Legal Process
How does the function actually run, contract by contract, calendar event by calendar event?
The Matrix
Eight recurring workflows hold the function together. Each has a trigger, an owner, an input, an output, an SLA, an AI augmentation, and (where it exists) a crypto instrument that changes how it runs. The General Counsel sits as the apex decision maker — the owner column names who runs the workflow day to day; the GC ratifies or overrides.
W1. Entity formation / structure decision
- Trigger: New venture launch; new operating geography; new funding round requiring restructure; token launch requiring legal wrapper.
- Owner: GC + corporate lawyer + tax lawyer + (for crypto) regulatory specialist.
- Input: Operating model, capital structure, jurisdictions of operation, token strategy if any, founder objectives.
- Output: Recommended entity structure + jurisdiction + registration filed.
- SLA: 4–12 weeks for standard incorporations; 12–24 weeks for multi-entity / multi-jurisdiction structures.
- AI-augmentation: structure-agent runs jurisdiction comparison on cost / tax / regulatory burden / IP regime / token classification posture.
- Crypto-instrument: DAO wrapper entities (Wyoming DAO LLC, Cayman foundation, Marshall Islands DAO LLC, Swiss association) give on-chain governance legal personality.
W2. Compliance monitoring
- Trigger: Continuous; specific triggers for filing deadlines, regulatory changes, registration renewals.
- Owner: GC + compliance officer (at scale) or fractional retainer (at small scale).
- Input: Compliance calendar, regulatory horizon log, jurisdiction list, entity register.
- Output: All filings on time; all relevant regulatory changes mapped + impact assessed.
- SLA: 100% calendar adherence (Performance G3); regulatory changes mapped within 30 days of publication.
- AI-augmentation: compliance-agent monitors official sources + industry publications; escalates relevant changes with impact estimate.
- Crypto-instrument: on-chain attestations could prove compliance without paper trail — emerging.
W3. Outbound contract drafting
- Trigger: Deal requires a contract drafted by the business (employment offer, vendor SOW, customer MSA, partnership agreement, NDA the business is initiating).
- Owner: Contract administrator (at scale) + GC; corporate lawyer for non-standard.
- Input: Deal parameters + relevant standard template + standard playbook for the contract class.
- Output: Contract drafted, reviewed, sent.
- SLA: 2 business days for standard contracts (Performance G1); 5–10 for non-standard.
- AI-augmentation: contract-agent generates first draft from template + parameters; GC reviews boundary cases only.
- Crypto-instrument: smart-contract templates can auto-deploy from the same parameters for codifiable agreements.
W4. Inbound contract redlining
- Trigger: Counterparty sends a contract drafted by them; business needs to review and redline before signature.
- Owner: GC + corporate lawyer for non-standard contracts.
- Input: Inbound contract + standard playbook + deal parameters + relationship context.
- Output: Redlined contract + negotiation playbook + recommended position by clause.
- SLA: 3 business days first redline (Performance G2); subsequent rounds 1–2 business days.
- AI-augmentation: clause-analysis-agent flags every non-standard clause against playbook within the hour; generates counter-arguments.
- Crypto-instrument: none mature.
W5. NDA execution
- Trigger: Partnership talk, investor meeting, M&A discussion, advisor onboarding, contractor scope review — any conversation about confidential information.
- Owner: Contract administrator + GC for non-standard counterparties.
- Input: Counterparty identity + scope of confidential information + duration + jurisdiction.
- Output: NDA signed before confidential information is shared.
- SLA: Same business day if using the standard mutual / one-way template.
- AI-augmentation: NDA-agent generates from template; flags any deviation in counterparty's preferred template against standard playbook.
- Crypto-instrument: smart-contract NDA with on-chain attestation of execution — emerging novelty, not yet mainstream.
When mutual vs one-way
| Situation | NDA type | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Both parties will share confidential information (investor + venture, partner + partner, M&A target + acquirer) | Mutual | Symmetric exposure |
| Only the business is sharing (contractor reviewing a brief, advisor seeing the roadmap) | One-way (counterparty as recipient) | Reduces friction; recipient signs |
| Only the counterparty is sharing (rare — vendor showing tech under wraps) | One-way (business as recipient) | Honest about asymmetry |
W6. IP registration / maintenance
- Trigger: New product / brand launch (trademark); new invention or technique (patent); new creative work of value (copyright); new trade secret (internal lockdown).
- Owner: GC + IP lawyer or patent agent.
- Input: IP asset description + jurisdiction(s) for protection + budget.
- Output: Filing made; portfolio register updated; renewal calendar set.
- SLA: Trademark filing within 30 days of brand decision; patent provisional within 60 days of invention disclosure; trade-secret lockdown immediate (before disclosure).
- AI-augmentation: ip-agent runs prior-art search; drafts provisional patent claims; monitors infringement.
- Crypto-instrument: IP NFTs as proof of priority (timestamp + transferable); not yet primary evidence in most jurisdictions but useful as defensive timestamp.
W7. Dispute / litigation response
- Trigger: Demand letter, lawsuit filed, regulatory action, breach claim, settlement offer.
- Owner: GC + litigator + insurance broker.
- Input: Claim documents + relevant contracts + factual record + insurance coverage map.
- Output: Response filed; defense strategy set; exposure quantified; insurance notified.
- SLA: Response within statutory deadline (varies by claim type and jurisdiction — typically 20–30 days).
- AI-augmentation: dispute-agent processes discovery; drafts routine correspondence; summarises depositions.
- Crypto-instrument: none — disputes are traditional-court territory for the foreseeable future.
W8. Cross-jurisdiction expansion
- Trigger: Business decides to operate in a new geography (new entity, employees, customers, IP holding, banking).
- Owner: GC + corporate lawyer + tax lawyer + employment lawyer in the new jurisdiction + (for crypto) regulatory specialist.
- Input: Operating model in the new geography + capital structure + tax position + IP strategy + employment plan.
- Output: Entity formed (or registered as foreign); contracts adapted; IP filings made; employment templates localised; compliance calendar extended.
- SLA: 8–16 weeks for standard expansion; 16+ weeks for regulated industries or novel token positions.
- AI-augmentation: jurisdiction-agent runs comparison on the same dimensions as W1; flags points where local law differs from the home jurisdiction in operationally material ways.
- Crypto-instrument: stablecoin settlement can route cross-border payments without traditional banking friction in some pairs.
The Deal Memo Template
For any significant deal (revenue, partnership, acquisition, funding, key hire), the output collapses to a one-page memo:
- Deal name + counterparty + business purpose (one paragraph)
- Commercial terms (price, scope, timeline, exclusivity)
- Risk position (key reps, indemnities, limitation of liability, termination, IP allocation)
- Compliance position (regulatory requirements, jurisdiction, dispute forum)
- Asymmetry posture (who has more leverage, why, what we did about it)
- AI redline summary (which non-standard clauses were caught, which were accepted, why)
- Open risks + mitigations
- Recommendation + authorisation routing
A memo at this shape can be reviewed by the executive, the board, and the auditor in one sitting. A folder of red-lined drafts cannot.