82,891
edits
Contract analysis: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
Secondly, it adds to the cost. Now, to be sure, [[reg tech]] providers are master [[rent-seeker]]s anyway, but here they have an actual out-of-pocket cost which they have to pay. Thus, the [[contract review tool]] will carry a heavy charge per document review. Better ones charge less than a hundred bucks. Some charge as much as three hundred, ''per review''. Suddenly the cost proposition that swung the business case looks a bit squiffy: your starting assumption is you are saving an hour of your internal legal’s time, which you unitise at, say, $250. But that is a ''nominal'' cost. It is sunk. A new confi coming in doesn’t generate that cost, and firing the thing out to your [[contract review tool]] doesn’t save it. Internal [[legal eagles]] are a fixed cost, and are notoriously hard to [[shredding|shred]] back to the business. They just sit there, on the firm’s dime, ''whether you use them or not''. Most work hard, of course — the [[legal eagle]] who punches out at 5pm on the smacker on ''any'' day, let alone ''every'' day is — well, a rare bird. He ''will'' look at that [[confi]], and anything else that needs to get done, at some stage during the day. ''[[Legal eagle]]s don’t work to rule''.<ref>As it happens, the occasional confi can be a pleasant distraction: a nice re-charger after a hard morning slogging through a series of regulatory change stakeholder [[Skype]] calls. Hey, management team: why don’t you try to get rid of all the ''stakeholder management calls''? ''There'' is a question.</ref> So, unless you can prove that, with your [[contract review tool]] you can actually let some of your lawyers ''go'', it is not saving ''any'' money. It is ''costing'' money — ''more'' than it would have cost your internal team just knock off the confi in the first place. | Secondly, it adds to the cost. Now, to be sure, [[reg tech]] providers are master [[rent-seeker]]s anyway, but here they have an actual out-of-pocket cost which they have to pay. Thus, the [[contract review tool]] will carry a heavy charge per document review. Better ones charge less than a hundred bucks. Some charge as much as three hundred, ''per review''. Suddenly the cost proposition that swung the business case looks a bit squiffy: your starting assumption is you are saving an hour of your internal legal’s time, which you unitise at, say, $250. But that is a ''nominal'' cost. It is sunk. A new confi coming in doesn’t generate that cost, and firing the thing out to your [[contract review tool]] doesn’t save it. Internal [[legal eagles]] are a fixed cost, and are notoriously hard to [[shredding|shred]] back to the business. They just sit there, on the firm’s dime, ''whether you use them or not''. Most work hard, of course — the [[legal eagle]] who punches out at 5pm on the smacker on ''any'' day, let alone ''every'' day is — well, a rare bird. He ''will'' look at that [[confi]], and anything else that needs to get done, at some stage during the day. ''[[Legal eagle]]s don’t work to rule''.<ref>As it happens, the occasional confi can be a pleasant distraction: a nice re-charger after a hard morning slogging through a series of regulatory change stakeholder [[Skype]] calls. Hey, management team: why don’t you try to get rid of all the ''stakeholder management calls''? ''There'' is a question.</ref> So, unless you can prove that, with your [[contract review tool]] you can actually let some of your lawyers ''go'', it is not saving ''any'' money. It is ''costing'' money — ''more'' than it would have cost your internal team just knock off the confi in the first place. | ||
=====It makes for ''more'' work downstream===== | =====It makes for ''more'' work downstream===== | ||
Now this is not so much a function of the technology but the perverse incentives that operate inside a sprawling organisation. Bear in mind the primary driver of most employees in risk and control functions is covering their ''own'' arses first, ''then'' their organisation’s. | Now this is not so much a function of the technology but the perverse incentives that operate inside a sprawling organisation. Bear in mind the primary driver of most employees in risk and control functions is covering their ''own'' arses first, ''then'', where practicable, their organisation’s. There are two places where legal decisions need to be made: Firstly, in configuring the [[playbook]] that supplies the parameters for the [[contract review tool]]; and secondly, by the [[legal eagle]] herself, in combat during a live negotiation, when confronted with a challenge from the counterparty. | ||
*'''The [[playbook]]''': There is not a negotiation manual nor a [[playbook]] on the planet which stipulates [[walk-away point]]s at an ''actual'', real-life, point at which the organisation will actually walk away. Not a one. | *'''The [[playbook]]''': There is not a negotiation manual nor a [[playbook]] on the planet which stipulates [[walk-away point]]s at an ''actual'', real-life, point at which the organisation will actually walk away. Not a one. It is wrought in the abstract, without the benefit of individual mitiganbts that might accompany any project. It is modelled not on the golden mean, but the lowest common denominator. It will have too many rules, and all will be informed by the [[credit officer’s refrain]]: ''it can’t hurt to ask''. They may even employ that fatuous supposition that some justify by reference to [[behavioural economics]], that ''it leaves us something to concede so that the client can think it has won something''. | ||
*'''The negotiation''': it is a great comfort and solace to an inhouse lawyer to be able to make commercial decisions, to concede technical or finicky points, and let ''de minimis'' points go, on the fly. This is what gives the [[legal eagle]] ''wings''. This vouches safe [[Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us - Book Review|her ''autonomy'', her ''mastery'' and her ''purpose'']]. This is why she shows up for work. This is why she slogged through all those interminable lectures about [[promissory estoppel]] all those years ago. There is something ineffable about that knowledge: it is impervious to measurement; it lies in a rich forensic magisterium beyond the censorial gaze of [[internal audit]]. In this sunlit realm, we [[legal eagle]]s can truly fly. | *'''The negotiation''': it is a great comfort and solace to an inhouse lawyer to be able to make commercial decisions, to concede technical or finicky points, and let ''de minimis'' points go, on the fly. This is what gives the [[legal eagle]] ''wings''. This vouches safe [[Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us - Book Review|her ''autonomy'', her ''mastery'' and her ''purpose'']]. This is why she shows up for work. This is why she slogged through all those interminable lectures about [[promissory estoppel]] all those years ago. There is something ineffable about that knowledge: it is impervious to measurement; it lies in a rich forensic magisterium beyond the censorial gaze of [[internal audit]]. In this sunlit realm, we [[legal eagle]]s can truly fly. | ||
We can see immediately that the playbook interferes with the lawyer’s free run of her magisterium. It will mark-up to rule, according to the strictures of the playbook, however nonsensical they may be,. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | *[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | ||
*{{br|A World Without Work}} | *{{br|A World Without Work}} | ||