's time to go to an attorney.
Think of it as a boilerplate repository. I wouldn't be surprised if half of all initial legal maneuvers could be handled by a wizard in software. Yes, I know: "which half?"
I'm in charge of content here at Docracy and here are answers to some of the initial questions:
1) All content is user generated, and we just started so please be patient if something is missing! We hope to get a solid library of US document to start, and then hopefully spread enough to cover also different jurisdictions/regions.
2) As pents90 said, rating system is pretty tricky for legal content, but we do track signatures and data to help people identify the most used documents. There's a discussion page for every document, where you can share questions and opinions, tell us if you need a specific version, etc
3) We'll co-host a legal hackathon next month, where people will use Docracy to branch the current draft of SOPA and PIPA and make it better. More info: http://legalhackathon.blipclinic.org/
Not to bug you with feature requests, but I think it would also be helpful to know which editors/users are verified attorneys - but I understand the complications and overhead involved with implementing that.
That said, terrific job. I could see myself being a paying customer (assuming you go that route). I think I'd just need some usage stats or perhaps testimonials from trusted parties to actually use a document.
It would be great to also add a short human-readable (i.e. non-legalize) version of each document. Something along the lines of what Creative Commons folks do with their licenses (e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
A really interesting concept! Unfortunately it's only really applicable for Americans though. It'd be nice if there was support for other legal systems, but I guess that'll come with time.
As a lawyer (UK based if you're thinking of expansion!), I think it's a great idea. I've been mulling over something similar for in-house teams but based on precedent clauses rather than entire documents.
I would love to see a site that let you piece together a contract by choosing certain clauses to get the contract you want. Even in a simple subcontractor agreement you have to make decisions like a) what kind of non-compete do you want? b) who owns the copyright to the work, etc.
This is fantastic. As a student looking to start a company after graduation, I've wondered a lot about the legal issues surrounding equity, incorporation, and founders agreements. I feel that with this site, I can read sample documents so that, when I do need to talk to a lawyer, I will be much more informed.
Absolutely fantastic. Anticipating the questions I'll get asked, what's the best way to do due diligence against these? The discussion is a great first step, but is there a way to file explicit "bugs" against a document, or show verified legal support for a document's worth?
I just signed up with docracy, but as soon as I signed up and visited the next page- Test Signing Document (Non-Binding)
There is some spanish/french content, which I think is from the web design template that you used. You should think of removing it.
'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, noster periculis dissentiunt eam in, cu vivendo splendide sea, vidisse phaedrum mel ea. Vis ne paulo corpora suavitate, salutandi theophrastus vel ei, facilisi mediocrem deterruisset cum ex. Mandamus expetenda vis ad, cu dicit offendit constituto cum. Ad eos wisi pericula assueverit, in eum soleat insolens convenire. Has oratio aperiri aliquam ei, mei ex nostrud comprehensam. Summo quando eos ut, mundi maiorum cu sed.'
Hi there, I'm a Docracy founder. The frustration that fueled the creation of the site was us trying to sign an NDA in my previous startup. None of the parties involved really knew what NDA would be a good one to sign, we both just wanted that part of the relationship protected but over with as quickly as possible. We were surprised to find that there wasn't a repository of accepted standards for some of these things, so ultimately we decided to take a shot at making it ourselves.
When the site works best is when a document becomes a standard (for example, a NYC startup NDA) and you sign it on the site. Then you know it hasn't been tampered with by the counterparty and you can execute it quickly and confidently.
We may consider a rating system. Right now, we're keeping track (anonymously) of usage metrics, especially how often each document is executed (signed) via the site. Each execution is evidence that both the party and the counter-party found the terms to be sensible and fair, so we think this is a strong metric of quality for the document.
I like the spirit of this and LegalZoom. I never understood how come we couldn't just fill out and submit a web form to create most kinds of businesses, assuming generic enough details. I understand there are complex edge cases and situations but there are ways of making them a non-issue if we have the collective willpower and make the right base premises.
The forms themselves are easy, even trivial to fill out. However, the Secretaries of State generally do not have the resources to fully modernize their filing systems to handle web-based submissions.
Also, in many cases (i.e., California), the SOS's are barred by statute from accepting non-physical business filings for new entities.
[+] [-] liber8|14 years ago|reply
Even if those documents are flawless and cover exactly what someone needs (incredibly unlikely), in many areas the documents themselves aren't necessarily the problem: it's knowing what documents, in combination, you need.
For example, if I want to make a real estate secured loan to someone, what do I need? If you're fairly sophisticated, you might say a Note and a Deed of Trust. Great, but what if that someone is a business or a single asset entity? Should you make the loan? Should you get a guaranty from the principals? Would that guaranty even be enforceable? In many cases, just having access to the documents really isn't enough. There's a reason attorneys are the only profession that get paid to research the very subject they're supposed to be experts in. This stuff is complicated.
I like the idea though, and if you could fill some of those knowledge gaps, this could be really valuable.
[+] [-] noonespecial|14 years ago|reply
The one we don't want to happen is: "I don't need a lawyer, I used that Docracy thing. I'm set."
The one that is an improvement is: "Well, I've got about $250 left in the bank, its that Docracy thing or the back of this napkin..."
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
That being said, if they invested their time and energy into taking the output of the Superior Court docket and documents used there and the arguments made for and against the documents. Well that would be a really cool service.
[+] [-] ubervero|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshAg|14 years ago|reply
Isn't this true for any research professor/scientist, regardless of field? Why do you consider it to be unique to lawyers?
[+] [-] bostonvaulter2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ubervero|14 years ago|reply
Last but not least, here is some stuff useful to startups/hackers: http://www.docracy.com/75/employment-offer-letter http://www.docracy.com/103/founder-collaboration-agreement http://www.docracy.com/35/founders-equity-agreement http://www.docracy.com/263/founder-advisor-standard-template http://www.docracy.com/367/consulting-agreement-for-hourly-w... http://www.docracy.com/2817/standard-agreement-for-design-se...
Of course, any feedback is welcome!
[+] [-] munaf|14 years ago|reply
That said, terrific job. I could see myself being a paying customer (assuming you go that route). I think I'd just need some usage stats or perhaps testimonials from trusted parties to actually use a document.
[+] [-] azov|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leoedin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] robinjfisher|14 years ago|reply
As a lawyer (UK based if you're thinking of expansion!), I think it's a great idea. I've been mulling over something similar for in-house teams but based on precedent clauses rather than entire documents.
[+] [-] aaronpk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bostwick|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benwerd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parvinsingh|14 years ago|reply
There is some spanish/french content, which I think is from the web design template that you used. You should think of removing it.
'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, noster periculis dissentiunt eam in, cu vivendo splendide sea, vidisse phaedrum mel ea. Vis ne paulo corpora suavitate, salutandi theophrastus vel ei, facilisi mediocrem deterruisset cum ex. Mandamus expetenda vis ad, cu dicit offendit constituto cum. Ad eos wisi pericula assueverit, in eum soleat insolens convenire. Has oratio aperiri aliquam ei, mei ex nostrud comprehensam. Summo quando eos ut, mundi maiorum cu sed.'
[+] [-] simonbrown|14 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
[+] [-] patrickaljord|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrationalfab|14 years ago|reply
One feature request, please make it regional. It would be very nice if every document would have a geographical area and language attribute.
[+] [-] sek|14 years ago|reply
A legal document is just a combination of generic words for specific circumstances.
Maybe law language is just a programming language in some way and we need coffescript for that.
[+] [-] rprasad|14 years ago|reply
For laymen, the equivalent would be books like the Nolo series.
[+] [-] kmfrk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt2000|14 years ago|reply
When the site works best is when a document becomes a standard (for example, a NYC startup NDA) and you sign it on the site. Then you know it hasn't been tampered with by the counterparty and you can execute it quickly and confidently.
[+] [-] agentultra|14 years ago|reply
Now if there was a way to encourage democratic gov'ts to draft their bills using something similar...
[+] [-] carlsednaoui|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munaf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pents90|14 years ago|reply
We may consider a rating system. Right now, we're keeping track (anonymously) of usage metrics, especially how often each document is executed (signed) via the site. Each execution is evidence that both the party and the counter-party found the terms to be sensible and fair, so we think this is a strong metric of quality for the document.
[+] [-] shotgun|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quanfucius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slav|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zalew|14 years ago|reply
Providing a non-proprietary format such as ODF wouldn't hurt.
[+] [-] mkramlich|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rprasad|14 years ago|reply
Also, in many cases (i.e., California), the SOS's are barred by statute from accepting non-physical business filings for new entities.