via
Getty)
In-house
lawyers
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
contract
efficiency.
We
run
RFPs
for
CLM
tools,
benchmark
turnaround
times,
build
clause
libraries,
and
explore
AI-powered
review
platforms.
But
there’s
one
thing
we
don’t
talk
about
enough,
even
though
it
might
be
the
most
important
part
of
making
contracts
work
better.
That
thing
is
communication.
In
a
recent
episode
of
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
legal
consultant
Jeffery
Kruse
shared
a
perspective
every
in-house
team
should
hear.
Legal
operations,
he
said,
is
less
about
tools
and
more
about
how
we
communicate.
And
when
it
comes
to
improving
contracts,
that
message
matters
more
than
ever.
Watch
the
full
interview
here:
Contracts
Aren’t
Legal
Artifacts.
They’re
Business
Messages.
Kruse
believes
legal
teams
often
lose
sight
of
the
real
purpose
of
contracts.
Too
often,
contracts
are
treated
as
formal
legal
documents
instead
of
practical
business
tools.
We
fill
them
with
legalese,
preserve
outdated
formatting,
and
focus
on
risk
over
usability.
But
the
people
reading
and
using
these
contracts
—
sales
reps,
finance
leads,
procurement
teams
==
are
usually
not
lawyers.
When
contracts
are
hard
to
understand,
they
slow
down
the
business.
People
hesitate
to
move
forward.
Questions
pile
up.
Legal
becomes
the
translator,
and
in
the
process,
the
perception
grows
that
legal
is
a
bottleneck
rather
than
a
partner.
What
We
Say
Versus
What
They
Hear
To
help
legal
teams
reset
their
approach,
Kruse
uses
a
framework
called
SEE.
It
stands
for
Simple,
Easy,
and
Effective.
“Simple”
means
using
clear,
everyday
language
that
your
audience
understands.
“Easy”
refers
to
structure
and
flow,
making
sure
the
contract
is
logically
organized
and
not
overwhelming.
“Effective”
means
the
contract
does
what
it
is
supposed
to
do
—
it
helps
the
reader
take
action,
builds
alignment,
or
delivers
clarity.
Many
contracts
fall
short.
A
contract
might
be
technically
accurate,
but
if
a
business
stakeholder
cannot
quickly
understand
what
it
means
or
what
they’re
agreeing
to,
it
is
not
useful.
It
may
even
be
harmful
if
it
creates
confusion
or
delay.
What
This
Means
For
In-House
Legal
Teams
Before
jumping
into
technology
solutions
or
restructuring
workflows,
Kruse
recommends
that
legal
teams
ask
a
few
fundamental
questions.
Who
is
reading
this
contract?
What
do
they
need
to
understand?
Is
the
document
written
in
a
way
that
supports
clear
business
decisions?
Can
someone
without
a
law
degree
follow
what’s
being
said?
Kruse
shared
an
example
of
a
time
he
failed
to
get
buy-in
from
IT
and
finance
for
a
legal
tech
project.
He
realized
afterward
that
he
had
presented
the
problem
in
legal
language,
not
business
terms.
Those
departments
were
willing
to
help,
but
only
once
he
learned
to
speak
in
a
way
that
made
sense
to
them.
Make
Contract
Usability
A
Core
Metric
If
we
agree
that
contracts
are
communication
tools,
then
we
need
new
ways
to
evaluate
them.
Instead
of
just
tracking
legal
risk
or
review
time,
legal
teams
should
consider
metrics
like
how
often
contracts
require
clarification
after
they
are
signed,
how
long
it
takes
for
a
nonlegal
user
to
understand
key
terms,
or
how
much
confidence
other
teams
have
in
the
contract
process.
Kruse
encourages
testing
your
communication
before
rollout.
Share
your
draft
with
one
or
two
trusted
business
colleagues
and
ask
for
their
feedback.
Is
it
easy
to
understand?
Can
they
explain
the
terms
to
someone
else?
These
small
steps
can
prevent
misalignment
and
improve
how
legal
supports
the
business.
What
To
Do
Next
For
legal
leaders,
the
takeaway
is
this.
Contracts
are
not
just
about
legal
protection.
They
are
tools
that
help
the
business
move
forward.
Their
effectiveness
depends
not
only
on
what
is
written,
but
on
how
clearly
the
message
is
delivered.
Before
launching
a
new
playbook,
tech
platform,
or
contract
template,
take
a
moment
to
ask
whether
the
document
is
clear.
Is
the
language
simple?
Is
the
structure
easy
to
navigate?
Will
it
actually
help
someone
do
their
job?
Because
when
people
understand
their
contracts,
they
are
more
likely
to
trust
them.
And
that
is
what
gets
deals
done.
Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.