The Contract Pre-Execution Market is Big on Opportunity, But Hard to Crack
Contract negotiation and drafting processes have become an appealing target for legal tech vendors looking for new spaces to leverage automated AI products. But entering this emerging market is no easy feat.
October 08, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
The contract AI space has its targets set on a new emerging market, this one focused on the pre-execution stage of the contract development lifecycle—otherwise known as negotiation and drafting.
It's an evolution based primarily upon old pain points. Contracts are filled to the brim with terms that today's newest artificial intelligence-powered contract solutions can likely review with more expediency than the standard-issue human.
But it's not all blue skies and open spaces. While the need powering the growth of this burgeoning market may be awfully appealing to other companies looking to plant their flag in lucrative terrain, the AI infrastructure that foots the cost of admission could make it difficult for newcomers to gain entry.
"Building an AI platform for contract analysis is no easy feat. I mean, there's a lot of work to be done. Part of that has to do with just work flow, document ingestion and user interface. There are some fundamentals that have to be in place to build the platform," said Jim Wagner, president of Seal Software, which last week launched contract negotiation platform Seal Now.
However, Wagner also conceded that the pre-execution space does constitute an emerging market, driven by clients and corporations looking to substantially reduce negotiation timelines and drive overall efficiency within the organization.
As a result, Seal isn't the only the player looking to get in the game. BlackBoiler, for example, has a self-named tool on the market that redlines potential issues lurking inside of a contract during negotiations. It's also automated, meaning that the solution learns from how each client has marked up contracts in the past to build user-specific models for editing.
Per Dan Broderick, BlackBoiler's founder and CEO, high-volume contract review and negotiation touches every single enterprise. He said that Fortune 1000 and Global 2000 companies spend $35 billion dollars a year on those pain points alone.
While the need is great, it's still an area that Broderick believes has traditionally gone unaddressed by service providers in favor of workflow tools or solutions geared towards steps like due diligence.
"A lot of the technology in the [pre-execution] space right now is really re-purposed from one of these other buckets," Broderick said.
That approach can yield results that are less than ideal. According to Broderick, solutions that just add a layer of analytics to a preexisting process can actually drive down efficiency by failing to take into account the contract revision classifications or risk ratings that are specific to the way that each individual organization approaches a deal.
In other words, they potentially create more work for a human instead of less. Still, accommodating those unique variations presents the challenge of having to continually build custom AI models.
Constructing those vital components — as well as the underlying but equally necessary AI-engine — can be difficult for companies attempting to balance developing pre-execution ability against maintaining other contract management services.
"There just aren't that many companies at this scale that are able to solve both sides of the equation," Wagner said.
But patience is a virtue, one that may reward fledgling companies pushing into the pre-execution space. Just last month, a startup named Pactum released its AI-powered negotiating tool into the marketplace.
The solution is used to automate the negotiation of basic terms like cost inside corporate vendor contracts. Martin Rand, Pactum's CEO, told Legaltech News that the tool will become smarter over time they continue to accrue more data on how people negotiate.
"We're not claiming that we'll start negotiating M&A deals or really big and complicated commercial contracts," Rand said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250