What's funny is when I co-ran my previous company, I *rarely* involved our lawyer for contracts, because often all you have to do is redline parts of the contract and send it back with your initials and a simple "we don't agree to the red-lined items in your boilerplate pls remove" 🤷
Tech bros think an LLM can replace a lawyer because their lawyers fulfill one function: they produce paper they don’t themselves understand. The answer to every “why” question you’ll ever get from an M&A or investment lawyer will be how “standard” that particular clause is.
Oh, 100% agree here.
We were a VERY small company with relatively smaller revenue so like, any chance I could save money on common sense easy wins I would.
If the client was big enough, and their legal team gave me "Big Boy Pushback," I called our lawyer and then literally one letter fixed it lol.
What cracks me up with regard to your original point is:
What Big Boy Legal Team in that situation, the one where we NEEDED legal weight on our side, would look at an email "from our LLM "Lawyer" AI" and not laugh their asses off and just bury us in legalese replies??
An AI can't Represent you 🤷
That's exactly the thing. These people think code is law and law is code, and that if you tell the other side the "right" answer then there's no possible alternative outcome.
Before the LLM wave really took off, we saw the precursor of it with the Ethereum people. Every one I knew threw a rod when asked what they'd do when a judge handed them an injunction.
I'm not a lawyer but for my sins I gotta know a thing or two, and I did take a certain glee in explaining that injunctive relief does not give a shit about the well-actually
