SpeedLegal

For sure @deshraj_singh! Give it a try. we'll be glad to help you make your contract processes easy!

@hanspaulpp Finally, there is a tool to help you better understand contracts and negotiate. SpeedLegal is the best!🔥

@hanspaulpp looks very amazing tool will definitely explore Congratulations on your Launch and UpVoted 🔥

@mohini_shewale Thanks for your support! We are sure you'll like the platform too! :)

Thanks a ton, @antonikozelski! Great to know you liked it :)

@sandra_idjoski haha for sure! this was a product of trying to solve our own problems to begin with! 😄

@hanspaulpp That's exactly how Collabwriting came to be too 😂

@sandra_idjoski building something to solve your personal itch often ends up solving for others too!

@rajat_kapoor05 Very true, and much easier to communicate it to your target audience too as you already know what they're struggling with

@sandra_idjoski @rajat_kapoor05 100% Sandra!

That's great to know @swarna_hebb! Give it a try. we'll be glad to help you make your contract processes easy!

@swarna_hebb definitely! There have been so many occasions where I had to go through contracts and had no clue what it said. SpeedLegal definitely makes the process much easier

@hanspaulp @swarna_hebb I love this idea too

@hanspaulp @swarna_hebb @olgamack Thank you, Olga and Swarna!

@trent_kennelly thank you very much Trent and great question! The secret lies on a well-performed training of the algorithm, match with having a legal team who understands how AI works

@trent_kennelly Thank you for the comment, Trent. Technology has improved massively since we started SpeedLegal (using DL classification models and NER). Now, with LLMs, we can get results that were not possible some months ago. AI is not perfect, and we should double-check - that's why we created the SpeedLegal Trust Score to explain how we provide a specific outcome and how reliable it should be for the final user.

@bradydowling well, that depends entirely on you and you preferences! being aware of the content of a contract is always a good idea, but with SpeedLegal help you can have quickly highlighted the riskier part -and that's a big relief!

@bradydowling Good question, Brady - that's why we developed SpeedLegal Trust Score, to tell our users how we come to a specific outcome and how reliable it is.

@alex_dulub Thanks, Alex - I appreciate your support. We analyze contracts in several countries, and we compare your contracts with the market standard (created by data + humans) in any specific jurisdiction. Here is a detailed article about the above https://speedlegal.io/post/how-w...

@alex_dulub thanks for your support!

@alex_dulub @hanspaulpp The problem isn't the text itself, it's enforceability. You don't hire a lawyer because everything is fine and dandy, you hire one to minimize risk or to solve specific problems, and unless the AI is able to accurately determine under what circumstances and which part of a contract is actually enforceable, it's effectively placebo. For example, non-competes are common, but their enforceability is actually quite limited, at least in the US. Yet, they still differ. It's easy if you have bright-line rules, but not all jurisdictions do. This is especially true in common law jurisdictions, which is every US jurisdiction outside of Louisiana. Some have a weighing test that involve multiple factors that are vague by nature (the characteristics of the new employment undertaken, distance between employers, size of market now and later, etc), some set a cutoff at length of time, some are particularly narrow in scope, almost all require actually going to court if you can't work out some sort of gardening leave (which if contracted may not be enforceable on its own). Oh, and this at least has a consistent outcome most of the time since most noncompetes are boilerplates. Many contracts are not made up of just boilerplates. Contract law inevitably involves civil procedure. If there is a dispute, who has standing? What sort of relationship is actually present. Is there misrepresentation. Is the issue ripe, or moot? All this gets you in the court room. But if I'm negotiating with an AI, I'd take it to court every time. Because AI doesn't have attorney-client confidentiality. I feel like I've said this a million times here on PH (so it's not you) but the current system presumes that all parties are human and legally competent in the jurisdiction. Any deviation from that is a disadvantage, one that you cannot afford. Change the laws and the balance may shift, but before that happens, well, I can almost guarantee that a tech-competent attorney will beat the AI on procedural grounds alone. And can we just get it out of the way: smart contract is a metaphor. It can be a contract, but there are plenty of ways to deploy code onto some chain that is colloquially called a smart contract but do not and cannot form a contractual relationship with anyone or anything, period. You can deploy a library that is a shared utility - no contractual obligation there. You can deploy a contract that merely does a thing and then self-destructs. The failure to understand this (and the assumption that each EOA address corresponds to and can only correspond to a real person) has effectively caused the wrong outcome to be reached in every case involving blockchain technology that has actually reached the courts. I have an RSS feed set up just for these, actually, for federal dockets, and those are the two key errors that are made over and over again and counsel seems somehow unable to properly explain it when it's extremely easy to do so. Contracts, "smart" or not, are already agreements entered voluntarily between parties that exchanges considerations and can be enforced. "Code is law" is a pun made by someone that got lost when read by someone who knew one but not the other. It doesn't work in Chinese, for example, even if China had a working legal system. It's just a play on words that someone took too seriously. They are synonyms, but that makes it a truism. When you get down to brass tacks, the courts will determine, rightly or wrongly, if in any particular case they are the equivalent or not. Also, contracts are not enforced on the blockchain because there's no state to enforce it, that's the point of the blockchain. if mere execution is enforcement then why does the state come in to adjudicate disputes when there should not be any. The blockchain takes away a centralized authority's ability to negate an agreement between parties arbitrarily. It is undermined by the manner of attribution employed by authorities that is somehow smuggled into court as valid when really, it should not have been - the DOJ spent nearly 2 years on the Sterlingov case attempting to get around it before somehow hoodwinking the court into allowing it in. That also lacks precedential value and will be subject to challenges - in fact appeals have been filed. but will the AI know that?

@afenjarb thank you very much for your feedback! The goal of SpeedLegal is to make non-legal users life easier, give it a try! As per your question, yes, we have that on our plans.

@afenjarb Hi Bar, thanks for your comment. Yes, RTL languages are on our roadmap. Sign up today to get notified of the RTL languages release!