April 2019

Legal Design
Challenge
Scenarios to improve
contracting

A collaboration between DWF, LEx Open Source, Radiant Law and Wavelength Law
 First things first
The Legal Design Challenge To kick start the challenge we gave a sample contracting lifecycle to each of the six teams.
In March 2019, inspired by the idea of using collaboration and design The lifecycle aimed to cover the major activities from end to end and the teams were asked
principles to improve contracting, DWF, LEx Open Source, Radiant Law to review and add their comments, thoughts and additions.
and Wavelength Law hosted a Legal Design Challenge.
Contracting Lifecyle
Attendees from a wide range of in-house legal Anyone can take these outputs away to use in Contract strategy Contract creation and Implementation and Exit/renewal
teams, law firms and legal service providers their organisation, either as they are or as a
and selection execution management
came together alongside procurement, contract basis that can be tailored or improved further.
management, innovation and design experts to Equally anyone is free to discard the outputs Strategy/business plan Contract request/ Systemise and monitor
identify problem areas and share their ideas on but use the design approach and tools to create
potential solutions. something different.
authorising obligations and performance Variations
As part of a commitment to making this know- All that we ask in return is for people to build on Market analysis Review and approval Risk and dispute
how open source, this publication is our way of the momentum that has been created, carry on management
sharing the findings. the conversation about the value of design and Termination plan
The outputs are designed to be a starting point keep collaborating to improve contracting. Commercial position Negotiation of contract and Manage changes, renewals
that can hopefully kick start a wider range of including redlines commercial terms and improvements
activity, which utilises the value of collaboration Renewal process
and design principles to improve contracting in Vendor selection Award Governance
the industry.

In reality
Pricing and risk
The management of documents,
governance data capture and monitoring It’s important
“The outputs are designed to be a decisions run runs along the are important throughout to consi
stakeholders an der the different
through the lifecycle the process d what they wa
starting point that can hopefully kick lifecycle to achieve from
th
nt
process e.g. fina e contracting
start a wider range of activity...” nce, business te
procurement, sa am,
With multiple It’s important to les, legal,
data, compliance
, IT, security
Six scenarios to
owners and stages, consider specific external
corporate memory is an regulation input which can drive
important element elements of the process and

re-design contracting differ from industry

to industry

We asked six diverse teams to think about the key challenges in contracting
and identify areas to re-design, here are the scenarios they came up with.
1 3
Making sure the right information is available to Making sure business owners find it easy to
the right people at the right time. implement the contract roadmap post signature.
2 4
10x improvement in the time it takes to close the Educating key teams in the business to ensure
contracting process. they have a simple and clear articulation of the
ongoing obligations.
5
Making sure there are clearly understood rules
and more frictionless interactions.
6
Making it easier to manage the contract by
tracking the data.
The Workbook
With all the teams agreed on what the base contracting
lifecycle should look like and include, the challenge moved
on to applying design principles and a sequence of tools.
The aim was to identify areas across the This section recreates the workbooks that
contracting lifecycle that could be improved each of the teams used on the day for the
and suggest practical ways to do it. design process. The outputs are unedited and
unvarnished, with the aim of showing how the
tools were used and the wide range of outputs
that came up across the teams.

2 3
The Workbook
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’

diagnostic tools to identify the problem areas, desired 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

1 outcomes and underlying causes. box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
Problem statement: Information given to the business requires multiple Prioritisation
instructions from multiple stakeholders. Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 1
Desired outcome: Right information to the right people at the right time
with an audit trail by clause. 1 5 10 4 8

Large
2 7
2 3 11 6 17
Problem causes 14 9

4 3
Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in

Size of impact
Mindset the team and create a list. At this stage
Lack of ownership Lack of prioritisation My way is the right way no idea is a bad idea so everything should 12 15
Loss of interest Lack of collaboration No buy-in to change be captured.

Small
Must win, I know best Not seeing the big picture Understanding who 13
attitudes makes the decision Ideas for potential solutions
No shared No clear objectives or Reward structure 1 Standardised data - industry standards, schema, data structure,
understanding of risk too many conflicting drives inconsistent taxonomy, ontology that starts to form the building blocks. Hard Ease of implementation Easy
profile and alignment objectives behaviours
2 Industry contract standards - external knowledge that needs to be
2.
Process incorporated into considerations as an ‘agreed basic’.
4 Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
Personal vs. business
objectives
Need for speed vs. risk
profile
Regulatory challenges 3.
3 Better knowledge management (collate know how, knowledge share,
platform).
on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
4.
to deliver the solution.
Value of retaining Politics between Competing priorities 4 Leadership training to help frame how business is transacted and
corporate knowledge departments risk managed within the organisation. How to drive best practice
and considerations. Bringing the best ideas to life
Too much top down decision making
5 Define a legal team’s value proposition (in house) and publicise.
5. Solution People Process System Other
Tech
6.
6 Refining roles – approval, responsibility and accountability within
No data strategy/ Lack of integration/ Too much communication the business as ‘go to’ include extent of remit. Standard operating Engage with people at the Define, measure, analyse, Aim to automate repeatable Decide the priority for
limited data captured duplication of effort by email procedures. coal-face to understand improve, cement. Document and predictable tasks. approach. Pick the area or
7. 7 Governance framework - ownership and accountability that the impact of their work, the 'as is' and the 'to be' Design system and subject matter and divert
No single source of Legacy ways of working Tech confidence/need supports delivery of contracting framework. understand the blockers, the based on an understanding architecture that builds resource to support the
truth dominate for training contribution that is made of the target operating towards best solution but activity. Understand that this
8.
8 A formally articulated business strategy - golden thread that runs
No central record Document version and Data security concerns and the connections across model that brings together ensures momentum. Don't let change is fundamental to
through the activity.
against action control the business. Map customer all inputs. perfection be the enemy of business change. Understand
9.
9 Playbook for job of work that draws together key measures shared journeys with pain points the good. Base line product the knowledge that is being
No data strategy/limited data captured continuously throughout the contract lifecycle, that articulates overlaid. Understand the 'so should allow 'add-ons' for AI used and aim to capture as
middle ground together with deal breakers/redlines, key contacts and what' of the activities and (in whatever format) as they build.
People dependencies, decision makers i.e. all material info in one place. the drivers/motivations. are developing.
People don’t Information provided Not enough good project 10.
understand their by different people in management 10 Object orientating, clause auditing and workflow platform that Project management Recognise the skill set Tool kit should be a set of System agnostic but it Value chargeable versus
allows business to drive based on common ways of working that toolkit. and value that project basics that apply universally must be complementary to overheads may influence
instructions different formats manage the exceptions driving value. management can bring. and then varied by business existing architecture. User how the business responds
Competing Different skill Corporate knowledge 11. May be dedicated resource area/activity to deal with the defined and input from users to change. Key to success is
11 Standard operating procedures - embedding process for driving
requirements in terms requirements to achieve can create single points consistency and then automate in areas to then overlay technology or skill set. Building out the exceptions. System needs to along the way. Not a top adoption and integration to
of time and workload outcomes not recognised of failure such as buzzword subject. multi-disciplinary teams. be integrated with finance down solution. Also identify ensure that they are aligned.
Skills needs to be extended and reporting to give an the gaps ahead of time of Recognise the contract
Unclear roles and Input required from a wide Unsure who is making the 12.
12 Culture mapping and identifying issues/blockers across the past mandatory Prince 2 umbrella view and 'value add'. what it cannot do rather than activity is a mini project that
responsibilities range of people decisions organisation to get a clear view of the organisation ‘as is’ to help training without any real life focusing on what it can do to has a start and finish and
the future ‘to be’. application. the exclusion of all others. ability to learn continuous
Lack of ownership Different interpretations Fear of making decisions
13. improvement methodology.
Not working in a repeatable and predictable manner
13 Collaboration platform to sit on top as an enabler of ways of
working, as a single way of working and exchanging.
Legal engagement at the Training deal makers about Kick-off and regular stand Flag for legal engagement Business has to support
Process 14. start of the contracting what they can do (rather ups to track progress. based on deal value or the change of stakeholders
14 Change management and continuous improvement methodology
Internal process vs. Different documents in No identification of within agile environment that underpins the way that the business process. than what they must not do). Understand and address involvement of procurement and approach for this to
external process different places decision making roles needs to work. Introduce a single point of the current ways of working based on business rules. be successful. Engage with
ownership. At the start this and knock down blockers. Create baseline with leadership and decision
No one process fits all No standard operating More accountability 15 Rewards linked to business objectives that drive behaviour.
15.
may be about people but Consensus building. intention of moving on to makers and find a pathway
model or process needed when the 16.
16 Legal input in the room at the start of an engagement - over time that engagement self-service contract builder to cascading framework.
owners process isn’t followed understanding the value from the outset. may become automated. that sees legal engagement
as a value add.
17.
17 Collaborative decision forums - sharing best practice and agreeing
common approaches that can be scaled.
6 7
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’ 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

2
diagnostic tools to identify the problem areas, desired box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
outcomes and underlying causes.
Problem statement: The contracting process takes too much time. Prioritisation
Desired outcome: 10x improvement in time it takes to close a contract. Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 1

1 3

Large
5
2 4
Problem causes 2

4 3

Size of impact
General Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in
Turns of documents (mismatch of expectations)
the team and create a list. At this stage 6
no idea is a bad idea so everything should

Small
Unreasonable and irrelevant terms of the first draft and response
be captured.
Drafts are getting stuck in inbox
Pointless arguments caused by lack of empathy and unreasonable 1 Assisted business negotiation.
positions Hard Ease of implementation Easy

Tech 2 Better first drafts (short, clear, reasonable, relevant).

No tech 3 Incentives to speed up the contract (risk vs. delay). 4 Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
Gap in tech 4
on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
Explicit cost of delay.
Lack of tech integration
to deliver the solution.
5 Industry standard terms.
Contract terms Bringing the best ideas to life
6 Negotiation platform.
Unreasonable terms of the first draft and response
Chosen solution People Process
Lack of market standards
Assisted business negotiations (playbooks, Agreed approach across sponsor, sales, DMAIC
Contract is too long with irrelevant terms templates, online instruction forms, term legal, procurement. (define, measure, analyse, improve, control).
Data sheets) - i.e. get the business to close as 1. Identify and prioritise target deals
much as possible.
2. Identify key issues
Lack of storing knowledge
3. Map out business positions and document
Document centric contracting 4. Educate business
Insufficient data to progress
Better first drafts (short, clear, reasonable, Agreed approach across sponsor, sales, Same as above, plus update first the standard
People relevant). legal, procurement. terms using quill and glass of wine and GC and
business blessing to go for it.
Poor understanding of Too many egos and no
implications compromise Incentives to speed up and explicit cost of Agreed approach across sponsor, sales, Price the cost of delay, build an insurance
negotiations. legal, procurement. model for the risk positions taken. Collect
Capacity Poor communications data and make explicit the value of respective
contracts to allow triage. Agree at the senior
Incentives of participants Not engaged
level the risk appetite and give permission
Conflicting positions Silo mentality to be reasonable. Use nudge to encourage
behaviours to speed up contracting.
Process

Lack of deadlines and false deadlines

Too much/lack of process

8 9
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’ 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

3
diagnostic tools to identify the problem areas, desired box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
outcomes and underlying causes.
Problem statement: There is an ineffective transition between contract execution
Prioritisation
and implementation, leading to customer dissatisfaction, loss of revenue/profit
Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 1
and increased risk.
Desired outcome: Business owner finds it easy to implement the contract roadmap.
1 3 4

Large
6 7
2 5
Problem causes

4 3

Size of impact
2
People
Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in 6
Lack of accountability
the team and create a list. At this stage

Small
Inconsistent handover of responsibilities
no idea is a bad idea so everything should
Staff turnover = loss of key be captured.
Communication with inconsistent language
Hard Ease of implementation Easy
Process 1 A method to understand the delta from the norm.

2 Better tools for extracting data from contracts.

How contractual change happens The ‘why’ of a negotiated positon
in the real world isn’t how it often isn’t captured
3 Take the output and make the contract easier
appears in the process map
in the future.
Important information is lost in Not enough learning from failure
contractual complexity 4 Identify the key data points and capture them in a
Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
consistent way.
4
Contracts difficult for non-lawyers Contracts not designed for on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
to understand practical implementation
5 Upload the document to central and easily accessible to deliver the solution.
Transition to delivery teams is too often an after thought source for ongoing management.
Technology 6 Post contract questionnaire to encourage continuous Bringing the best ideas to life
improvement.
Tech solutions are not often embraced (too much is still via email) Solution People Process System Other
7 Education and earlier involvement of the delivery team.
Multiple systems Identify key data points External specialists to design Business process mapping. Text extraction tools to May work best in the first
and capture them. and train people on the extract key terms from the instance on high volume
No single repository processes. Understand the signed contract. Then 'survey agreements with some
Obligations not visible users and the level of detail monkey' to understand the variances.
needed. Understand and map 'essence' of the deal and why
Rubbish in, rubbish out when it comes to data and information the stakeholders impacted we arrived at a positon in
by the design solution. May the contract. Then have a
Multiple business systems and tech need new role of super-user structured database, which
Motivation who can work across the could be augmented and end
different functions. into different systems. Slice
and dice this information
No handover of responsibility for different business users.
Push some information to
No consequence recognition - not part of role
business users in the form of
Sales team bonus structure doesn’t encourage good e.g. calendar notifications.
practice contracting
Benefit of ongoing contract management not understood by lawyers
leading transactional elements

Contract often not aligned to bigger business drivers

10 11
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’ 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

4
diagnostic tools to identify the problem areas, desired box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
outcomes and underlying causes.
Problem statement: There is a disconnect between the business and Prioritisation
legal teams throughout the contract process.
Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 1
Desired outcome: A collaborative approach that leads to a simple and
clear articulation of obligations for all involved. 8
3 5 11 13 2 14

Large
4 18
2 7 12 15 6
9
Problem causes 10 19

4 3

Size of impact
Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in
People the team and create a list. At this stage
no idea is a bad idea so everything should 1
Interpretation: Contracts not easy for readers to navigate and 16
understand what they mean for them because of complexity, be captured. 17

Small
variables and legal language
Lack of empathy: No shared understanding of each other’s objectives 1 Business questionnaire to produce standard commercial
Perhaps due to conflicting priorities (risk/profit)
terms. Hard Easy
Ease of implementation
Siloed teams: Different ways of working. Not all areas of the business
are involved throughout the lifecycle 2 On-boarding initiation checklist - pre-signature- who,
key business success factors, project initiation document,
Process
key stakeholders, responsibilities, risk appetite, 4 Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
No agreement/tracking/visibility of end to end process: Not
contract objective. on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
documented, too much complexity, volume and variety of contracts, 3 Contract metrics dashboard. to deliver the solution.
no process owner
4 Collaboration managers for each function with an agreed
No standard terms agreed: No ability to take standard terms and Bringing the best ideas to life
‘Contract Success Approach’.
special conditions and variables. Seen as anticompetitive or conflict
of interest. Time consuming 5 Customisable metrics matrix.
Solution People Process System Other
No retrospective/live feedback: Everyone focused on the next 6 Online ‘day in the life of’ user experience game.
delivery/no one updating the process Collaboration managers Cross party contract Agreeing data points Live and dynamic Data points to be
7 Visual, engaging training materials. for each function with success managers to be and team to be involved. dashboard. Pulse agreed and tracked.
No visibility: no governance model/silos/no collaborative working an agreed 'Contract identified and trained. Customisable roles and questionnaires to capture Who?, 12 key business
8 Playbook for contracts.
Technology Success Approach'. KPIs to be defined responsibilities matrix. temperature of both success factors, project
9 Top ten obligations in plain English. to ensure people are parties. NPS of likelihood initiation document,
focused on the right of raising dispute: on a key stakeholders,
Complex tools: Limited training/not enough people trained/training 10 End to end process analysis and one-page dashboard success metrics. scale of 1-10 how likely are responsibilities, risk
documents are not designed for business users framework - live and continually updated throughout you to… Happy/sad icons appetite, contract
Not integrated: Tools are not integrated with other systems used by process. to gauge temperature. objective.
other parts of the business e.g. salesforce. System silos
11
Single source of data, agreed data points. User-centric education Enhancing knowledge of Apply legal design thinking E-learning platform with Continuous
Mindset and empowerment. all stakeholders involved. and generate content to visual guides, pictures, improvement loop.
Measurement metrics.
12 Gaining consumer easily communicate. voxpops etc. to easily
Lack of joint ownership: Attention to contract ends after signature 13
Contract progress visual. feedback into process. consume content.
and incentives and remuneration are not aligned. What is important Need legal design thinking
to the business is not understood
14
Learning programme to create more ‘user-centric specialism to apply to
education and empowerment’. content generation.
Lack of trust: No empathy to each other’s priorities
15
Recommendation engine/clause analysis. Standardised Agree standard service Industry associations Standardised SLO Imitate telco/banking/
Data service obligations. obligations across adopting common terms. Identify common construction industries in
Attributing metadata to contracts that can be
16 the industry. legal standards. data points. Create an terms of standardisation.
No collaboration: No agreed data points/agreed success metrics interrogated. open source database
No joint responsibility for defining and tracking the data points 17 and dashboard.
Collaboration tools.
because of different priorities
Standardised data points - defining and recording
18
No process for tracking data overtime because SLAs and performance
- key obligations/deadlines/number of stakeholders.
metrics have not been agreed, no ownership of data and no visibility
19
Standardised service obligations.

12 13
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’ diagnostic 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

5
tools to identify the problem areas, desired outcomes and box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
underlying causes.
Problem statement: No clear roles & responsibilities focussed on ‘owning the process’. Prioritisation
Desired outcome: Making it easier to manage the contract by tracking the data. Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 9 15 1

1 3

Large
8 13 4
Problem causes 2

4 3

Size of impact
Process Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in
10
Lack of clarity on ownership
the team and create a list. At this stage
no idea is a bad idea so everything should

Small
Lack of project management
be captured.
Lack of process
Lack of understanding of need for roles 1 Top down communications re importance of roles/ Hard Ease of implementation Easy
responsibilities, create a direct link to corporate strategy.
Strategy
2 Find ways to encourage consensus across department
Lack of articulated shared goals e.g. goal of contracting. 4 Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
Short term roles 3 Appoint ‘contracting champions for change’. on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
System
4 Tie contracting outcomes to objectives & incentives. to deliver the solution.
No corporate who’s who 5 Introduce third party facilitation.
Bringing the best ideas to life
Environmental 6.
6 Establish high level process for contract process/map
the contract process. Solution People Process System Other
Unmanageable work loads
7 Develop a taxonomy of contract types.
Blame culture Appoint 'contracting Identify champions 1. Define Multi-channel Achieving buy-in.
8 Document all the contract roles and include contract champions for change'. (influencers) within the 2. Communicate communication.
Organisation roles don’t map to contracting roles roles in job specs. business at different
levels, find out what 3. Test
Lack of incentives
9.
9 Create cross-functional teams - mixed teams of resonates with them. 4. Reinforce
Unclear hierarchy procurement and legal. Making sure their role
is defined and to
Introduce continuous improvement reviews.
10 follow-up with them
Spot check for success, ensure the process to keep momentum.
11
lives/breathes. Create cross-functional Importance of cross- 1. Map contract process Using a mapping tool. Process design.
teams - mixed teams of functional teams and
Create a cadre of lawyers for development as LPMs
12 2. Map process roles Document the process in a
procurement and legal. having a facilitator process delivery system.
in contracting. 3. Assess technology tools
to smooth exchanges
13
Implement formal “project” management. between different roles.

Develop rules of thumb for contract effort estimation.

14 Tie contracting outcomes Make sure collaboration is Incentives and recognition Systems to implement Incentivising.
Given the great amount of debate in each group, you may see to objectives & incentives. recognised. should be consistent, this should be simple
that not all of the ideas have been through prioritisation. Collect historic and current cost data on contract
15 regular, earned and public. and effective.
We are not discounting any of these ideas, it’s just that production.
they didn’t have time to get through them all. Maybe you Capture and share lessons learned on every contract.
16
could have a look and prioritise a few for yourself?
Re-use cost/billing codes to conform to process map.
17



14 15
 Workbook

Scenario 1 Use the problem statement sheet and the ‘fishbone’ 3 Use the Impact vs. Effort matrix to help to prioritise the ideas on the list. Ideas that fall into

6
diagnostic tools to identify the problem areas, desired box 1 have the best chance of success. Anything that falls into box 4 should be discounted.
outcomes and underlying causes.
Problem statement: Tracking the data in contracts is too difficult making Prioritisation
opportunities for easier. Plot numbers left onto matrix below

2 1
Desired outcome: Instant access for everyone to relevant data at any time.

4 6 3

Large
1
2 5 2
Problem causes 14

4 3

Size of impact
Brainstorm as many ideas from everyone in
Format the team and create a list. At this stage
7
Lack of incentive to make contracts clear no idea is a bad idea so everything should
be captured. 8

Small
Data is generally unstructured
Contracts often multiple documents
1 Create the capability to set business rules.
Process
2 Create a tool that removes the 80% standard/agreed Hard Ease of implementation Easy
Lack of understanding clauses and focuses on the 20% contested points.
Lack of available data 3 Change the dialogue - ask the other side what is important
to them at the outset or ask end users what they care 4 Get the whole team to vote on the ideas in box 1 and choose a maximum of three to work
Business rules monitoring is ad hoc
about most in the contract. on in more detail. Use the solution grid to think about the actions that need to be taken
Change
4 Create a consistent data model for contract data. to deliver the solution.
No real-time updates 5 Create industry standards.
Bringing the best ideas to life
Regulation is complex and can change 6 Develop an open source contracts registry and dashboard.
Contracts are difficult to change 7 Company contract audits as a regulatory standard. Solution People Process System Other

When contracts change it often creates a new document rather 8 Agree and implement incentivised contracting models. Cut the c%@p Trust between 1) Heads of terms Decision tree to identify Industry norms.
than a new version auto tool. parties. 2) Determine contract type preferred position on closes. Code of conduct for law firms
9 Utilise data room technology to hold all details/data on a 3) Issue questions on both sides
Methods Gamification rating willing to collaborate.
contract and make it visible to all parties. 4) Re-conciliation (Popularity of clauses)/
Risk versus commerciality skill sets 5) Agree on all points (go to 8) “Tinder“ of clauses.
Create a technology masterclass on technology that could
10 6) Don’t agree on points
Existing tools tend to be ‘point solutions’ apply to contracts for lawyers. 7) Negotiate points Electronic heads of terms.
8) Auto produce contract Questionnaire sent to both
Standards 11 Pareto portal - client select relevant points in a contract
parties.
they are interested in to automate a document.
Data model not defined Structured Multidisciplinary Codification of clauses in a The database of clause types/ Trending clauses
Real time collaboration to create contract party A and
12 Contracts teams. modular way. variables/variances. (crowdsourcing standards).
Exceptionalism is not a default standard
party B incorporating more google docs style live tracking transferable Culture change and Build a contract from Need to work in existing tools
of documents. and readable. teams that have clauses library. i.e. Microsoft Word.
13
Live edit function and workflow. non-legal skills Each clause would include text
represented. and or applicability and contact.
Cut the c%@p auto tool.
14
Given the great amount of debate in each group, you may see Single evolving RACI - Who/ Create a family link between Doc editorial system (i.e. Imitate telco/banking/
Objective alignment (like dating matchmaker).
15 contract. changes? documents of a similar type. Google docs). construction industries in
that not all of the ideas have been through prioritisation.
terms of standardisation.
We are not discounting any of these ideas, it’s just that 16. Work collaboratively on negotiation.
16 Contracts Solution to identify group
they didn’t have time to get through them all. Maybe you - Trigger - Notification contracts using tech.
Make structured contracts transferable and readable.
17 - Negotiation - Sign/record.
could have a look and prioritise a few for yourself? Workflow and sign off system.
Ability to “tag” extra data points.
18 Audit trail
Performance optimisation of contracts over time.
19 - Why are we changing?
(Trigger for change).
Have one single evolving contract.
20
16 17
Final thoughts
A quick summary A very big thank you to everyone
and a final request
The original hope for the Legal Design
Challenge was that it could showcase the
benefit of collaboration and design when
trying to solve business challenges, as well
as the value of sharing the outputs on an
open source basis to encourage others.
Final request
The Legal Design Challenge should be seen
as a starting point and not much will change
if it ends up just being a one off event or a
“Take what you can from the work
theoretical exercise. The aim was to make
it easier for people to use design principles
and tools and to enable them to either build
keep the conversation going and
on the outputs or tackle similar challenges.
The more people that get involved, the more
value can be created. With that in mind
our final request is that you take what you
can from the work that came out of the
challenge, keep the conversation going and
most importantly, keep collaborating.
PS - A date for the diary
If you found the outputs from the Legal
Design Challenge useful or interesting then
watch out for the next Legal Design Geek
event on 17 October. It will be a chance to
learn more about useful design principles
and tools and showcase new challenges Emma Sorrell, Burges Salmon LLP
and opportunities to collaborate.
THE NEXT LEGAL DESIGN GEEK
CONFERENCE IS
17TH OCTOBER
IN CENTRAL LONDON
www.legalgeek.co
18
Thank you!
that attended on the day:
Mo Zain Ajaz, LEx Open Source
Chris Bell, Axiom
Gareth Brewerton, Munnelly
Hazel Butler, Vodafone UK
Craig Chaplin, DWF
Rachel Coleman, Pinsent Masons LLP
Richard Copley, Anaxas
John Craske, CMS
Martin Davidson, ThoughtRiver
Kristin Devey, Kyan
Jason Dunning, DWF Ventures
that came out on the challenge, Annie Gilchrist, Lexoo
Adam Goodman, RBS Group
Alex Hamilton, Radiant Law
Barbara Hamilton-Bruce, Wavelength Law
most importantly Amy Hayden, Cambridge University Press
keep collaborating...” James Hodges, Reckitt Benckiser
Jenny Hotchin, Pinsent Masons LLP
Manu Kanwar, LexSolutions
Peter Lee, Wavelength Law
Harriet Loach, Ethien Limited
Cathy Mattis, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Amy McConnell, Vodafone UK Limited
Ravi Mohindra, Consultant
James Moore, Flex Legal
“The aim was to make it easier Hugh Morgan, Lucozade Ribena Suntory
Jonathan Patterson, DWF Ventures
for people to use design Michael Rabinovitz, Objective Media Group
principles and tools...” Santiago Rojas, Alliance Manchester Business School
Benjamin Ross, Bortstein Legal Group
Alex Smith, Reed Smith
Derek Southall, Hyperscale Group
Stephanie Stevenson, LOD
Angela Tang, Pi Top
Ashleigh Terry, Cambridge University Press
Anya Topley, ASB Law
Morgane Van Ermengem, Wavelength Law
Jimmy Vestbirk, Legal Geek
Carolyn Wensley, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Stuart Whittle, Weightmans LLP
Hans-Peter Wiesemann, BSH Hausgeraete GmbH
Andy Wishart, Thomson Reuters
Ivy Wong, Lexoo
Jack Zorab, Legal Geek
19
A collaboration between DWF, LEx Open Source, Radiant Law and Wavelength Law