[E-trademarks] Reviewing ChatGPT Documents

[Orvis]

I would not do it. I have also declined the type of work Carl mentioned. 

>From a risk / reward perspective, the reward is not worth the risk. How long could you bill just to review something? Surely the client is not expecting much.  Except for the best clients, they will blame you if something goes wrong. This feels like they're using your license and your insurance.

Think of all the work you've done over the years. It's pretty rare to truly understand the really important issues until you dig in. You don't have time to do that here.

I have very strong opinions about what we charge. A colleague told me a few days ago that according to aipla reports, the cost of a patent application has not materially increased in about 20 years. I personally know guys who have been drafting software applications for a very large filer for the same price for 15 years.

The attorneys on this list serve are some of the most knowledgeable ones I have ever met. I wish we as a group would value our time more. I don't know how that mindset will shake out with the AI intervention into law, but I have noticed patent attorneys willing to do more for less for a long time.




Dec 11, 2023 9:08:50 PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>:

> Another ditto!
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
>  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?"
> 
> Carry on in merriment,
> 
> 
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
> 
> Creative typoing by iPhone
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 11, 2023, at 4:22 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[tel:323-314-7881] / f 323-714-2454 
>>> 8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
>>> www.scottlandsbaum.com[http://www.scottlandsbaum.com/] / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/[https://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[tel:%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/fb58e7bd/attachment.htm>