ContractEase

It’s no secret that the legal industry is big business. In 2020 alone, the legal services industry brought in an impressive $3.5 billion, and is only expected to grow overtime.  This case study will be focused on legal services for individuals.  

Role

UX Designer

Industry

Legal Services

 

Toolset

Figma

Timeframe

3 weeks (May 2021)

Part 1: Research

  • This is a problem specific to US contracts written in english 

  • The average user has not studied law in their free time

Initial assumptions

To validate this idea, I surveyed  24 individuals about their experiences signing contracts, gaining insight on the type of contracts signed, and their confidence level at the time of signing. 

Is this really a problem?

User Surveys

Graph1.png

#1: People don’t fully understand contracts they are signing 

  • 75% of users rated their understanding of their contract as 8 or below (not as high as you’d want).

 

#2: Most people do not consult a lawyer even if they don’t fully understand their contract.

Graph2.png

Traditional Lawyers

I reviewed what an individual would receive in paying for a contract review. 

Competitors

I analyzed existing contract reviewers, such as: Docusign Analyzer, LegalSifter, LawGeex. 

What solutions already exist?

Traditional Lawyers:

  • Pros: You can ask specific questions to your lawyer and get additional advice

  • Cons: (1) People are subject to a lawyer’s availability for the turnaround time. In a time crunch, that may not work out. (2) It costs $300 - $1000 for a basic contract review, and even more if you need advice for negotiation.

Competitors:

Of the three apps that I reviewed, Docusign Analyzer and LawGeex were both designed for enterprise business contracts with predefined company legal policies.  The existing solutions aren’t geared for consumers.

LegalSifter was created for consumers, but the user experience is lacking. There were no summaries to let the user know how many issues exist in their contract, and the next steps were not clear. It also doesn’t have any customizations for the user.

Group 1.png

I conducted 3 user interviews with individuals who have signed contracts recently.  The main goal was understanding the journey and the pain points along the way.  

What is the opportunity?

User Interviews

Lawyer fees are a big deterrent in seeking additional help.  

With our review of lawyer fees in the traditional model, it was no surprise that our users confirmed the primary reason they did not seek out legal advice even when it may have been necessary was due to the high cost. Users conduct their own risk analysis and make their own legal risk conclusions. 

Users aren’t seeking full understanding, they want reassurance.

None of our users interviewed were interesting in learning all the nuances of legalese, they just wanted to know if they may come up against an issue in the future.

Contract pain is linked with perceived monetary loss. 

When all 3 users were surveyed, I asked about the journey in each contract signing experience in recent memory. Each user classified a signing of an employment or lease agreement differently than a home purchasing agreement. This is due to the immediate need for a large payment. 

Research-based goals

  • Provide reassurance in the contract terms that the user is signing.  

  • Offer a solution that the users can access without high legal fees or long wait times. 

  • Create a less stressful experience so the user can enjoy their big life moment 

  • (Investigate) Give guidance to users on negotiating better terms by themselves.

Part 2: Design

User archetypes

Our two user archetypes are focused on two major types of users who typically seek legal services. The deliberator is likely to explore all options before moving ahead, while the proactive problem solver is looking to find the most efficient way to solve their problem. Both user type are likely to compare ContractEase with a traditional legal route and determine if the solution fits their need.

How might we…

  • How might we alert the users to red flags when there is an issue? 

  • How might we help customer understand what they’re signing? 

  • How might we give users confidence that the language is standardized? 

  • How might we help users negotiate their contract without the presence of a lawyer? 

Wire-framing and Initial Designs

Using the user flows as a guide, and building upon the initial sketches, I created an initial set of wireframes to test against our users.

User Testing and Feedback

  • Priority for users is red flags in their contract

  • Secondary issue for users is getting a breakdown of the meaning in each section of the contract 

  • Next steps should be clear for the user after all the suggestions have been reviewed.

  • Landing Page

    This is the signed in state of the landing page. Users can get started right away and drag and drop their contract after signing up. This is a model that would be familiar with most users as it is reflective of Word.

  • Suggestions

    Red flags are identified immediately with explanations as to why these issues were identified. The user can feel confident that the suggestions were made in reflection of their contract.

  • Accepting and Undo Changes

    After accepting a suggested change, the cards remain available for the user to review in the future. The user is confident that they are in control of all changes to their contract.

  • Understanding Terms

    To further help the user understand their contracts, the user can select specific clauses to learn more. Videos are available as easy explainers, and the user can highlight or note personal questions.

  • Next Steps

    After all suggestions have been reviewed, clear next steps are outlined. A celebratory illustration indicates that the user is done with their task.

Part 3: Solution

Let’s go on this journey with our user

It is a sunny weekend, and our user has come across an open house that has piqued their interest. Our user has been house hunting for some time, and they are ready to move forward. They contact their real estate agent, and the contract drafting begins. Our user receives the purchasing agreement with some emailed explanations. The user notices that their name is spelled incorrectly and wonders if they should get more eyes on their contract. This is where their journey begins.

Final Thoughts

This concept needs to be tested across different contract types in different states, but the design is aimed to be scalable for a multitude of situations where a user is seeking lightweight legal feedback. With the rise in contract signing on-the-go, a mobile version of this app would be an interesting case study to review in the future as well.

I didn’t address the need for negotiation tips in this prototype, but I think it is a core user problem that also should be addressed. This problem was scoped out of this first iteration, but I intend on addressing this in future iterations.