OneNDA: Difference between revisions

The fellowship managed to resist the human impulses to which we agents of the [[Tragedy of the commons|tragic commons]] resort by irrepressible force of habit: the bickering, the [[special pleading]], [[committee]] drafting, pursuit by ring-fixated goblins muttering [[Culpa in contrahendo|baffling ancient curses]]: the cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left: half a league onward rode the OneNDA [[Steering committee]], and generated a nice, simple, pleasant first edition.   

Not [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|''perfect'' — is anything? — but absolutely good enough]].  

It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck with a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. We remain hopeful and optimistic. So, in a gentle further shove, here some observations about what it could all mean.  

''If you simplify, you may not need technology''. There is no need for automation, document assembly, even a mail merge is probably over-engineering. This is to observe that the conundrum facing modern legal eagles is not one of ''[[service delivery]]'', but ''[[Legal service|service]]'' in the first place. Fix the ''content'', and the delivery challenges fix themselves.

''If you simplify, it is easier to apply technology''. To design for technology, design for ''no'' technology. The fewer options, subroutines, [[Caveat|caveats]] and [[conditions precedent]] in your legal forms, the easier they will be to automate. You will get all kinds of second order benefits too: fewer complaints, fewer comments, less time auditing your monstrous catalogue of templates.

The [[JC]]’s [[maxim|handy aphorism]] applies here: {{maxim|first, cut out the pies}}.

Once upon a time — until 2021 —if you devised your own short-form NDA, however elegant, you could expect it to be ''rejected''<ref>There ''is'' a “battle of the forms”, even if not apparent to the [[doyen of drafting]].</ref> or [[Mark-up|marked up]] to ''oblivion'' by the [[rent-seeking]] massive.<ref>The [[JC]] knows this, because he’s tried it. No [[counterparts]] clause! No waiver of jury trials! It was still worth doing, but it didn’t completely solve the problem.</ref> Your voice was but a candle in the storm.