Compare liability caps across customer master services agreements
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Build a table of the liability cap, the excluded kinds of loss, and the indemnity in each master services agreement, and mark where those clauses differ.
- What the lawyer must review
- You decide which cap, if any, to accept. Formal Opinion 512 requires you to review a comparison you rely on. The table is not a statement of the governing state's law on limitation of liability or on an indemnity. Model Rule 1.6: do not put the agreements into a public tool.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short-form services agreement (United States commercial) | Agreement | AI use Yellow | Short services agreement for a US commercial engagement: scope, fees, a liability cap, customer materials, and electronic signing under the ESIGN Act. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.