Updated: Jan 24
As trumpeted in this post, we’ve just launched our Boilerplate document type. Woo hoo!
But it contains just one Sifter relating to arbitration. Shockingly enough, it’s called “Arbitration.” And it’s lonely.
I’ve already told those who hold the purse strings that I could build a bunch of other arbitration Sifters. Heck, I nailed to their office door a list of eleven arbitration Sifters I could start building immediately.
But in an explanation filled with words like roadmap, kaizen, lean, kanban, and keep a civil tongue in your head, they reminded me that we have “priorities.” Sigh.
But ever eager to stick it to The Man, I’d like to gauge interest in a family of arbitration Sifters.
The idea is that if you’re not a stone-cold deal-making machine, you could do with help in assessing the other side’s draft. What’s in it. What isn’t in it. And what it all signifies. Reviewing a steady stream of drafts of questionable quality and relevance takes its toll, so I have a hard time thinking of anyone who wouldn’t want this kind of help, if it incorporates reliable expertise and if the AI technology does what it’s supposed to.
Regarding arbitration Sifters, if you’re a pillar of the arbitration community, you could probably do without (although it would make your life easier). Everyone else who encounters arbitration provisions with any frequency should be enthralled at the idea.
So here’s the deal. If you’re from some household-name organization, email me (email@example.com) and we’ll magically make stuff happen. Everyone else, express your enthusiasm on Twitter and LinkedIn by using the hashtag #FreeTheLSArbitrationSifters. If ten of you do so (hey, I have no delusions of grandeur), then I’ll do my best to have the arbitration Sifters roll off the production line by the end of the first quarter of 2022.
If no one does, then I’ll retreat to my cave and sulk. But that’s what I do anyway! 😊