Nowhere to run. Legal Content and Conflict of Perception



    Continuing the previously begun .

    One of the key communication problems for the project for automating the production of legal content is that the objections and concerns associated with it contradict each other.

    On the one hand, legally competent documents are significantly underestimated in small companies.

    To be honest, they are often underestimated in large companies, but there it is methodologically differently structured, therefore, about this somehow not now


    People sincerely believe that it is enough to take the fish of the contract from the Internet for free and correct it a little. Very little. It’s just necessary to attach it to the account, the main thing is that the money comes, prepayment, and there we will figure it out. The fact that an advance payment can be returned, and with fines to the heap - this is somehow overlooked. “We have been working under this agreement for several years, and everything has always been fine with us,” is the favorite phrase of a good half of my acquaintances of the studio managers.

    In general, a manager can cook up an agreement on the basis of something unknown, especially not reading into anything other than a description of the work and the amount payable. Easy.

    This underestimation leads to the fact that even the miserable 500 rubles that FreshDoc takes for the contract seem to be a significant amount. Despite the fact that a lawyer would take several thousand. In fact, we are competing with sites on which ten buckets are poured out regarding standard fish contracts, take it - I do not want to. The fish there are obviously figs, because the main task of such a site is to sell you the services of a lawyer when you are trying to mess with what you have downloaded. And so, the harder it will be for you, the more reliable the sales prospect. Amen.

    But at the same time, contractual work is greatly overrated.

    Contracts go to lawyers, where they begin Very Important Agreements and AMENDMENTS. And all this is Very Important and Difficult. Here we are and here we correct the wording to a synonym. And so every time, despite the fact that there is no significant difference between this agreement and the one signed that week. And the one that is fits into a fully automated variability.

    A significant part of this activity is the indulgence of scratching the ego of a lawyer. And providing him with a sense of usefulness. Methodologically, a lawyer is the same system administrator. When everything is well done in advance - it is not visible and can not be heard, although it is mega-valuable in times of crisis, well, this "me not visible" actually requires some background work. And in general is a sign of quality.


    A typical objection of a lawyer against automation is an appeal to nuances that absolutely must be taken into account, that contractual work is a delicate matter, etc. Which is really true in about half the cases, or a little less. But does not cancel the existence of the other half.

    And in that place there is a third problem, because our product does not really fight with lawyers, but helps them. Reduces the burden on routine work, monitors current legislation, correctly renames footnotes from point to point when changing their composition or quantity. According to statistics, more than a third of our regular subscribers are lawyers. And we would like to have more. BUT!

    But at the same time, we find that a significant part of them hides that they use FreshDoc because they are afraid that they might be considered incompetent if they use the constructor. And this despite the fact that, in non-core tasks, we make their life radically easier, not by 40-50%, as in profile work, but dozens of times in time, if, say, a lawyer was asked to suddenly make some kind of contract outside the usual sphere company activities.

    And what’s wonderful: the thesis hypertrophied for convexity and comprehensibility in any of these three sectors necessarily works in support of the objections of the other two. It is clear that on narrow-profile sites you can choose one of three maxims and work with it. But if such platforms are relatively understandable for lawyers, then with the rest there are already great difficulties.

    Also popular now: