|
evilweasel posted:as a litigator: Phil Moscowitz posted:*unless it’s to cover your rear end Ah the joy of explaining to people why their bosses write emails saying the exact opposite of what they say in person.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
hung up on my wall is the email one idiot sent to himself, laying out all the things he planned to say on a call that his smarter conspirators had clearly insisted be done entirely by telephone with no written record at all expensive email, that one
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
I mean the emails are like write this NDA or redraft this non compete clause. I'm hardly working with Enron over here
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:hung up on my wall is the email one idiot sent to himself, laying out all the things he planned to say on a call that his smarter conspirators had clearly insisted be done entirely by telephone with no written record at all Is you takin notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Compusaurus posted:I work with an AI contract review tool and have demoed several others. The tool itself will inevitably miss something whether due to a bad OCR, a scan of a contract from 1984, etc. I expect we'll see some division in the market where AI contract review tools are used for certain things, AI contract review tools + someone reviewing the results are used for others and then just a person reviewing is used for still others, with the last level being the kind of amlaw 100 focus (also the first two levels). Certainly in transactional work if you're not standardizing contracts (which, lol maybe but you're going to need to move far, far away from issuers and borrowers paying for underwriter and lender's counsel to get there) then I have a tough time seeing selling the idea of a solely AI contract review tool for any transaction above a certain size. And for the ones that it might be useful (for example, if you run a railcar leasing business all your leases are exactly the same and you have trillions of them), you're already just using form contracts that you don't negotiate. Presumably the AI will get better but I don't know how you make it good enough that folks don't just trick it if you don't give it human oversight. And as soon as you get tricked you have to tell the board or your risk committee or whoever that you didn't do the thing everyone else has always done forever and the new thing is the reason you're losing money. Note: humans, also trickable but at least you can tell the board "yo I hired an expensive firm, this one isn't on me."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Is you takin notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy? Poot did have the floor, man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
builds character posted:I expect we'll see some division in the market where AI contract review tools are used for certain things, AI contract review tools + someone reviewing the results are used for others and then just a person reviewing is used for still others, with the last level being the kind of amlaw 100 focus (also the first two levels). Certainly in transactional work if you're not standardizing contracts (which, lol maybe but you're going to need to move far, far away from issuers and borrowers paying for underwriter and lender's counsel to get there) then I have a tough time seeing selling the idea of a solely AI contract review tool for any transaction above a certain size. And for the ones that it might be useful (for example, if you run a railcar leasing business all your leases are exactly the same and you have trillions of them), you're already just using form contracts that you don't negotiate. It’s mostly used for M&A diligence. Though, with most of them, you can train models in the tool to suit your needs if you’re dealing with non-standard terms. You’re using it to speed up a review, not because you expect to be “tricked.” Anyone claiming that a contract AI tool can replace manual review is full of poo poo. It has some application outside of diligence. For one thing, it makes searching and categorizing easier…though you could do that with a Relativity, DISCO or some other edisc tool just as easily without resorting to AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
Compusaurus posted:It’s mostly used for M&A diligence. Though, with most of them, you can train models in the tool to suit your needs if you’re dealing with non-standard terms. Yeah, that all makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
builds character posted:I expect we'll see some division in the market where AI contract review tools are used for certain things, AI contract review tools + someone reviewing the results are used for others and then just a person reviewing is used for still others, with the last level being the kind of amlaw 100 focus (also the first two levels). Certainly in transactional work if you're not standardizing contracts (which, lol maybe but you're going to need to move far, far away from issuers and borrowers paying for underwriter and lender's counsel to get there) then I have a tough time seeing selling the idea of a solely AI contract review tool for any transaction above a certain size. And for the ones that it might be useful (for example, if you run a railcar leasing business all your leases are exactly the same and you have trillions of them), you're already just using form contracts that you don't negotiate. Intriguingly enough, however, people also use the same excuse for software/IT right now. Is it too hard to believe that "yo I hired an expensive firm, this isn't on me" won't be replaceable with "yo we engaged the best IT company/software/natural language processing tool"? I've reviewed the work of associates who have to read 500 documents, all exactly the same, except oh, catch that one where the other side hosed with the indemnification provisions. The odds of them finding that discrepancy aren't great. Honestly, I think there will be a point, not that far off, where the software is better than people. Because software doesn't get bored, and software doesn't say "gently caress this man, you want better accuracy, you need to pay more than $27 per hour." Software never gets tired. -Sarah Connor DUH NUH NA DUH NUH NUH
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Intriguingly enough, however, people also use the same excuse for software/IT right now. Is it too hard to believe that "yo I hired an expensive firm, this isn't on me" won't be replaceable with "yo we engaged the best IT company/software/natural language processing tool"? The phrase “nobody ever got fired for buying ibm” is so old it’s from when ibm sold business machines
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The phrase “nobody ever got fired for buying ibm” is so old it’s from when ibm sold business machines Like cheese slicers. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Nothing beats a precise slice of cheese
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Like cheese slicers. It was a bear market in Roquefort that originally lead to the nickname "big blue."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Intriguingly enough, however, people also use the same excuse for software/IT right now. Is it too hard to believe that "yo I hired an expensive firm, this isn't on me" won't be replaceable with "yo we engaged the best IT company/software/natural language processing tool"? Sure, for doc review but I guess I’m also thinking about reviewing (and then, in fairness, negotiating) a credit agreement or an underwriting agreement or something like that. Maybe that’s entirely outside what we’re talking about? But I have a hard time seeing something like that get handed over to AI in the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
builds character posted:Sure, for doc review but I guess I’m also thinking about reviewing (and then, in fairness, negotiating) a credit agreement or an underwriting agreement or something like that. Maybe that’s entirely outside what we’re talking about? But I have a hard time seeing something like that get handed over to AI in the foreseeable future. I was always a fan of the Wilson Sonsini Convertible Note Term Sheet Generator: https://www.wsgr.com/en/services/practice-areas/corporate/emerging-companies.html#convertible-note-term-sheet-generator
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
Doc review sounds like just the worst. Criminal litigation allows you to simultaneously "make a difference" while regretting every life choice you've ever made. I highly recommend it.
Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Like cheese slicers. https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteh%C3%B8vel 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 08:38
|
|
|
A slicer meant for a hovel, because it can't automatically cut the exact requested weight of cheese wedge, given only the weight of a whole wheel. (And price it too, given the price per unit weight)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
This is no business machine
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
builds character posted:Sure, for doc review but I guess I’m also thinking about reviewing (and then, in fairness, negotiating) a credit agreement or an underwriting agreement or something like that. Maybe that’s entirely outside what we’re talking about? But I have a hard time seeing something like that get handed over to AI in the foreseeable future. In my transactional work with start ups I'm constantly having to edit or redo clauses and other chicanery depending on the whims of my clients. Hard to see that being replaced by AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
A lot of transactional work is really just used car sales, in terms of the negotiations and what ends up in agreements. Like 95% of the stuff I negotiated was just each side using vague reasons as to why they "couldn't accept that risk" on a provision by provision basis without any quantitative (or often even situational) reasons why. And it often just came down to one party or the other getting angry and saying gently caress that, we are not doing that. Look at fights over indemnity caps and baskets. Outside of general references to "market", I'm not sure I have ever heard an attorney (or a business client) give a genuinely good reason why a basket should really be a half percent in this deal versus three-quarters in that deal. Sure, there will be a lot of babbling (generally without any backing data or analysis) about the "risk levels" associated with a particular target, but that's all essentially finger in the wind type poo poo that is bluntly akin to the dealer telling you how fast cars are moving off the lot this month. I think it is a lot of bullshit, frankly, and is part of what led to my burnout. Spending day after day arguing provisions where you know there really isn't a logical reason why it should be that way, but having to pretend (oh, I mean zealously advocate) that there was. It reminds me a lot of "Well, ackschully ..." internet slapfights. I got tired a long time ago at arguing things to show people I'm smart and just for the purpose of winning the argument. I think it's why some people grimace when they hear people say they "argue well" in connection with going to law school. It's like, no you don't, you're just insufferable and people get sick of you. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I was always a fan of the Wilson Sonsini Convertible Note Term Sheet Generator: Shageletic posted:In my transactional work with start ups I'm constantly having to edit or redo clauses and other chicanery depending on the whims of my clients. Hard to see that being replaced by AI. This is exactly what I’m talking about with the splits I’d expect in the market. Like, yeah, maybe you don’t hire a thousand associates to review huge warehouses of files anymore. But you’re also not hiring IBM for your IPO. SlyFrog posted:A lot of transactional work is really just used car sales, in terms of the negotiations and what ends up in agreements. You’re not wrong. The answer is often just “that’s how risk was apportioned a long time ago and now it moves back and forth depending on how hot the market for your thing is.” I’m not sure it’s quite as bad as you make it out to be, but that’s very different than being wrong and I also have the luxury of working in an area where everyone is a repeat player so there’s significantly more incentive to play nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
I do a lot of NDAs for private equity clients and have a pretty good AI tool for marking them up initially. It saves me a lot of time and is at least as good as a freshly minted associate, it struggles some with unusual formatting and nonstandard clauses (ignores them). I imagine in 5 years the technology will be good enough that I won’t have to do much proofing/cleanup at all after running something through, as it is it probably takes 1/2 the time and most of the work out of marking up your typical NDA. I think the future is more AI-tools for lawyers rather than full blown AI lawyers, even for repetitive contracts like NDAs you’re going to want a human in the loop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
i mean when im negotiating something it is absolutely my goal to dump as many risks onto the other side as i can unless my client gets paid something for taking that risk, that being the whole point of negotiating. my job is not to get to the fairest possible result my job is to read the room and get to the best result for my client. "my client doesn't want to accept that risk" is just a much more polite way of saying "gently caress you we're not doing that" which is kind of a core part of negotiation. half a point of some risk instead of three quarters is important because, uh, it's two-thirds the risk. honestly the time i most got annoyed in a negotiation was when i realized that the associate on the other side was negotiating hard on some point just because they personally thought it "should" be that way in sort of a general sense of their view of the world, not because their client gave a gently caress (and it was something that did impact my client and we did care) evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Lawdog69 posted:I do a lot of NDAs for private equity clients and have a pretty good AI tool for marking them up initially. It saves me a lot of time and is at least as good as a freshly minted associate, it struggles some with unusual formatting and nonstandard clauses (ignores them). I imagine in 5 years the technology will be good enough that I won’t have to do much proofing/cleanup at all after running something through, as it is it probably takes 1/2 the time and most of the work out of marking up your typical NDA. I think the future is more AI-tools for lawyers rather than full blown AI lawyers, even for repetitive contracts like NDAs you’re going to want a human in the loop. Which will make it a lot less worthwhile to hire and train associates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i mean when im negotiating something it is absolutely my goal to dump as many risks onto the other side as i can unless my client gets paid something for taking that risk, that being the whole point of negotiating. my job is not to get to the fairest possible result my job is to read the room and get to the best result for my client. "my client doesn't want to accept that risk" is just a much more polite way of saying "gently caress you we're not doing that" which is kind of a core part of negotiation. half a point of some risk instead of three quarters is important because, uh, it's two-thirds the risk. Yes, and both sides want this, so it literally just comes down to each side saying "you take the risk," while pretending there's any reason for it other than, "We'd rather you get hosed than us get hosed." It's just tiresome, because it's so completely transparent, yet you have to play this idiot loving sham game to pretend it is some high intellectual exercise and "negotiation". Your clients don't even know what the gently caress you're negotiating 90% of the time. They don't give a poo poo, other than "keep my liability as low as you can, but we still want the deal to happen." It's just attorneys having dick measuring contests with each other to conveniently run up bills. Then, at the end of the day, each attorney runs to their client like a little bitch, and claims that the other attorney is being completely unreasonable in wanting X or Y, then each client decides how badly they want the deal, and one client blinks and tells their attorney to shut up, and we'll live with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
I will say that one of my (few) favorite moments of practicing was when a New York Big Law firm made a big deal of sending an email saying that my provision relating to a knowledge definition and directors was completely unreasonable and out of bounds, and absolutely not market, and no one in the history of mankind has ever asked for such a provision, and how could we be so stupid it must be because we were from Minnesota and clearly should let the big boys handle things because we were so stupid and no one with any legal ability whatsoever would even come up with such a thing. And then I responded that I had pulled the particular provision verbatim from the Model Asset Purchase Agreement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Yes, and both sides want this, so it literally just comes down to each side saying "you take the risk," while pretending there's any reason for it other than, "We'd rather you get hosed than us get hosed." im not an attorney but I am usually one of the clients in this and I can absolutely say I give a poo poo and we build these assumptions into our models. It’s not unheard of to walk away from a deal because the terms swinging in either direction can take us out of what we think will be profitable. It’s going to be more common now/next year because a lot funds will have depleted their dry powder from the pandemic push. I know we are anticipating less flow in general starting second half of 2022 into 2023
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
I guess what I’m trying to say is the advice I hear lawyers give to one another “don’t be the one to kill a deal” cuts both ways. Don’t make it too expensive either
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Time posted:im not an attorney but I am usually one of the clients in this and I can absolutely say I give a poo poo and we build these assumptions into our models. It’s not unheard of to walk away from a deal because the terms swinging in either direction can take us out of what we think will be profitable. It’s going to be more common now/next year because a lot funds will have depleted their dry powder from the pandemic push. I know we are anticipating less flow in general starting second half of 2022 into 2023 You have whether the 7th out of 8 OSHA reps has a knowledge qualifier built in to your model? That's truly amazing! I'm not talking about blatantly obvious poo poo that even mouth breather investment bankers can figure out, like indemnification caps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:You have whether the 7th out of 8 OSHA reps has a knowledge qualifier built in to your model? That's truly amazing! Oh I was talking about your post where you were talking about indemnification caps. Should have quoted what I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Is this the thread for discussing the plausibility of a 'stop the steal' event in 2024, in which a number of states refuse to certify? didn't i get you that avatar
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I will say that one of my (few) favorite moments of practicing was when a New York Big Law firm made a big deal of sending an email saying that my provision relating to a knowledge definition and directors was completely unreasonable and out of bounds, and absolutely not market, and no one in the history of mankind has ever asked for such a provision, and how could we be so stupid it must be because we were from Minnesota and clearly should let the big boys handle things because we were so stupid and no one with any legal ability whatsoever would even come up with such a thing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Yes, and both sides want this, so it literally just comes down to each side saying "you take the risk," while pretending there's any reason for it other than, "We'd rather you get hosed than us get hosed." yeah but did the attorneys get
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
What the gently caress the rest of y'all talking about? Computers doing your work? Ain't no computer gonna stand in the well of the court and make sarcastic quips during a jury trial like old hdd91.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Forget it hot dog day, it’s trannytown
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I will say that one of my (few) favorite moments of practicing was when a New York Big Law firm made a big deal of sending an email saying that my provision relating to a knowledge definition and directors was completely unreasonable and out of bounds, and absolutely not market, and no one in the history of mankind has ever asked for such a provision, and how could we be so stupid it must be because we were from Minnesota and clearly should let the big boys handle things because we were so stupid and no one with any legal ability whatsoever would even come up with such a thing. he probably charged his client $3000 to write that email so who really won here huh buddy Phil Moscowitz posted:Forget it hot dog day, it’s trannytown jesus christ lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
There is so much muck and useless verbiage in your average contract it's insane. But I mostly just roll my eyes if that's what the other party wants to start the process at, as long as its not actively hurting my client. But keeping up with blogs that go into poo poo like this: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/inure/, and it's like contracts are just built up over the years to be lovely in general, and to no one in particular.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:he probably charged his client $3000 to write that email so who really won here huh buddy
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Ani posted:I once had a series of emails and calls, at least 5 hours of my time (and 5 of the other side’s) over whether their client might or might not be liable for $0.05 in New Zealand cents - literally over whether there was a risk their client might owe less than a nickel. i once asked for a settlement agreement to be changed because it called for my client to make six equal payments of X, for a total of Y, except that 6*x was one penny less than y, and I wanted it to be very clear when my client had to pay the extra penny so that there would be no potential "lol you are in default by a penny all obligations accelerated" or "lol you forgot one penny, your release is not valid" Shageletic posted:There is so much muck and useless verbiage in your average contract it's insane. But I mostly just roll my eyes if that's what the other party wants to start the process at, as long as its not actively hurting my client. But keeping up with blogs that go into poo poo like this: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/inure/, and it's like contracts are just built up over the years to be lovely in general, and to no one in particular. mostly nobody ever got fired for putting too many words in, and everyone uses past forms where they don't really recall why provision x was included i slapped some language together for a deposition notice to be conducted remotely because of COVID early on in the pandemic and noticed a few months later random associates were using my exact language in unrelated cases for covid depo notices evilweasel fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 23:24
|
|