Docracy - Free (community curated) Legal Documents
docracy.com
docracy.com
Even if those documents are flawless and cover exactly what someone needs (incredibly unlikely), in many areas the documents themselves aren't necessarily the problem: it's knowing what documents, in combination, you need.
For example, if I want to make a real estate secured loan to someone, what do I need? If you're fairly sophisticated, you might say a Note and a Deed of Trust. Great, but what if that someone is a business or a single asset entity? Should you make the loan? Should you get a guaranty from the principals? Would that guaranty even be enforceable? In many cases, just having access to the documents really isn't enough. There's a reason attorneys are the only profession that get paid to research the very subject they're supposed to be experts in. This stuff is complicated.
I like the idea though, and if you could fill some of those knowledge gaps, this could be really valuable.
But again, the caveat is that, depending on the circumstances, a good lawyer might need to significantly modify even his own well crafted standard document to protect his client. The benefit of a good lawyer is knowing when things need to be modified.
However, I think your statement indicates I didn't quite communicate my point clearly enough.
>>There's no doubt that the "perfect document" is really hard to find...<<
In most areas, there is no such thing as a perfect document. Trying to find one is a fool's errand. A document is only perfect in that it protects as many rights as possible for a particular client. Because different clients have different needs, wants, and rights, no document is going to be universally "perfect".
Again, this is not to say that your idea isn't great, and doesn't have the potential to provide a lot of value. I think it is/does.
That being said, if they invested their time and energy into taking the output of the Superior Court docket and documents used there and the arguments made for and against the documents. Well that would be a really cool service.
I realize its kind of an odd thing to do, but you can go down to any US court house and just sit in the gallery and listen/watch. There are people who do this for Groklaw when they were following every bit of the SCO/Novell litigation.
The Novell/SCO case (and Groklaw for that matter) provide what I think would be a great service (when combined with copies of the original documents) so in the Novell/SCO case there were agreements about the assignment of copyright (or not) and how they were pleaded both by the defense and the prosecution. Reading how they were attacked and how they were defended gives tremendous insights into how such documents get litigated. Of course it costs time and money to have someone do that, but that (rather than just copying various public web sources for documents) would provide a real value proposition for someone who was trying to either come up with a document for this or wanted to know what questions/guidance they should give their attorney who is preparing such a document.
[1] http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/civil/faqs/docket.shtml
Isn't this true for any research professor/scientist, regardless of field? Why do you consider it to be unique to lawyers?
If you went into an architect's office and he told you he'd need $4000 to research whether gravity applies to the building you want him to build, you'd scoff. If you went to an accountant to ask whether you can take a certain deduction and he said he needed $4000 to look it up, you'd think he was either incompetent or a fraudster. But this is accepted (and necessary) in the legal world.
I would analogize it to individual cancer patient going to a research scientist at Bristol-Myers Squibb and saying "Hey, what would happen if you tweaked XYZ molecule? Would that cure me?"
The engineers that are paid directly by the consumer, I would think, are much closer to data crunchers than true researchers. Maybe some architects or other types with engineering experience could jump in and disagree?
The one we don't want to happen is: "I don't need a lawyer, I used that Docracy thing. I'm set."
The one that is an improvement is: "Well, I've got about $250 left in the bank, its that Docracy thing or the back of this napkin..."
Last but not least, here is some stuff useful to startups/hackers: http://www.docracy.com/75/employment-offer-letter http://www.docracy.com/103/founder-collaboration-agreement http://www.docracy.com/35/founders-equity-agreement http://www.docracy.com/263/founder-advisor-standard-template http://www.docracy.com/367/consulting-agreement-for-hourly-w... http://www.docracy.com/2817/standard-agreement-for-design-se...
Of course, any feedback is welcome!
That said, terrific job. I could see myself being a paying customer (assuming you go that route). I think I'd just need some usage stats or perhaps testimonials from trusted parties to actually use a document.
Anyhow, this site looks pretty awesome and I am going to check it out. As someone hyper-bootstrapping his first startup (poor), a halfassed privacy policy or something may be better than nothing anyhow. Maybe I can get some idea what I will be looking at before I take the dive and hire a real lawyer too.
It could be used as a selling point in letting those who get verified add to it telling what specialties they handle, etc.
California, for example, requires a public email address -- verification can be accomplished by sending a Docracy verification email to the bar-published email address.
We actually have pretty reputable contributors, like Gunderson Dettmer LLP. Lawyers who realize that lawyering skills lay beyond standard templates are also generally better (or at least more human) than those who charge you $500 for a template they've been using for years.
As a lawyer (UK based if you're thinking of expansion!), I think it's a great idea. I've been mulling over something similar for in-house teams but based on precedent clauses rather than entire documents.
Generally, I think the legal market is ripe for disruption and can be demystified through applications like Docracy.
There is some spanish/french content, which I think is from the web design template that you used. You should think of removing it.
'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, noster periculis dissentiunt eam in, cu vivendo splendide sea, vidisse phaedrum mel ea. Vis ne paulo corpora suavitate, salutandi theophrastus vel ei, facilisi mediocrem deterruisset cum ex. Mandamus expetenda vis ad, cu dicit offendit constituto cum. Ad eos wisi pericula assueverit, in eum soleat insolens convenire. Has oratio aperiri aliquam ei, mei ex nostrud comprehensam. Summo quando eos ut, mundi maiorum cu sed.'
One feature request, please make it regional. It would be very nice if every document would have a geographical area and language attribute.
A legal document is just a combination of generic words for specific circumstances.
Maybe law language is just a programming language in some way and we need coffescript for that.
For laymen, the equivalent would be books like the Nolo series.
When the site works best is when a document becomes a standard (for example, a NYC startup NDA) and you sign it on the site. Then you know it hasn't been tampered with by the counterparty and you can execute it quickly and confidently.
Now if there was a way to encourage democratic gov'ts to draft their bills using something similar...
We may consider a rating system. Right now, we're keeping track (anonymously) of usage metrics, especially how often each document is executed (signed) via the site. Each execution is evidence that both the party and the counter-party found the terms to be sensible and fair, so we think this is a strong metric of quality for the document.
Providing a non-proprietary format such as ODF wouldn't hurt.
Also, in many cases (i.e., California), the SOS's are barred by statute from accepting non-physical business filings for new entities.
this area feels like one of those cases where if we could start with a blank slate, from scratch, and design it "right, from the start", this problem would go away. actually a lot of government and banking feels that way. much of it is an echo/zombie from an era without computers, without the Internet, without telecomm, etc. they just shamble on and very slowly and incrementally incorporate the state-of-the-art, usually only in little pockets and niches.