82,903
edits
Document assembly: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Resist this thought. For these things are relative, and you must judge them against your objective. If you are managing a one-off, $10bn risk, who ''cares'' how long, bespoke and expensive your legal document is, as long is it aids your management of that risk?<ref>It won’t, of course, but [[don’t take a piece of paper to a knife fight|that is another story]].</ref> | Resist this thought. For these things are relative, and you must judge them against your objective. If you are managing a one-off, $10bn risk, who ''cares'' how long, bespoke and expensive your legal document is, as long is it aids your management of that risk?<ref>It won’t, of course, but [[don’t take a piece of paper to a knife fight|that is another story]].</ref> | ||
A [[root cause analysis]] may help you get to the great if the matter. | |||
If the subject matter is it quotidian, the volume of throughput high and usual negotiation load light — [[terms of business]], say — then fix your contract form so it doesn't ''need'' automation. Genericise it. Cut out some of the verbiage. Drop an indemnity. Seriously, will you miss it? | |||
If heavily negotiated, then — firstly, same; see what you can simplify and strip out — but once you've done that, ask ''how much time will automating save? A draft that takes 30 minutes to prepare in the context of a three-month negotiation, like an ISDA, is really not the problem you need to be solving. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Reg tech]] | *[[Reg tech]] | ||
*[[Nigel molesworth]] | *[[Nigel molesworth]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||