Vibe lawyering means managers and specialists producing contracts with AI without legal review. The contract binds the company in full, even when it rests on foreign concepts, hallucinated references or liability rules that do not work under Norwegian law. AI can be used for simple agreements, but not without review when a lot is at stake.
Many executives now use AI to draft contracts themselves. The result looks professional, reads well and arrives in seconds. The problem is that the text is often assembled from standard terms taken from other legal systems, and the flaws do not show until a dispute arises.
What is vibe lawyering?
Vibe lawyering is drafting or amending contracts with AI based on what feels right, without anyone with legal expertise checking the result. The term is borrowed from “vibe coding”, where developers let AI write code they do not read carefully themselves.
Typical examples are the chief executive who asks a chatbot for a supplier agreement, the head of sales who has AI “tighten up” the liability clause before signing, or the buyer who accepts the other party’s draft because the AI tool said it looked standard.
Why do AI-drafted contracts look right?
Language models are trained on large volumes of English-language contracts, particularly from US and English practice. They therefore reproduce wording that is common there, and readily translate it into Norwegian. The text is fluent and convincing, but the substance is not adapted to the Norwegian default rules of contract law.
The models can also hallucinate, that is, produce statutory references, standards or terms that do not exist or do not say what is claimed. The errors look exactly like correct answers, and the tool rarely warns you when it is guessing.
AI writes contracts that look finished. That is precisely what makes them dangerous.
Five typical mistakes in vibe lawyering
| Mistake | What happens | Consequence for the company |
|---|---|---|
| Foreign liability concepts | “Consequential loss” is translated as “indirekte tap” (indirect loss) | The limitation of liability covers something other than you think |
| Limitation of liability without carve-outs | The clause excludes all liability | It may be set aside or adjusted |
| Gaps in the contract | Important matters are not regulated | Default law fills the gap, often differently from what you wanted |
| Hallucinated references | The contract refers to sections or standards that do not fit | Ambiguity, which is often construed against the drafter |
| Departure from the negotiations | The text does not reflect what was actually agreed | Dispute over what the parties really agreed |
Foreign concepts without Norwegian substance
In Norwegian contract law, “indirekte tap” (indirect loss) has a specific meaning. For sales of goods it is defined in the Sale of Goods Act (kjøpsloven), see Sale of Goods Act § 67(2), and covers among other things business interruption, loss of use and lost profit under contracts with third parties. The English concept of “consequential loss” has traditionally been understood more narrowly in English law. When AI translates directly between the two, a clause meant to protect the company against large losses may in reality give far less protection than intended.
The same applies to concepts such as “indemnity”, “best efforts” and “entire agreement”. They have an established meaning at common law, but not necessarily the same one when the contract is governed by Norwegian law.
Limitations of liability that do not hold
AI often suggests sweeping exclusions of liability. Under the Contracts Act (avtaleloven), see Contracts Act § 36, a contract may be set aside or amended if it would be unreasonable or contrary to good business practice to rely on it. In addition, it follows from general principles of contract law that a limitation of liability normally does not protect against liability for intent or gross negligence. A clause that appears protective may therefore turn out to have no effect precisely when it is needed. What actually holds is discussed further in the article on limitation of liability in SaaS agreements.
Gaps filled by default law
Anything the contract does not regulate is decided by non-mandatory default law. For sales of goods, the Sale of Goods Act provides a detailed framework. For services, software and consultancy assignments there is no equivalent general statute, and the answer must be found in unwritten principles. An AI-generated contract that lacks rules on changes, delay, termination for breach or ownership of work product therefore creates considerable uncertainty.
Is the company bound by a contract management has drafted with AI?
Yes. It is the declarations that bind, not who formulated them. If the chief executive or others with authority sign, the company is bound by the contract as written, including terms nobody in the company has read carefully.
There is also a limit to what the chief executive can decide alone. Under the Private Limited Liability Companies Act (aksjeloven), see Companies Act § 6-14, day-to-day management does not include matters that are unusual in nature or of major importance in light of the company’s circumstances. Large or long-term contracts must then be put to the board. The fact that a contract was produced quickly with AI does not change this, and may on the contrary make it harder for the board to assess the risk.
What about confidentiality when contracts are pasted into AI?
Anyone who pastes the other party’s draft contract into a free AI tool may breach a non-disclosure agreement and weaken the protection of the company’s own trade secrets. Many free versions reserve the right to use the content to train the model. Use only tools with an enterprise agreement that rules out training on the content, and check whether the data is stored outside the EEA. See also the topic page on artificial intelligence.
When can the business use AI itself, and when should a lawyer step in?
| Suitable for AI with internal review | Should be reviewed by a lawyer |
|---|---|
| Simple NDAs based on your own template | Contracts of high value or with a long lock-in |
| Summarising the other party’s draft | Liability and limitation of liability clauses |
| First drafts of internal procedures | Transfer of intellectual property rights, see copyright and AI |
| Checklists before negotiation meetings | Data processing agreements and personal data |
| Language editing of fully negotiated text | Exclusivity, non-compete clauses and governing law |
The dividing line is not between “AI” and “lawyer”. It runs between contracts where a mistake is cheap to correct and contracts where it is not.
What should the business do?
- Decide who may use AI for contracts, and for which types of contract.
- Use your own templates as the starting point, and let AI adapt them rather than draft contracts from scratch.
- Ask the AI to explain each clause and check every statutory reference against Lovdata.
- Choose governing law and jurisdiction deliberately, and check that the concepts fit that choice.
- Set a value threshold above which the contract must be reviewed by a lawyer before signing.
- Document what AI has contributed, so that errors can be traced and corrected.
AI makes contract work faster, and that is a real gain. Vibe lawyering, however, moves the risk from the lawyer’s desk to the company’s balance sheet. It pays to decide in advance where the line should be drawn. Read also who is liable when the chatbot gives customers wrong answers and the topic page on contracts.
Questions and answers
Is a contract less binding because it was written by AI?
No. It is the parties' declarations that bind, not who or what wrote the text. If the company signs, it is bound by what the contract says, including terms nobody in the company has understood.
Can we let AI review the other party's draft contract?
Yes, as a first read it is often useful. First check that your contract with the AI provider prevents the content from being used for training, and that your confidentiality obligations towards the other party do not stand in the way. Findings to be used in the negotiation should be checked by a lawyer.
Which contracts should always be reviewed by a lawyer?
Contracts of high value, with a long lock-in, involving liability for personal data, transfer of intellectual property rights, exclusivity or non-compete clauses. The same applies to contracts that are unusual in nature or of major importance to the company.
Next legal review: 1 April 2027