Self Service and the Future of Legal Contracting

‍How AI can make contract negotiation more efficient and empower legal resources to do more important (and valuable) work? Read more to find out.

How AI can make contract negotiation more efficient and empower legal resources to do more important (and valuable) work

Let’s face it; the current methods for contract negotiations are — at best — inefficient. Typically, they’re performed in a silo through a series of email exchanges. Globally, this approach wastes billions of dollars. A recent IACCM survey reported that “when there is any form of an amendment to the approved standard, a staggering 85% of such agreements are subject to legal review”. The result is higher costs and delays. Some argue that the additional expense is justified by the need to reduce risk. Yet, the report also stated that “[o]nly a very small percentage — perhaps around 5% — have grasped the point that many of the risks they perceive are illusory, that their legal department is innately conservative and that real change depends on new thinking.” A new approach is required, one that “seeks to eliminate or minimize the question?” So, where should we look for that change?

One alternative is so-called “no-touch” contracts. We encounter these almost daily, usually in the form of terms of service that are signed or accepted without changes. They make the contracting process extremely efficient. Such no-touch arrangements can be suitable for purchases or sales of commodity goods and services. But, their one-size-fits-all model is a limiting factor preventing more widespread adoption.

Some organizations control costs by setting monetary thresholds in negotiations. They limit review for contracts below a specific value. As there isn’t always a direct correlation between risk exposure and agreement value, this strategy is inherently flawed. For example, a lower value contract may have more risk than higher value agreements if the agreement calls for the processing of personal data.

A better way to balance the need to customize certain transactions and manage costs and risks is through self-service contracts. A self-service agreement has built-in, automated review and negotiation capability. It risk-scores incoming redlines and responds appropriately to each amendment. It utilizes artificial intelligence to:

  • accept a change,
  • reject a revision and explain why, or
  • modify the redline and replace the edit with a fallback term, or perhaps adjust another provision in the agreement to narrow the scope or impact of the change.

Additionally, to prevent individuals from gaming the system, rules can be set to cap the number of revisions and optionally risk rank the provisions.

A shift towards an automated review of redlines—at least, as an initial pass—is not only plausible, it’s likely. When considering the value of contracts strictly in terms of revenue, the majority of contracts requiring some revisions are subject to manual negotiation, while a handful of such agreements are of the no-touch variety. Self-service agreements—occupying the middle ground—may become the dominant mode of contracting. This will substantially reduce the need for manual review and traditional negotiation.

The value of this shift should not be underestimated. Given that billions of negotiated contracts are executed globally every year, eliminating even a small percentage of the email exchanges common to them (and the hourly fees that accompany their creation) translates into billions of dollars of annual savings. Couple the savings with the fact that self service-contracts necessarily free up legal resources to focus on more valuable, higher-level tasks; it becomes a question of when—and not if—a shift towards automation will become the norm.

Kingsley Martin

Kingsley is a founder of Akorda. He holds law degrees from Oxford University (First Class Honours) and Harvard Law School, and has 30 years of experience in the practice of law, software design and development, strategy, and management. Kingsley pioneered the new discipline called contract analysis. He is a founder of KMStandards and has developed software capable of automatically analyzing legal agreements and creating contract standards.

How Telos is using Akorda

Telos is a 770 person rapidly growing organization that mainly works with governments and agencies. The company is the global leader in enterprise, cyber and cloud security.
Searching through stored contracts
The Intelligent Contract Repository
Thank you for your submission!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Read More

About Akorda
Akorda is a CLM platform that accelerates the contract process for teams within a unified workspace, using AI to speed up legal review and negotiation time.
Upload your contracts and let our AI do the work for you
Get a Demo
Learn More: Risk

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  • No Liability. Neither party will be liable for performance delays, non-performance, or be deemed to have defaulted or breached this agreement due to causes beyond its reasonable control that materially affect a party's obligations under this agreement (a Force Majeure Event).

  • Notification. Upon the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event, the affected party shall promptly notify the other party of the occurrence of that Force Majeure Event, its effect on performance, and how long that party expects it to last. Thereafter, the Nonperforming Party shall update that information as reasonably necessary.

  • Best Efforts to Cure. In the event of a Force Majeure Event, the affected party shall use reasonable efforts to limit damages to the other party and to resume its performance under this agreement.

  • Right to Terminate. In the event such an occurrence prevents performance thereunder for a period over ninety (90) days, then the non-defaulting party may elect to terminate this agreement and/or cancel or suspend any Purchase Orders thereunder by written notice to the defaulting party.