Pros and Cons of ChatGPT contract drafting

Pros and Cons of ChatGPT contract drafting

It is often said that machine learning and artificial intelligence tools pose challenges to the existence of certain jobs, including the legal profession. For many, this may cause some concerns. Coincidently, I've recently been asked to review a contract generated by ChatGPT. Here’s a summary of what I have learnt and my key takeaways from the exercise.

What I liked

Source of inspiration: Given how ChatGPT operates, the draft which I reviewed suggested a wide range of potentially applicable and relevant clauses to use and choose from. It was a good source of inspiration allowing me to workmore efficiently and think outside the box.

Alternative structure: The draft proposed analternative and atypical document structure. Yet, the proposed structure followed a certain logic, was not wrong and could be adopted given the nature of the agreement (consultancy agreement).

Readability: ChatGPT tends to produce text which is understandable and written in plain language. This was also the the case here: the proposed draft was easy to read and didn't use unnecessary legalese.

What could work better

Missing sense of context: Whilst the document reflected the key criteria and set out some relevant obligations of the parties, it didn’t fully appreciate the commercial and business context in which the client operates. This was particularly visible in some key contractual considerations concerning payment terms and liability.

Repetitions and contradictions: Within the proposed draft, I've come across clauses repeatedly covering the previous point, or directly contradictory clauses within the same section. It appeared as though the clauses hadn’t properly considered the rest of the agreement.

Drafting consistency: From a drafting perspective, the document swapped the parties and their respective obligations a few times. It also often resorted to using passive, as opposed to active voice, making it unclear which party was responsible for the obligation in question.

Key takeaways

Overall, the automatically generated draft proved to be auseful source of inspiration. It has also been helpful for cross-checking the relevant areas to be covered.

As it has been produced by a machine learning tool, the draft has not provided advice on whether it is actually the most appropriate and efficient way ofachieving the client's goal – a conclusion that should be reached by a qualified legal professional, following proper interviewing of their client.

Most importantly however, ChatGPT is a generative AI tool and it should be viewed and used as such. It does not assess or evaluate drafts in any specific commercial or business context. At this stage, ChatGPT should therefore not be regarded as a solution, let alone a substitute for qualified legal advice.

‍