When
I
first
heard
Tyler
Quillin,
principal
corporate
counsel
at
Microsoft,
say
that
he
asks
engineers
to
“explain
it
to
me
like
I’m
an
eighth
grader,”
I
had
to
laugh.
Not
because
it
was
funny,
although
the
image
of
an
Xbox
hardware
engineer
breaking
down
technical
specs
like
a
middle
school
science
project
is
objectively
charming,
but
because
I’ve
been
there.
Tyler
supports
Xbox
hardware
devices
and
accessories,
meaning
his
daily
work
involves
translating
between
engineers,
executives,
and,
increasingly,
regulators.
It
is
a
role
where
technical
complexity
is
the
default.
Instead
of
nodding
along
to
words
he
doesn’t
fully
understand,
Tyler
has
learned
to
slow
the
conversation
down
deliberately.
“Sometimes
I’ll
ask
them
to
say
it
again,
slower,
or
explain
it
like
I’m
10,”
he
told
me.
“Then
I’ll
work
my
way
back
until
I
can
really
grok
it.”
I
have
used
a
similar
trick
for
years,
but
my
go-to
is
eighth
grade.
The
reason
is
simple.
U.S.
consumer
protection
rules
often
recommend
that
critical
disclosures
be
written
at
about
an
eighth-grade
reading
level.
When
I
tell
engineers
this,
they
stop
seeing
my
request
as
a
confession
of
ignorance
and
start
seeing
it
as
a
shared
goal:
making
our
language
work
for
the
people
who
will
actually
use
the
product.
Why
This
Matters
In
Contracting
If
you
have
ever
read
your
own
company’s
end-user
license
agreement
and
felt
your
eyes
glaze
over,
you
already
know
the
problem.
Contracts
are
too
often
written
at
a
level
that
requires
a
law
degree
and
a
strong
pot
of
coffee
to
understand.
That
is
not
just
a
usability
issue.
It
is
a
compliance
risk.
When
customers,
partners,
or
even
internal
stakeholders
cannot
grasp
the
meaning
of
their
contractual
obligations,
the
chance
of
misunderstanding,
delay,
or
outright
breach
skyrockets.
Tyler
put
it
plainly
when
we
discussed
regulatory
interactions.
“The
disconnect
often
comes
when
regulators
don’t
entirely
understand
how
the
industry
or
product
functions.
So
it’s
critical
to
open
up
those
conversations,
educate
them
on
what
the
product
does
and
doesn’t
do,
and
find
a
path
to
meet
their
goals.”
That
is
equally
true
for
contracts.
If
the
words
do
not
clearly
convey
the
deal,
you
are
asking
for
trouble.
The
In-House
Counsel
As
Translator
The
job
of
in-house
counsel
is
not
only
to
get
the
deal
done
or
make
the
language
airtight.
It
is
to
make
the
deal
and
its
terms
understandable
to
everyone
who
has
to
operate
under
it.
That
means
using
plain
language
where
possible,
avoiding
internal
jargon
that
only
makes
sense
inside
your
department,
and
anticipating
where
a
regulator,
counterparty,
or
internal
team
might
misunderstand
a
term
so
you
can
clarify
before
it
becomes
an
issue.
Your
audience
might
not
be
one
group.
You
are
often
speaking
to
multiple
stakeholders
at
once:
engineers
building
the
product,
regulators
shaping
its
market,
customers
buying
it,
and
executives
approving
the
deal.
Each
has
a
different
starting
point
of
understanding,
but
they
all
have
to
walk
away
clear
on
what
the
words
mean.
Making
Simplicity
A
Strategic
Advantage
Clarity
is
not
just
a
kindness.
It
is
a
competitive
advantage.
If
your
contracts
are
easier
to
understand
than
your
competitor’s,
you
will
close
faster,
reduce
post-signature
disputes,
and
build
trust
with
both
counterparties
and
internal
teams.
And
if
you
ever
need
a
real-world
example
of
how
simplifying
the
message
opens
doors,
just
remember
Tyler’s
eighth
grader.
“It
is
not
about
being
the
dumbest
person
in
the
room,”
he
said.
“It
is
about
making
sure
we
can
all
speak
the
same
language
because
that
is
how
you
actually
get
things
done.”
The
next
time
you
are
drafting
or
negotiating,
ask
yourself
if
an
eighth
grader
could
explain
this
back
to
you.
If
not,
your
work
is
not
finished
yet.
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.