[E-trademarks] Reviewing ChatGPT Documents

[David Michaels]

Hi Carl,

These two AI services make reviewing contracts much easier:

Spellbook helps draft and revise contracts:
https://www.spellbook.legal/

Luminance also automates the generation, negotiation and analysis of
contracts:
https://www.luminance.com/news/press/20231107_luminance_showcases.html

The subscriptions are valuable for business attorneys who review various
contracts daily.

David Michaels
416-239-1361


On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 7:22 PM Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> I cringe to think of the risks.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But suppose the document that was prepared by somebody else (or by some AI
> entity) happens to be *completely missing* 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).
>
> 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.
>
>
> On 12/11/2023 4:51 PM, Scott Landsbaum via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Scott
> Winter Closure: Dec. 25 - Jan. 1
> Scott Landsbaum, Inc.
> 323-314-7881 / f 323-714-2454
> 8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
> www.scottlandsbaum.com / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/
>
> 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 (323) 314-7881
> <%28323%29%20314-7881>.
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any discussion of tax matters contained in
> this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or other 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.
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231211/6b07094b/attachment.htm>