Future of Work: Reverse automation in action – the example of contract lifecycle management

In the first two parts of this series, we explored the idea that automation doesn’t diminish the role of the lawyer but reveals where human judgement carries the greatest weight. We then looked at how teams are beginning to choreograph people and technology so that each plays to its strengths. In this third and final article in the series, we consider the practical application of this concept on the ground, examining a process in which a beneficial balance between technology and human input can be struck.

The process we will consider for these purposes is contract lifecycle management. This process is familiar to almost every in-house legal team. It is sufficiently structured for technology to help, while also involving a range of factors where human judgement is vital. In other words, it is the ideal place to track an example of reverse automation in action.

A typical contract lifecycle follows a familiar pattern. A request comes in from the business; a draft is prepared; versions move between parties; approvals are gathered; signatures are applied; the agreement is stored for future reference. It sounds linear and simple, but there is in fact a great deal going on, with the legal team drawing everything together. The process involves input from many parts of the organisation and a range of considerations which go far beyond drafting and the law. Automation can have the effect of reshaping, and hopefully streamlining, every stage in this process.

Traditionally, the initial instruction has usually involved a blur of emails, attachments and missing information. A digital front door can now collect the necessary information, categorising it and extracting the relevant details automatically. This means that the legal team can spend less time chasing and sifting information, and more time deciding which matters need their detailed attention. There may also be an organisation proforma which requires their hands-on involvement on certain predefined aspects, such as contract value and liability risk.

Drafting is where the contribution from technology starts to become very significant. AI-assisted tools can often assemble a credible first draft in minutes, drawing on playbooks and precedent banks. Yet the first draft is rarely sufficient. The lawyer’s contribution may be to interpret and adjust the tone, and to make substantive changes which bring the document into line with the parties’ intentions for the deal (or the initial negotiating position being taken by the business). A Harvard Business School study involving 750 subjects found that human-AI collaboration was especially beneficial for well-structured tasks in which the human contribution involved refinement of this kind. It was also noted that the technology performed far less well in contexts which were ambiguous or involving greater commercial or interpersonal sensitivity.

At the negotiation stage, a similar division of labour continues. Technology can compare versions almost instantly, highlight deviations from playbooks and suggest pre-approved alternatives. All this can save time and ensure clearer records. However, negotiations contain many elements where the technology cannot perform, or provide any meaningful contribution – such as judging tone, reading personalities, interpreting behaviour, and taking account of the commercial balance of power (as it may shift over the course of discussions). For these elements, the human contribution is indispensable. Efficiencies created by technology can increase the lawyers’ capacity to contribute in these areas.

For approvals and execution, automation can simplify the process and implement controls, through the use of workflow tools which avoid the need for lawyers to get involved in coordination and chasing. The lawyer maintains oversight, ensuring that the process reflects both organisation policy and commercial intentions, and that nothing critical has been missed.

After signature, the technology provides tools to draw out patterns which can provide useful intelligence for the future. Which clauses triggered the most negotiation? Which approval steps took longest? Such data points can be used to inform internal discussions and policies and can be reflected in updated contract templates.

In the process we have outlined, there is likely to be a role for several teams within the organisation (legal, procurement, finance and compliance). The legal team will play the role of a central coordinator.

Two broad shifts are already occurring. The first is in the character of the legal role itself. As automation takes care of the mechanical flow of documents, lawyers have more capacity and can become more involved in the commercial discussion. The second is in how success is judged. Instead of seeing legal as a checkpoint, to be judged primarily by ease of transacting and time saved, some organisations are treating legal as more of a business partner. In such cases, the measure of success will be the commercial value of the legal team’s contributions, and fewer unnecessary escalations.

For in-house legal leaders, the first steps on the reverse automation path will be a series of practical decisions. These might include mapping the process and deciding which steps are genuinely suited to automation, which require human handling (or detailed human review), and what safeguards are required to ensure that nothing gets missed. Once an approach has been settled on, there can be a pilot programme, initial adjustments to settle the model and then further refinements over time, with repeated use of the process. Over time, the use of technology in partnership with lawyers becomes a working habit – a way of keeping the right balance between speed, safety and sense.

Further reading: AI Is Making Economists Rethink the Story of Automation, Harvard Business Review, May 2024; Humans vs Machines: Untangling the Tasks AI Can (and Can’t) Handle, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, November 2023.

Peter Workman, CEO

‍