81–90 of 105 posts
How is this "not legal advice"? You're _selling_ summaries of legal documents.
I'm not a lawyer though, so I have no idea if that logic would hold up in court. I'm just guessing that's the rational they are using.
Can this idea be turned on its head to engineer adversarial legal language that sounds reasonable but actually has terrible implications for the signee?
I've heard that in situations like this courts will usually uphold the spirit and not the letter of the contract (same as eg if you have a typo and add a zero somewhere). Not a lawyer and might be 100% wrong on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers don't have a monopoloy over business knowledge, they have a monopoly over providing legal services.
Lawyers also have a _legally binding obligation_ to provide accurate, context-aware, complete advice.
The glosses all seem accurate, if incomplete sometimes. I got a strong sense that they had been reviewed/polished by a human "expert". That might explain the pricing.
I didn't find the glosses much clearer than the original, just shorter. The Google legalese I read was fairly clear. With the document being a legal contract, it's obviously vital to understand the legalese.
I'd be impressed by an AI that can read an employment contract, and say "Whoah! Clause 31-B(ii) is implicitly asking you to sign your descendants into servitude in perpetuity! Perhaps you should take a look!", or "Did you notice that all benefits are contingent on stuff beyond your control?". I'd probably have paid $25 for that, because I've never had a lawyer scan my employment contract. I read them myself, but IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 4 page document prompted me for a $50 payment. Good luck running 500 pages through this thing...
The pricing is absolutely disconnected-from-reality wild. At worst a junior associate at $BIGFIRM would review a document of that length with an understanding of issues specific to your situation, governing law/locality, etc for somewhere around $100 AND this would include a redlined response with suggested edits, annotations, any questions, etc. A local, friendlier more SMB or startup catering attorney/smaller firm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean exactly, are you just looking for software that will highlight the differences between two documents? That software exists already.
Yes that software does exist and currently my go to method (convert pdf to word document, compare changes in word). The ideal system would highlight (sets of) text that that's common between both documents and underline text that is original. Or vice versa.
"The ideal system would highlight (sets of) text that that's common between both documents and underline text that is original. Or vice versa."
Just change your settings in microsoft word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pricing is absolutely disconnected-from-reality wild. At worst a junior associate at $BIGFIRM would review a document of that length with an understanding of issues specific to your situation, governing law/locality, etc for somewhere around $100 AND this would include a redlined response with suggested edits, annotations, any questions, etc. A local, friendlier more SMB or startup catering attorney/smaller firm…
How much do you think they charge for associate time at a biglaw firm? It's well above $400/hr.
For rate sheet time that's still too much and negotiating down legal invoices is just about the best use of time from a cost-benefit standpoint.
Given how confident AI can be when it's incorrect, it feels like a bit of a problem to use AI with legal docs, since you can't really trust it to be correct (and the cost of being incorrect may be absurdly high).
I’ve had ChatGPT tell me how to do something one way, and then give an example that omitted the specific syntax it had called out. It was only until I told it that the example didn’t reflect what it wrote that it basically said ‘oops! Here’s the corrected version’. I can’t even begin to imagine how poorly that could go in a legal context.
I started wading through the Google example. I got about 0.25 of the way through. The glosses all seem accurate, if incomplete sometimes. I got a strong sense that they had been reviewed/polished by a human "expert". That might explain the pricing. I didn't find the glosses much clearer than the original, just shorter. The Google legalese I read was fairly clear. With the document being a legal contract, it's obvious…