LawHawk Blog

A significant proposition of Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) solutions is the ability to automate key contracts, instantly generating documents with the highest standards of quality and consistency.

However, it is essential to address formatting and numbering issues that often plague contract templates before implementing a CLM solution.

Many legal teams lack knowledge of these formatting nuances, resulting in consistent errors and inconsistencies from their automated system and undermining received benefits.

In many Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) solutions, the contracting process traditionally begins with a contract request.

However, to achieve optimal contracting outcomes, it is crucial to acknowledge that the process should commence well before that stage.

Before committing to a contract, a good process might already have a procurement plan in place. The business may have gone through some form of procurement process and discovery workshop and have some form of a term sheet or heads of agreement setting out key terms. These preliminary steps aid participants in structuring their thinking, identifying the problems they aim to solve, and establishing the desired outcomes and how they will work together to achieve them.

By the time we reach the stage of requesting or drafting a contract, a considerable amount of necessary information should, therefore, already be readily available.

The key lies in ensuring that the previously agreed upon or determined information is accessible for use in the contract without the need for redundant data entry.

Fortunately, there are various approaches to accomplish this.

In the fast-paced world of contract management, the rise of comprehensive Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) solutions has been remarkable.

These solutions offer an array of impressive functionalities and continuous improvements that promise to revolutionise how legal teams and contract managers handle contracts. However, amidst this excitement, we’ve observed many projects that struggle to take off, falter at early stages, or fall into disuse after an initially promising start.

At the heart of this issue lies a disconnect between the capabilities these full-featured solutions offer and what legal and procurement teams and organisations actually want and are capable of utilising.

In a recent conversation, a General Counsel succinctly expressed the sentiment shared by many: after extensive exploration of numerous options, all he really wanted was a fully searchable SharePoint library with all contracts in one place, accompanied by essential metadata such as expiry dates to ensure no renewal slipped through the cracks.

Because of our focus on document and legal automation, you might expect us to advocate for automating everything, but as with most things, it’s about context.

Automation is great when you have very high volumes, many standard options you need to choose from, and/or details that need to be entered multiple times. In those situations, you can save 75% or more of the drafting time while ensuring that the right clauses are inserted in the correct format. It can get you 90% or more of the way there, allowing you time to add the final 10%.
You don’t need to automate all documents, though.

“A good contract can go in the bottom draw and never be looked at again” was what people said when I started as a lawyer in the 1990s. Contracts were seen as legal documents to be written by lawyers, negotiated by lawyers, and read by other lawyers - if there was a dispute. 

via GIPHY

A recent series of articles published by Zac de Silva and Mark Fisher touched on issues that we've been observing recently too.

Mark Fisher states, "I've never seen a candidate-short market as extreme as this… and I worked in London through the GFC from 2006 to 2012. It's putting so much pressure on all of us and that's across every single industry, whether it's nursing, retail, hospital, professional services, engineering, tech, digital – every single industry is dramatically short."

It's clearly become very challenging for law firms too, and it will get worse.

The article above contains some great suggestions on better managing retention and staff recruitment.

There's another lever that can also help – technology.

I had two interesting conversations with law firm clients last week.

Both involved scenarios under which our automation would improve an overall business process and result in the law firm needing to do less in generating draft documents.

Neither conversation was based on wanting to pay the lawyers less.

I often talk to in-house lawyers who are unhappy with a technology solution they're using and are looking for a replacement.

When digging deeper, it often appears that they are not using it as intended to be used and are overlooking core features, which is a large part of the issue. Without using it properly, I think it's unfair to make judgements about how good it is, and hard to tell what you need in an alternative.