Articles written by Noah Waisberg

Noah Waisberg CEO and Co-Founder

Noah Waisberg
CEO and Co-Founder
Kira Systems

Prior to co-founding Kira Systems, Noah practiced at the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York, where he focused on private equity, M&A, and securities. Noah is an expert on contract analysis, legal technology, and artificial intelligence; has spoken at conferences including SXSW Interactive, ILTACON, and ReInvent Law; and has been named the FT’s Intelligent Business Market Shaper and ILTA’s Innovative Thought Leader of the Year. Noah holds a J.D. from the NYU School of Law, an A.M. from Brown University, and a B.A. with honours from McGill University.

Read the blog article: Calling "Bullshit" About Changes to Lawyer Regulation

Calling "Bullshit" About Changes to Lawyer Regulation

You want to be a great humanitarian? Give it away for free. But you don’t. You sell it, just like the other altlaw businesses who [want] to pretend they’re doing people a favor when it’s only about the money.

Read the blog article: Foundations of Machine Learning-Based Contract Review Software

Foundations of Machine Learning-Based Contract Review Software

The past several posts in the Contract Review Software Buyer’s Guide have gone into details of how manual rule and comparison powered systems actually find contract provisions, and included a case study on a well-funded vendor’s experience with manual rules.

Read the blog article: Comparison- and Header Detection-Based Automated Contract Provision Extraction

Comparison- and Header Detection-Based Automated Contract Provision Extraction

The two previous installments of the Contract Review Software Buyer’s Guide covered how manual-rule based contract provision extraction systems—while relatively easy to set up and add provisions to—underperform on agreements and provisions that are not identical or very similar to ones they were built to review ("unfamiliar documents").

Read the blog article: New DiligenceEngine Feature: Sharing

New DiligenceEngine Feature: Sharing

Contract review is often a team activity. Multiple people can share first level review duties across a pool of contracts. Others supervise first level reviewers' work.

Read the blog article: Is Law Firm Pedigree a Thing of the Past?

Is Law Firm Pedigree a Thing of the Past?

In a recent Harvard Business Review blog post, Dina Wang and Firoz Dattu argue “that GCs are increasingly willing to move high-stakes work away from the most pedigreed law firms (think the Cravaths and Skaddens of the world)… if the value equation is right.

Read the blog article: Manual Rule-Based Automated Provision Extraction Software Case Study: Mumboe

Manual Rule-Based Automated Provision Extraction Software Case Study: Mumboe

Keyword searches are the easiest way to find contract provisions. But how well do they work on unfamiliar agreements? In the previous post in the Contract Review Software Buyer’s Guide, I covered manual-rule based contract provision extraction.

Read the blog article: Will "Robolawyers" Dominate The Future of Law?

Will "Robolawyers" Dominate The Future of Law?

Is law practice changing dramatically or will good lawyering always be centered around the same skills as ever? Are these mutually exclusive?

Read the blog article: No Rules: Problems With Rules-Based Contract Provision Extraction

No Rules: Problems With Rules-Based Contract Provision Extraction

This Gordon Gecko-esque cell phone is a good metaphor for manual rule-based contract metadata extraction systems: Keyword search systems may be sophisticated compared to the status quo of non-technology-aided humans reviewing contracts from scratch.

Read the blog article: How Automated Contract Provision Extraction Systems Find Relevant Provisions, And Why "How" Matters

How Automated Contract Provision Extraction Systems Find Relevant Provisions, And Why "How" Matters

People who review contracts generally need to do this work accurately. In fact, one of the principal problems with the current non-tech enhanced way contracts get reviewed (at law firms and elsewhere) is that people make mistakes in this work.