Law is a strange business to which to apply automated functionality.
On the one hand, and especially touching on startup-related areas, the law can have incredible complexity. When you consider that corporate law, securities law (federal and state), tax law, contract law, employment law, and copyright law all apply in varying degrees just to do a standard corporate formation, you can imagine how many opportunities might present themselves for missteps for founders trying to guide the process themselves.
In addition, there is not merely the issue of overt error in missing legal requirements, etc. There is also the issue of omitting to make the best strategic choices from among those potentially suitable for a venture, and this means being able to stand back from one particular well-trodden path (Delaware C-corp with one class of common stock) to assess whether that path in particular is best for your venture. While many startups are well served by following the Delaware C-corp (single class of stock) path, others may not be. Believe it or not, there are some startups that are best incorporated in their own local state and not in Delaware. There are others (particularly "lifestyle" ventures, certain specialty ventures or bootstrap ventures that want to start on the cheap and convert later) that may be best served by setting up an LLC. Even in Delaware, there is the vanilla setup (and by this I mean even a savvy one like the type YC uses) and there are others using super-voting classes of stock or FF preferred or other variations. There are also fine-point decisions within a typical Delaware C-corp setup that can easily be missed. Do you axiomatically go for a cliff for founder vesting (like YC does) or do you use pro rata vesting from inception? Do you prevest some founder stock or not and, if so, in what cases? How do you handle acceleration of vesting on certain triggers occurring? How do you best deal with IP issues for various scenarios where multiple persons have worked on a venture prior to company formation? Even mundane issues such as how to handle real cash contributions sometimes made by founders without messing up the common stock price can prove troublesome if mishandled.
All that said, and on the other hand, it is true that many legal transactions today fall cleanly into well-established patterns that do not require any form of specialty legal help. While founders can and do often use law firms for such steps, it is a very legitimate question to ask, "what is the real value from the lawyers?" and "is it worth the cost?"
So you have the two sides of law: the incredibly complex and the perfectly mundane.
And here is the problem for many founders: not knowing which side of the line you are on when it comes to this or that issue in the choices you make when you form or build a venture.
Of course, when you also add the vast range of laws that apply to a venture beyond formation, the issue gets even trickier.
No one wants to spend money unnecessarily on things that don't add value commensurate with what is spent. But no one wants to make crucial legal errors either. If a big one should occur, your early-stage cost-saving efforts can quickly transmute themselves into the penny-wise/pound-foolish category.
This is where the opportunity presents itself for tools and platforms that seek to streamline and improve legal transactions and this is what I like about Ironclad's philosophical approach in particular.
The idea is not to have some end goal of replacing lawyers because that leaves founders helpless when it comes to the "incredibly complex" legal aspects of what they do in their ventures.
The goal is to streamline the process of working with lawyers while giving founders the choice to work without them, or to work with them in limited ways only, whenever they feel comfortable doing so. This keeps the founders in control of the process. Any founder who has been whisked into a legal environment where the lawyers are advising this and advising that, and are meanwhile adding a team of departmental specialists to the mix, just to handle what you might have thought a fairly basic set of issues knows the frustration of losing control in such cases. Even with the best of automated tools, that risk of losing control will never fully be eliminated, as law is indeed complex in many, many ways. But, whenever you can take that risk out for important classes of cases, you empower the founders to be much more in control than they historically have been. And that is what Ironclad seeks to do philosophically. The goal is highly commendable and should not be resisted even by lawyers. People have problems enough to deal with and no one, even lawyers, should have a stake in waste and inefficiency.
Even more, there is huge value in making legal transactions quick and efficient in their processing, whether working with a lawyer or not. If you can get your standard forms processed quickly and properly without a paper-shuffling and delays, that is a huge value in itself.
So here is hoping for elegant execution and great success. I had spoken with Jason about this back in the day when he was with Fenwick and he does indeed bring a great perspective, skill set, and passion to the task. Congrats on getting to this level and looking forward to what will follow in the execution.
In theory law is super diverse, in practice there is a huge pool of startups that never do anything but "the standard documents" and they shouldn't be paying what they do for that.
I don't see why automation means one must follow the "well-trodden path." Software isn't limited to a linear script.
I'm no lawyer, but all those questions (where to incorporate, classes of stocks to use, etc) seem like they could be codified into decision trees and similar algorithms. I can see why a human would be better at learning and exploring to know what questions to ask, but surely applying them to a particular startup is mostly routine work?
Hi everyone! I'm one of the founders of Ironclad and would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Before starting Ironclad I was an attorney at Fenwick & West, and my co-founder was an engineer at Palantir. Let us know how we can help. We're excited to launch :)
Minor point: the screenshot shows "Wiley E. Coyote" but it's actually "Wile E. Coyote". Otherwise, seems like a much-needed service. A lot of what lawyers are used for is little more than mail merge, so I'm happy to see this aspect of their work being commoditized.
I think you've got a good idea here that could really help the administrative side of contract management. But I have a few questions:
How does Ironclad ensure that you'll "never lose a contract again"? Can you dictate what the folder structure will be and have Ironclad follow that automatically?
Can you have it follow agreement naming conventions?
How does it handle successive iterations of a contract that is being negotiated?
Can you also store a record of emails/discussions regarding those negotiations with the contracts?
Any plans on supporting Google Drive? I think it's more common for companies to keep documents there nowadays than in Dropbox, at least in the companies I'm working with.
I am curious to understand how you guys decided on the pricing model? If I am basically using a template for Contractor Agreements, Sales Contracts, etc. what is keeping me from using the same template again. Unless I am missing something here. I see there are integrations with HelloSign to make the process automated.
Hi there. Good product, clearly addresses a market-need gap. Q1 how is different from sites like rocketlawyer.com? Q2. What about potential liabilities? Do you get involved ?
Thoughts: you might have this already, but have you thought about offering discounted time with a lawyer or perhaps even group legal packages?
Do you guys have templates for privacy policies and terms of service? I'm launching a small saas app soon and have been looking for a decent starting point.
Full disclosure: Actual flesh-and-blood lawyer here.
These tools are great when things are going well. If you are a business for whom lawyers are an inconvenient expense, paperwork devoid of real value, then go ahead and download your legal advice. You'll probably be fine with boilerplate legal documents. But realize that as with the concept of 'technical debt' you might be pushing off minor expenses today in exchange for huge expenses tomorrow. That can be a valid startup strategy only IF you remain cognisant of the associated risk.
Two things could happen. First, things might hit the legal fan. Your now large business will be in need of some actual lawyering but you won't have worked with anyone. You don't want to be googling "IP lawyers in my area" the day some troll's demand letter arrives. You want someone who knows you and your business.
The far far worse option is that things don't hit the fan. You could go for years blissfully unaware of the damoclean sword over your head. But the sword never falls, the business grows, and eventually you want to take things to the next level (IPO/buyout/new investors). Then you meet your first lawyer and he or she isn't working for you. I've been that lawyer walking into a room of wannabe millionaires who think they have all their legal ducks in a row. I write a memo to my client about some gaping legal hole I've found, and the next thing you know all that money goes away. You'll probably never learn why those potential investors stopped calling.
Common big holes:
Bad/fraudulent PII/PCI compliance.
Improper labor practices (common when everyone is working their first real job).
Poor or absent organization structure.
Failure to abide applicable foreign laws.
Tax fraud due to reliance on tax-filing software.
Failure to properly protect IP.
"Creative" accounting practices.
Lack of industry-standard security measures.
And my personal favourite: Onerous contractual/financial obligations due to failure to seek adequate legal advice at time.
You absolutely raised some valid concerns. And I hope, I hope, I hope that startups aren't using these templates as-is (or possibly at all). Each company's business operations, policies, risk tolerance, etc. will be different and their standard contracts need to reflect those positions. They need to have lawyers write the agreements/policies/etc. to make sure they're following all applicable laws.
However, I think that Ironclad (and possibly others) are trying to make the administration of those contracts easier. Real trouble, from a business perspective, comes when the company gets bigger and they don't know the risk on their books because they can't manage their contracts.
I don't think these tools will cut out the lawyers, but instead help the companies manage their contracts and be able to better use us lawyers.
I think this could be really valuable but I think there are two hurdles it needs to get over.
1. Confidence that the docs are really "ironclad"
2. Flexibility with equity options
To expand on 2. I worry that having the basic stock option grant approach as the only option just solidifies further how embedded that framework is for employees. We discuss a lot on here how the typical option agreement is rife with pitfalls and typically leaves early employees high and dry even if there is a big exit.
I would suggest adding in the alternative of an Equity Incentive Plan which sells restricted stock to employees in exchange for a promissory note held by the employer and due at exercise. It is a bit more complicated but is better overall as it requires no out of pocket expense for the employee upon purchase (or even at exercise is the company chooses) and actually gives them real shares that can't be easily written off by an acquisition or later investment. It also requires an 83b election which is something that most companies don't know about - and would be very helpful to have an automated way to walk them through it.
I think this is a really cool idea. One of the things we're designed to do, as the administrative layer, is take these conventions that are set up by experts and put them into software so that anyone can then execute on them. This would be a neat example.
I wonder whether the higher price for custom templates is warranted. I would think that this would be a very good data source for Ironclad to mine future templates, identify intricacies etc. On this front, I wonder how lawyers would respond, given that this might streamline their work but it might potentially, as a centralised data source, commoditise big chunks of it. I am saying that because I have a similar example. I.e. I am doing system implementations for Finance departments, and the cloud options definitely give the vendors an easier peek at the design decisions and techniques an integrator uses. Maybe this is not an immediate concern, but I would not rule out vendors monetising that data source of designs from specialised integrators. E.g. a vendor already performance profiles a huge range of their client applications and then provides a metric on quality given the comparison (quite rudimentary now.)
We use IronClad at Zinc and they are amazing. Whenever we have a new contractor, we shoot them an email (actually now we click a button) and they take care of the rest. Saves me a lot of time while ensuring we get all the boxes checked.
Is it template-based like Clerky (with the same Delaware C-Corp limitation), or is there more to it (advice on which document to use based on the situation, clauses that change depending on context, etc.)?
Clerky is awesome. What we're going for here is more of the automated record keeping and management. It seems like most company's legal docs are a mess (and I know from reviewing lots of them when I was an attorney).
The templates we provide can help you automatically keep your company's legal folder in pristine condition - we're not just setting you up with the template, it's the whole process layer from end-to-end.
To be clear though, we don't provide any legal advice whatsoever. We're designed to work with an attorney - so that if you need them to edit Section 2.1 of a document before it gets sent out, you can just have them hop in to the Dropbox folder and make the edits. It's the administrative layer for legal, not the advice layer.
Correct in terms of default templates. Our default templates, which are used by YC companies typically, are designed by attorneys for Delaware C-Corps in California.
We are designed to be able to take in any type of legal document though, including docs you already have from your attorney. So if you're not using the default templates, or you've customized them yourself, that limitation won't apply.
Cool thanks! Would love to hear back from you once you've had a chance to use it and hear what you like and don't like. One thing that's been awesome about going through YC is really learning to take feedback from users. Give us a shout any time at [email protected]
I can see this being big, It makes me wonder about the very long term.
Saying that it's a tool meant to be used by lawyers is fine, but it's going to be fairly obvious to any lawyer who thinks about it for a moment that that is basically bullshit.
The play is pretty obvious:
Phase 1: Lawyers use the service as a workflow tool.
Phase 2: The tool gets good enough to mostly not need the lawyers. They enjoy a brief period in which their income is essentially automated.
Phase 3: Companies use the service as a lawyer, lawyers only used in extraordinary circumstances.
A big part of the lawyer's value proposition is about liability/peace of mind. Like, "I'm sure this NDA is solid because if it's not I have someone to sue, the guy who wrote it, my lawyer." That's a valuable service, which is why they will stay in the picture during phase 3--essentially a liability limiting sign off.
Im sure you've thought about that, as your business model sort of hinges on having the lawyer take all the liability. Ie, the documents you provide are just "suggestions" or boilerplate for a professional to base their work off of, and those professionals are the ones who are actually liable for mistakes or oversights. It makes sense.
(Sidenote: I predict some hostility from lawyers here, similar to the hostility in the design profession over stuff like 99designs. I don't think it'll matter though. They will be hostile because they know that the tool, if it becomes widespread, would drastically reduce the number of lawyers who can work in the area, but they will each be incentivized to use the tools individually because it'll save them time in their practice as they all race for the bottom, hoping that they are one of the few left standing in the aftermath.)
Anyway, you'll have access to a very large dataset of those potential mistakes and oversights plus the tactics that work to solve them, and you'll be able to hone the tool so that they become more and more rare (this is phase 2 from above).
But the thing I wonder about is what the second order effects will be. Let's say we're in a world in which Ironclad has won, and millions of businesses use it for the legal needs.
In that world you have drastically fewer lawyers handling more clients because the work is essentially automated and they are sign signing off. Each lawyer probably still makes the same money overall since the revenue per client is much lower.
At some point something will go wrong, and the lawyer will be on the hook for having screwed up. And he'll say "Wait a minute, I'm not the one who screwed up. I used the Microsoft of legal services, the one you can't get fired for choosing, the huge goliath that lowly me could never hope to question because they have the most legal expertise in the world. I used Ironclad. They said this document was right, who am I to say otherwise? I trusted them, and they are the ones who screwed up."
And at first it won't matter. That's not how professional liability works, so that lawyer will get ground up in the gears. Maybe the scrappy ones will sue you, and you'll take your knocks, mostly winning or settling.
But I wonder if maybe when there's an army of rubber stampers who are essentially not doing anything except saying "If Ironclad screwed up this document, then I'll take the fall," then with enough case law the environment will change, and somehow Ironclad actually would be saddled with a greater proportion of the liability? Normally I imagine things like that wouldn't work because no one will fight enough to place the liability where it probably belongs, but in this case you'll be up against LAWYERS, whose profession it is to deal with and fight for/against laws. That might make a difference in the very long term.
Anyway, it'd be a good problem to have since it would mean you won like 20 years ago. Good luck guys, I think it'll be big!
As a lawyer, I look forward to that brief period of automated income! But seriously, I think that there will always be a role for advice on novel issues, and good lawyers prefer to be in that niche rather than spending all our time mastering the ins and outs of Word macros. The problem is that people look to corporate lawyers for two very different services -- legal advice, and business process. Legal advice is very difficult, and I would argue, impossible to automate. Business process can and should be automated. It does not make sense to rely on highly trained humans for routine business process.
Many people have just become liability signees - architects and structural engineers come to mind.
I know a structural engineer whose job is to run building parameters across a special tool / model (which sometimes takes days to run), then adds a 20% padding to the values it returns and signs off the document.
Many architects, especially in my country where they're extremely badly paid and undervalued, are pressed into just signing plans with no input.
Software isn't going to diligence your IPO any time soon. And as high as legal fees might seem, at least for the medium size to large firms, the money isn't really made doing routine easily automated work for small companies.
[+] [-] grellas|10 years ago|reply
On the one hand, and especially touching on startup-related areas, the law can have incredible complexity. When you consider that corporate law, securities law (federal and state), tax law, contract law, employment law, and copyright law all apply in varying degrees just to do a standard corporate formation, you can imagine how many opportunities might present themselves for missteps for founders trying to guide the process themselves.
In addition, there is not merely the issue of overt error in missing legal requirements, etc. There is also the issue of omitting to make the best strategic choices from among those potentially suitable for a venture, and this means being able to stand back from one particular well-trodden path (Delaware C-corp with one class of common stock) to assess whether that path in particular is best for your venture. While many startups are well served by following the Delaware C-corp (single class of stock) path, others may not be. Believe it or not, there are some startups that are best incorporated in their own local state and not in Delaware. There are others (particularly "lifestyle" ventures, certain specialty ventures or bootstrap ventures that want to start on the cheap and convert later) that may be best served by setting up an LLC. Even in Delaware, there is the vanilla setup (and by this I mean even a savvy one like the type YC uses) and there are others using super-voting classes of stock or FF preferred or other variations. There are also fine-point decisions within a typical Delaware C-corp setup that can easily be missed. Do you axiomatically go for a cliff for founder vesting (like YC does) or do you use pro rata vesting from inception? Do you prevest some founder stock or not and, if so, in what cases? How do you handle acceleration of vesting on certain triggers occurring? How do you best deal with IP issues for various scenarios where multiple persons have worked on a venture prior to company formation? Even mundane issues such as how to handle real cash contributions sometimes made by founders without messing up the common stock price can prove troublesome if mishandled.
All that said, and on the other hand, it is true that many legal transactions today fall cleanly into well-established patterns that do not require any form of specialty legal help. While founders can and do often use law firms for such steps, it is a very legitimate question to ask, "what is the real value from the lawyers?" and "is it worth the cost?"
So you have the two sides of law: the incredibly complex and the perfectly mundane.
And here is the problem for many founders: not knowing which side of the line you are on when it comes to this or that issue in the choices you make when you form or build a venture.
Of course, when you also add the vast range of laws that apply to a venture beyond formation, the issue gets even trickier.
No one wants to spend money unnecessarily on things that don't add value commensurate with what is spent. But no one wants to make crucial legal errors either. If a big one should occur, your early-stage cost-saving efforts can quickly transmute themselves into the penny-wise/pound-foolish category.
This is where the opportunity presents itself for tools and platforms that seek to streamline and improve legal transactions and this is what I like about Ironclad's philosophical approach in particular.
The idea is not to have some end goal of replacing lawyers because that leaves founders helpless when it comes to the "incredibly complex" legal aspects of what they do in their ventures.
The goal is to streamline the process of working with lawyers while giving founders the choice to work without them, or to work with them in limited ways only, whenever they feel comfortable doing so. This keeps the founders in control of the process. Any founder who has been whisked into a legal environment where the lawyers are advising this and advising that, and are meanwhile adding a team of departmental specialists to the mix, just to handle what you might have thought a fairly basic set of issues knows the frustration of losing control in such cases. Even with the best of automated tools, that risk of losing control will never fully be eliminated, as law is indeed complex in many, many ways. But, whenever you can take that risk out for important classes of cases, you empower the founders to be much more in control than they historically have been. And that is what Ironclad seeks to do philosophically. The goal is highly commendable and should not be resisted even by lawyers. People have problems enough to deal with and no one, even lawyers, should have a stake in waste and inefficiency.
Even more, there is huge value in making legal transactions quick and efficient in their processing, whether working with a lawyer or not. If you can get your standard forms processed quickly and properly without a paper-shuffling and delays, that is a huge value in itself.
So here is hoping for elegant execution and great success. I had spoken with Jason about this back in the day when he was with Fenwick and he does indeed bring a great perspective, skill set, and passion to the task. Congrats on getting to this level and looking forward to what will follow in the execution.
[+] [-] tdaltonc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
I'm no lawyer, but all those questions (where to incorporate, classes of stocks to use, etc) seem like they could be codified into decision trees and similar algorithms. I can see why a human would be better at learning and exploring to know what questions to ask, but surely applying them to a particular startup is mostly routine work?
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tradd|10 years ago|reply
How does Ironclad ensure that you'll "never lose a contract again"? Can you dictate what the folder structure will be and have Ironclad follow that automatically?
Can you have it follow agreement naming conventions?
How does it handle successive iterations of a contract that is being negotiated?
Can you also store a record of emails/discussions regarding those negotiations with the contracts?
[+] [-] melvinmt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeeshanm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alijafri80|10 years ago|reply
Thoughts: you might have this already, but have you thought about offering discounted time with a lawyer or perhaps even group legal packages?
[+] [-] msencenb|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
These tools are great when things are going well. If you are a business for whom lawyers are an inconvenient expense, paperwork devoid of real value, then go ahead and download your legal advice. You'll probably be fine with boilerplate legal documents. But realize that as with the concept of 'technical debt' you might be pushing off minor expenses today in exchange for huge expenses tomorrow. That can be a valid startup strategy only IF you remain cognisant of the associated risk.
Two things could happen. First, things might hit the legal fan. Your now large business will be in need of some actual lawyering but you won't have worked with anyone. You don't want to be googling "IP lawyers in my area" the day some troll's demand letter arrives. You want someone who knows you and your business.
The far far worse option is that things don't hit the fan. You could go for years blissfully unaware of the damoclean sword over your head. But the sword never falls, the business grows, and eventually you want to take things to the next level (IPO/buyout/new investors). Then you meet your first lawyer and he or she isn't working for you. I've been that lawyer walking into a room of wannabe millionaires who think they have all their legal ducks in a row. I write a memo to my client about some gaping legal hole I've found, and the next thing you know all that money goes away. You'll probably never learn why those potential investors stopped calling.
Common big holes: Bad/fraudulent PII/PCI compliance. Improper labor practices (common when everyone is working their first real job). Poor or absent organization structure. Failure to abide applicable foreign laws. Tax fraud due to reliance on tax-filing software. Failure to properly protect IP. "Creative" accounting practices. Lack of industry-standard security measures.
And my personal favourite: Onerous contractual/financial obligations due to failure to seek adequate legal advice at time.
[+] [-] tradd|10 years ago|reply
You absolutely raised some valid concerns. And I hope, I hope, I hope that startups aren't using these templates as-is (or possibly at all). Each company's business operations, policies, risk tolerance, etc. will be different and their standard contracts need to reflect those positions. They need to have lawyers write the agreements/policies/etc. to make sure they're following all applicable laws.
However, I think that Ironclad (and possibly others) are trying to make the administration of those contracts easier. Real trouble, from a business perspective, comes when the company gets bigger and they don't know the risk on their books because they can't manage their contracts.
I don't think these tools will cut out the lawyers, but instead help the companies manage their contracts and be able to better use us lawyers.
[+] [-] sjs382|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|10 years ago|reply
1. Confidence that the docs are really "ironclad"
2. Flexibility with equity options
To expand on 2. I worry that having the basic stock option grant approach as the only option just solidifies further how embedded that framework is for employees. We discuss a lot on here how the typical option agreement is rife with pitfalls and typically leaves early employees high and dry even if there is a big exit.
I would suggest adding in the alternative of an Equity Incentive Plan which sells restricted stock to employees in exchange for a promissory note held by the employer and due at exercise. It is a bit more complicated but is better overall as it requires no out of pocket expense for the employee upon purchase (or even at exercise is the company chooses) and actually gives them real shares that can't be easily written off by an acquisition or later investment. It also requires an 83b election which is something that most companies don't know about - and would be very helpful to have an automated way to walk them through it.
[1]http://www.fwlaw.com/news/8-a-practical-guide-equity-incenti...
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgio|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FriedPickles|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skrypt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hermanmerman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
The templates we provide can help you automatically keep your company's legal folder in pristine condition - we're not just setting you up with the template, it's the whole process layer from end-to-end.
To be clear though, we don't provide any legal advice whatsoever. We're designed to work with an attorney - so that if you need them to edit Section 2.1 of a document before it gets sent out, you can just have them hop in to the Dropbox folder and make the edits. It's the administrative layer for legal, not the advice layer.
[+] [-] BradRuderman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timrpeterson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gogwilt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vermontdevil|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
We are designed to be able to take in any type of legal document though, including docs you already have from your attorney. So if you're not using the default templates, or you've customized them yourself, that limitation won't apply.
[+] [-] omarforgotpwd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwb119|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmichaud|10 years ago|reply
Saying that it's a tool meant to be used by lawyers is fine, but it's going to be fairly obvious to any lawyer who thinks about it for a moment that that is basically bullshit.
The play is pretty obvious:
Phase 1: Lawyers use the service as a workflow tool.
Phase 2: The tool gets good enough to mostly not need the lawyers. They enjoy a brief period in which their income is essentially automated.
Phase 3: Companies use the service as a lawyer, lawyers only used in extraordinary circumstances.
A big part of the lawyer's value proposition is about liability/peace of mind. Like, "I'm sure this NDA is solid because if it's not I have someone to sue, the guy who wrote it, my lawyer." That's a valuable service, which is why they will stay in the picture during phase 3--essentially a liability limiting sign off.
Im sure you've thought about that, as your business model sort of hinges on having the lawyer take all the liability. Ie, the documents you provide are just "suggestions" or boilerplate for a professional to base their work off of, and those professionals are the ones who are actually liable for mistakes or oversights. It makes sense.
(Sidenote: I predict some hostility from lawyers here, similar to the hostility in the design profession over stuff like 99designs. I don't think it'll matter though. They will be hostile because they know that the tool, if it becomes widespread, would drastically reduce the number of lawyers who can work in the area, but they will each be incentivized to use the tools individually because it'll save them time in their practice as they all race for the bottom, hoping that they are one of the few left standing in the aftermath.)
Anyway, you'll have access to a very large dataset of those potential mistakes and oversights plus the tactics that work to solve them, and you'll be able to hone the tool so that they become more and more rare (this is phase 2 from above).
But the thing I wonder about is what the second order effects will be. Let's say we're in a world in which Ironclad has won, and millions of businesses use it for the legal needs.
In that world you have drastically fewer lawyers handling more clients because the work is essentially automated and they are sign signing off. Each lawyer probably still makes the same money overall since the revenue per client is much lower.
At some point something will go wrong, and the lawyer will be on the hook for having screwed up. And he'll say "Wait a minute, I'm not the one who screwed up. I used the Microsoft of legal services, the one you can't get fired for choosing, the huge goliath that lowly me could never hope to question because they have the most legal expertise in the world. I used Ironclad. They said this document was right, who am I to say otherwise? I trusted them, and they are the ones who screwed up."
And at first it won't matter. That's not how professional liability works, so that lawyer will get ground up in the gears. Maybe the scrappy ones will sue you, and you'll take your knocks, mostly winning or settling.
But I wonder if maybe when there's an army of rubber stampers who are essentially not doing anything except saying "If Ironclad screwed up this document, then I'll take the fall," then with enough case law the environment will change, and somehow Ironclad actually would be saddled with a greater proportion of the liability? Normally I imagine things like that wouldn't work because no one will fight enough to place the liability where it probably belongs, but in this case you'll be up against LAWYERS, whose profession it is to deal with and fight for/against laws. That might make a difference in the very long term.
Anyway, it'd be a good problem to have since it would mean you won like 20 years ago. Good luck guys, I think it'll be big!
[+] [-] zekevermillion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GFischer|10 years ago|reply
I know a structural engineer whose job is to run building parameters across a special tool / model (which sometimes takes days to run), then adds a 20% padding to the values it returns and signs off the document.
Many architects, especially in my country where they're extremely badly paid and undervalued, are pressed into just signing plans with no input.
[+] [-] rayiner|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grinich|10 years ago|reply