<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Another ditto!</div><div><br></div><div>I have had to decline to review and edit contracts that are greater than say 15 pages because the client didn't want to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for that kind of detailed work. </div><div><br></div><div>I've had to decline to review and edit much shorter contracts that were so full of legalese they needed sentence diagrams to comprehend each provision.</div><div><br></div><div>I have had to tell clients if the goal is to get an agreement that reflects their desires, it is likely going to be less expensive to have me draft it from the beginning, than to try to edit someone else's work, especially someone who believes themselves to be "opposing" counsel in a contract negotiation.</div><div> FWIW, I've never understood that: when parties are contracting, they're heading towards the same mutual goal, so why do so many of our colleagues refer to our counterparts in such scenarios as "opposing counsel?"</div><div><br></div><div>Carry on in merriment,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div>Lara Pearson, Esq.</div><div>Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek</div><div>775.833.1600</div><div>Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)</div><div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Creative typoing by iPhone</span></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 11, 2023, at 4:22 PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Yeah it has not yet happened to me (so far as I know) but surely
it is only a matter of time before every practitioner will have
faced this.</p>
<p>I cringe to think of the risks. <br>
</p>
<p>If I draft something myself, then likely as not I will usually
think through what needs to be in the document. Maybe I might
completely forget some important bit that ought to have been in
the document, but I'd guess I would not screw up in that way very
often. Not only that, if I take as my starting point some earlier
document that I had touched and had already checked for missing
items, that reduces the risk that I completely forget to put in a
choice-of-law clause or whatever.<br>
</p>
<p>But when you or I get asked to review a document prepared by some
other person (or by some AI entity), its so very different,
right? Yes if there were a misspelled word it would jump off the
page at you. But that's not the kind of mistake that an AI would
make. And yes if some human or AI strings together some words
that are internally inconsistent, that can jump off the page just
from reading it aloud.</p>
<p>But suppose the document that was prepared by somebody else (or
by some AI entity) happens to be <i><b>completely missing</b></i>
some item or provision. When some item or provision is completely
missing, that is not the sort of thing that jumps off the page, at
least not for me. It doesn't actively look wrong if what we are
talking about is a dog that didn't bark (to use the Sherlock
Holmes metaphor). <br>
</p>
<p>When I started my law firm a long time ago, one of the things I
wrote on our web site was that if the potential client wants to
retain me to review a draft document that they prepared, just to
"touch it up" as they would say, my bill for the work would likely
be just as large as, and probably bigger than, my bill if they had
sucked it up and asked me to prepare the document myself. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/2023 4:51 PM, Scott Landsbaum
via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKHKrb4Vqyvnj=GVGm54FzQgt=iBLBfMpxXraFq_Md3hCVbffQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Twice now a client has asked me to review a draft
document that the client had ChatGPT write. I find this
offensive, but I'm not sure if I should. Have you encountered
this? Are you agreeing to do it? I'm considering telling
clients that I won't do it, although if a client told me they
had another lawyer draft a document and wanted me to check it, I
would. It's a wonky area and sure to happen more. Your
thoughts?<br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)"><font color="#000000">Scott</font></span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><font color="#ff0000">Winter
Closure: Dec. 25 - Jan.
1</font></span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204);font-size:12.7273px">Scott Landsbaum, Inc.</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)"><a href="tel:323-314-7881" value="+13233147881" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">323-314-7881</a> /
f 323-714-2454 </span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)">8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly
Hills, CA 90211</span></div>
<div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(102,102,204)"><a href="http://www.scottlandsbaum.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.scottlandsbaum.com</a> / </span><font color="#6666cc"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/</a></font><br>
<br style="color:rgb(102,102,204)">
<font style="color:rgb(102,102,204)" size="1">NOTICE: This e-mail is intended
solely for the individual
or individuals to whom it
is addressed and may
contain confidential
attorney-client privileged
information and attorney
work product. If you are
not the intended
recipient, please do not
read, forward, print, copy
or distribute it or any of
the information it
contains. Please delete
it immediately and notify
us by return e-mail or by
telephone at <a href="tel:%28323%29%20314-7881" value="+13233147881" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">(323)
314-7881</a>.<br>
<br>
IRS CIRCULAR 230
DISCLOSURE:<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,255)"> </span></font><font style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)" size="1">Any discussion of
tax matters contained in
this or any email
(including any
attachments) or in any
oral or </font><font style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)" size="1">other </font><font style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)" size="1">written
communication is not
intended to be used and
cannot be used for the
purpose of avoiding U.S.
tax related penalties or
in connection with the
promotion, marketing or
recommendation of any of
the matters addressed in
the communication.</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<span>-- </span><br><span>E-trademarks mailing list</span><br><span>E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</span><br><span>http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>