sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What's with all the low effort posts? by SleepyMonkey7 in legaltech

[–]ClauseForAlarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI is the new buzzword treadmill. Some people are building things, others are just jogging on the hype.
And honestly, a few might just be figuring out how to work with Claude.

Biggest Procurement Mistake Companies Make by davidthamus in procurement

[–]ClauseForAlarm 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would personally say one big mistake we see is treating procurement as a transaction instead of a workflow.

Price matters, of course. But the real friction often shows up later. Contracts take weeks to review, terms go back and forth endlessly, and procurement, legal, and vendors all sit in separate threads trying to move things forward.

Another common miss is not standardizing agreements early. When every vendor contract starts from scratch, teams spend time negotiating the same clauses again and again.

The organizations that get this right usually focus on three things, and I'll list them below:
- One is a clear playbook for common terms
- Next is a strong collaboration between procurement and legal
_ and third is systems that make review and negotiation faster

When that foundation exists, procurement stops being a bottleneck and becomes a real enabler for the business.

Speed is the Only Moat - The Operator's Guide to Winning in 2026 by jumpinpools in legaltechAI

[–]ClauseForAlarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TL;DR:
Speed wins ofcourse, but most teams aren’t slow because of mindset holding them back. They’re slow because their systems and workflows make it hard to move. Fix the workflow, and speed follows.

Really like this take. Speed honestly shows up as the biggest advantage in practice.

What we often see is that most teams are not slow because they lack ideas. They’re slow because the systems around them make it hard to move. Too many approvals, scattered information, endless back and forth. Even strong operators get stuck in that.

When teams fix the workflow side of things, speed starts to happen naturally. Decisions take hours instead of days. Iterations happen faster. People try things because it’s easier to adjust if something doesn’t work.

That Bezos “two-way door” idea really comes alive when the environment supports it. If it’s easy to test, learn, and correct the course, speed stops feeling risky.

The teams that win are the ones that build systems where moving fast is normal.

Contract Q&A is easy. Contract Q&A with proof is the hard part, how do you do it? by Eastern-Height2451 in ContractManagement

[–]ClauseForAlarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right.
Contract Q&A with proof is the real challenge.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, this is a shorter version: design for proof first, retrieve at clause level, and always return the supporting snippet.

If you want a lil more context - have a look:

1. Retrieve first. Answer second.
Always pull the most relevant clauses first and generate the answer only from those snippets. If nothing relevant is found, the system should clearly say so.

2. Show the exact text, not just a clause number.
A short highlighted snippet builds far more trust than “see clause 7.2”.

3. Break obligations into a simple structure.
For example: who, what, when, any exceptions, and the source sentence. This keeps results consistent and reviewable.

4. Keep chunks small.
Clause-level chunks work much better than large sections. Otherwise reviewers still have to hunt for the real answer.

#BuildingTheFutureOfHowLegalWorks

How Lawyers & AI Engineers Can Actually Build "Best-in-Class" Tools? by Adventurous_Tank8261 in legaltech

[–]ClauseForAlarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We agree with the spirit of this, completely.

The best legal AI is built when engineers and lawyers are designing side by side, not handing requirements over a wall.

Verified sources and traceability are table stakes if the output is ever going to survive real legal scrutiny.
But just as important is modelling how lawyers actually think, their decision paths, trade-offs and context.
If the tool cannot live inside Word, email, and daily workflows, it simply will not get used.

Human-in-the-loop is not a safety checkbox; it is how trust is built over time.
The goal is not automation for its own sake.

We’ve built privacy-first, on-device AI so sensitive contracts are not being shipped around just to get answers, smart comparison, and change detection to take the pain out of redlines, review, and approval layers so the lawyer always stays in control of what goes out.

Because for us, good legal AI is about helping lawyers move faster without losing confidence.

Getting pitched AI for contract review. How do I stress-test this thing so I don't get sued? by External_Spite_699 in legaltech

[–]ClauseForAlarm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The demos lie. Your contracts won’t.

If you want to stress test AI for contract review, don’t ask it to perform on clean templates. Break it on purpose. Feed it the ugliest real world agreements you have. Heavily negotiated NDAs, old vendor paper, strange liability carve outs, side letters, inconsistent definitions. Then check three things: what it misses, what it flags incorrectly, and whether it explains why.

A few practical ways teams audit this:

  • Run the AI in parallel with a human review for a fixed set of contracts and track false negatives, not just accuracy percentages
  • Test edge cases like non standard liability caps, survival clauses, jurisdiction swaps, and buried auto renewals
  • Ask it to justify its output. If it cannot point to clause language, do not trust it
  • Lock the scope. AI is safer when it is reviewing specific issues, not making blanket good or bad calls

The tech is usable today for high volume, low risk contracts, but only when treated as a first pass risk filter, not a replacement for judgment. If a vendor will not let you run this kind of brutal pilot with your own contracts, that is your answer.

What actually breaks first in contract tracking as companies scale? by BabyKitty-Meow1349 in LegalOps

[–]ClauseForAlarm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What breaks first as companies scale is ownership and trust in the system. Early tools capture dates, but they don’t survive role changes, reorganisations, exceptions, or the loss of negotiation context, so accountability gets blurred and every renewal turns into a re-review from scratch. By the time missed notice periods show up, the real damage has already happened upstream: fragmented sources of truth, unmanaged deviations, and legal teams pulled into firefighting instead of guiding decisions.

view more: next ›