Contents 🚀
Introduction 👋
We've released an AI Agent that can review and redline your NDAs in a few minutes, allowing legal teams to process them more quickly and at scale.
|
Writing a playbook for the Legal Agent 📝
Using pillars like company guardrails, preferred positions and escalation criteria, your playbook gives your Agent the context it requires to do the work you need it to do.
Once created, the Agent will use your playbook to review your uploaded NDAs and generate a redlined version. We recommend building your playbook against your standard NDA as a starting point, taking each clause separately.
If building a playbook from scratch, Juro has an example NDA playbook built into the Agent that you can adjust as needed, based on your company positions and guardrails. To download our example playbook, in the Legal Agent:
1. Click Playbook in the top-right-hand corner.
|
|
2. Click Download or the Standard NDA playbook hyperlink.
|
|
When building out your playbook or adjusting Juro's example, you should take each clause one at a time; guiding the Agent through the 5 core components outlined below. We recommend using a table for this with 5 columns and 1 clause per row. The below examples have been transposed for the purposes of this article:
1: Clause identification | This section identifies each clause and states whether it can be negotiated or not by a counterparty. |
2: Preferred position | This will provide the ideal position, stating pre-approved clause text and/or structure. |
3: Fallback position(s) | This will provide any acceptable fallback language options for this clause. |
4: Escalation guidelines | This will set the conditions for situations that require human or higher-up review, and what approvals are required. |
5: Commentary/rationale | An explanation of why the rule exists to provide full context to the Agent. |
The above approach will improve the accuracy of the Agent's outputs and guidance.
Playbook examples 🧪
As a first example, below is the playbook guidance for a governing law clause defining all preferred and fallback positions, escalation guidance and context:
Clause identification | 1.1 Governing law |
Preferred position | This agreement shall be governed by the laws of England and Wales |
Fallback position(s) | Laws of the State of New York Laws of California |
Escalation guidelines | Any jurisdiction not in the preferred or fallback list requires Legal approval |
Commentary/rationale | This clause sets the laws of England and Wales as our default position. We can accept New York and California without Legal approval, anything outside of this will require Legal approval before we proceed |
The next example focuses on a service delivery clause:
Clause identification | 3.2 Service standard
This clause cannot be negotiated |
Preferred position | "Juro must provide the Services with reasonable skill and care." |
Fallback position(s) | None |
Escalation guidelines | We may agree to add a reference to good industry practice - ask Legal for help |
Commentary/rationale | This describes how Juro will provide the services. "Reasonable" skill and care is a market standard approach - it holds Juro to an objective standard, but doesn't commit to Juro being "the best" at anything.
Customers might ask about a service level agreement (SLA) for either (a) platform uptime; or (b) customer service response or resolution times. We offer an uptime SLA (99.5%) for our Enterprise customers - if the customer must have an uptime SLA, then you should upsell them to an Enterprise plan. We don't offer a customer service response or resolution time SLA - you can reassure the Customer by running through our latest first-response time statistics. |
And finally, here is some playbook guidance for a force majeure clause:
Clause identification | 14.1 Force majeure
This clause cannot be negotiated but we can accept a fallback position |
Preferred position | Juro is not in breach of the Agreement or otherwise liable if it is prevented or delayed from performing its obligations under the Agreement because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control. Juro must notify the Customer if these circumstances occur and, if they continue for 30 days or longer, then the Customer may terminate the Agreement immediately by notifying Juro |
Fallback position(s) | We can make this clause mutual by applying the changes outlined above. You must get prior approval from Legal before doing so.
Neither party is in breach of the Agreement or otherwise liable if it is prevented or delayed from performing its obligations under the Agreement because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control. The affected party must notify the other party if these circumstances occur and, if they continue for 30 days or longer, then the other party may terminate the Agreement immediately by notifying Juro |
Escalation guidelines | We can mutualise this clause by making the changes in the above section, you must get prior approval from Legal before doing this |
Commentary/rationale | A force majeure clauses excuses a party from its obligations under the contract if there are special circumstances beyond its control that prevent it from performing those obligations.
Generally, only Juro has the type of obligations that would be affected by a force majeure event, and so our clause is one-way.
Sometimes, the Customer may ask for us to make this clause mutual. They fear an inability to pay if there is a bank failure, for example.
We can mutualise this clause by making the changes in the above section with sign-off from Legal |
You can learn more about using our Legal Agent here.
💁♀️ As always, our Support Team is happy to help you with anything further if needed. Start a chat with us right here by clicking the Intercom button in the bottom-right-hand corner of this page.
Alternatively, you can email your query to support@juro.com 🚀
|