How many real-life legal problems — the kind that hold up that inter-affiliate GMSLA for four years — boil down to a straight-forward piece of analytical black-letter lawyering? If it is as few as I suspect — more or less none — this further puts into doubt this fatuous idea that “legal service delivery” is the problem.
No doubt it is right that a large proportion of the each legal task is comprised of workaday items (in the same way as Julian Jaynes argued, almost all of what we consider to be “higher-conscious thought” is really nothing of the sort — much of what we do every day we do on autopilot) but are these the things that cause the problems? We suspect not — and when they are; when you get a counterparty asking for something properly bone-headed — to disapply the “no-consequential losses” clause in a GMSLA in case of fraud or wilful default for example — the job isn’t to persuade the negotiator on the other side of the impeccable absurdity of his position — he will almost certainly know it far more keenly even than you, as he will hear it from a new counterparty every day of his working life, but the requirement will have been imposed upon him by someone far higher up the chain whose opinion is not to be second-guessed — but to figure how to construct a route through the absurdity that delivers a sensible result for you while allowing him, with a good conscience, to tell his superiors their wishes have been carried out.
This is not the sort of thing to leave to a school-leaver from Bucharest, let alone a chatbot.
- ↑ How I wish I were joking.
- ↑ Real life example.