83,229
edits
LegalHub: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|projects|}}Disrupting the legal eagles. | ||
*BidSniper: A legal quote/auction system that is not biased in favour of law-firms, or clients, but a genuine two-way market. | |||
*Legal opinion portal: For standardised legal opinions (eg netting opinions) a standardised, coded delivery system | |||
===How is this different to existing platforms?=== | ===How is this different to existing platforms?=== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Therefore (i) they are unresponsive to real-time demand; (ii) they are expensive and high maintenance; (iii) they unnecessarily [[Rent-seeker|extract rent]], and encourage down-stream [[rent-seeking]] behaviour from participants (iv) they preserve [[confidentiality]] and a worldview which regards as ''proprietary'' an element of market infrastructure ([[boilerplate]]) that is in fact a ''public utility''. | Therefore (i) they are unresponsive to real-time demand; (ii) they are expensive and high maintenance; (iii) they unnecessarily [[Rent-seeker|extract rent]], and encourage down-stream [[rent-seeking]] behaviour from participants (iv) they preserve [[confidentiality]] and a worldview which regards as ''proprietary'' an element of market infrastructure ([[boilerplate]]) that is in fact a ''public utility''. | ||
LegalHub would be open-architecture. The business model assumes a “flywheel”: vendors attract customers, who attract vendors, who attract customers. There would need to be a minimum viable product. Obvious candidate is the netting military industrial complex, but the platform would be suitable for any kind of commercial legal process. | |||
*Contract negotiation | |||
*Inhouse contractors | |||
*Sole practitioners and paralegal advisors | |||
LegalHub would be designed to plug in to existing services that do a serviceable job, rather than displacing them. Eg KYC service providers, legal resources (ClauseStack) ISDA libraries etc. | |||
===Just “[[boilerplate]]”?=== | ===Just “[[boilerplate]]”?=== | ||
We take a wide view of what counts as “[[boilerplate]]”. ''All'' legal documentation that would not feature on a one-page term sheet is “[[boilerplate]]”. | We take a wide view of what counts as “[[boilerplate]]”. ''All'' legal documentation that would not feature on a one-page term sheet is “[[boilerplate]]”. | ||
For the underlying economic/systems rationale, see: [[ | For the underlying economic/systems rationale, see: [[LegalHub: theory]] | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
===What=== | ===What=== | ||
| Line 47: | Line 52: | ||
*'''Build for the long term''': Recognise that adoption and development will be slow at first. Stick with it. | *'''Build for the long term''': Recognise that adoption and development will be slow at first. Stick with it. | ||
*'''Direction''': Start with what we have: traditional text-based contracts — how folks do things ''now'', for better or worse — expect it to a fully digital, networked, authenticated smart contracts world ''if'' that is the best fit. | *'''Direction''': Start with what we have: traditional text-based contracts — how folks do things ''now'', for better or worse — expect it to a fully digital, networked, authenticated smart contracts world ''if'' that is the best fit. | ||
===But how do I make money?=== | |||
===But how do I make money=== | |||
*'''Content providers''' (reg tech firms, lawfirms) become developers building specific code for the system which they can be paid by partners on a project by project basis. No [[rent seeking]]. | *'''Content providers''' (reg tech firms, lawfirms) become developers building specific code for the system which they can be paid by partners on a project by project basis. No [[rent seeking]]. | ||
*'''Industry associations''' should donate their IP because — well, hang it, it ''isn’t'' their IP, it is a market utility, that should be in the commons anyway, and sharing it widely is in the interest of their members and the market more generally. | *'''Industry associations''' should donate their IP because — well, hang it, it ''isn’t'' their IP, it is a market utility, that should be in the commons anyway, and sharing it widely is in the interest of their members and the market more generally. | ||
| Line 64: | Line 68: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[ | *[[LegalHub: theory]] | ||
*[[OneNDA]] | |||
*[[Legal services delivery]] | *[[Legal services delivery]] | ||