Document assembly: Difference between revisions

Document assembly (view source)

541 bytes added , 10 October 2022

no edit summary

82,853

edits

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 It is specified by IT folk who don’t understand the business (legal) application, sold to (legal) users who don’t understand the technological benefits of automation, let alone the challenges sub-optimal legal language poses to that technical benefit — is there any more dispositionally Luddite a professional than a lawyer? — and is commissioned and configured by [[management consultant]]s who (a) don’t understand (that is, ''{{risk|fear}}'') the business application, (b) don’t trust (that is, ''{{risk|fear}}'') the legal users; and (c) are motivated to retain control of the process and quash any instinct for flexibility or creativeness by lawyers, whom they are trying to reconceptualise as mute users of overweening {{t|technology}} — that is to say, '''''[[user]]s'''''.
+===If document assembly is the answer...===
+The intuitive case is obvious:
+“Document assembly: brilliant: saves time, reduces error, enforces standards, reduces costs.”
+Before leaping into document assembly is worth being a bit analytical about what you already do. We take it as a given that your process is lengthy, error-strewn, unstandardised, and expensive: we judge these things relative to the end you are trying to achieve. (If you are managing a $10bn risk, who cares how long, bespoke and expensive your legal document is).
 {{sa}}