The plain-English version of your terms and agreements is a tough document to draft. It has to be easy to follow, and it can’t become a separate agreement to the first. The clauses you most need to retain are the least enjoyable to read. Your plain language version of your terms and agreements is strange to write. It has to be easy to read, yet it can’t be a separate contract that’s in competition with your first contract. The clauses you most need to retain are the least enjoyable to read.
Writers here work clause by clause from your actual agreement, keeping renewal terms, liability caps and dispute provisions in plain view rather than at the bottom. Your counsel reviews the result and decides which precedence wording best fits.
Structure is more important than vocabulary. Users are able to understand complex terms when a document is structured by events that occur to them in the following order: what you owe, what we owe, what it costs, how it ends, and what happens when we disagree. In comparison, the order of legal drafting is almost the reverse of what has been described, and this is one of the main reasons a faithful rewrite still needs to be reorganized.
Rewriting an arbitration clause is where generated versions break. The class-action waiver and the opt-out window disappear, because friendly prose leaves no room for them. Those are the provisions a court looks at when deciding whether the clause is enforceable.
Context means understanding which clauses your users bump into the most. We’d rather you gave us support tickets and chargeback reasons because they show us which clauses cause issues in the contract, over what is written in the contract. The writer then proceeds to rewrite a clause at a time with a separate column to make sure every sentence is mapped back to the corresponding paragraph.
Publish a plain version alongside, never as a replacement, and clarify which document has precedence if the two happen to conflict. We leave it to you to decide the precedence and draft the line to that effect for your lawyer’s approval, rather than determine it ourselves. Everything we could not sort out with the underlying agreement becomes your concern and is conveyed to you as a query prior to delivery.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical terms explanation | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary boxes set | 350 | $35 | $0.35 | $35.35 |
| Plain-English terms page | 1,100 | $110 | $1.10 | $111.10 |
| Clause-by-clause version | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
What the piece is for, who reads it, roughly how long it should be, and anything it must include or avoid. Links to your existing material help. If you are unsure, send what you have and the writer will come back with questions.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
No. It should not. It complements the agreement and has a line saying that the entirety of the full terms applies. We draft this line and your counsel clears the final wording. The contract is as your lawyers have drafted it.
No. Multiple legal jurisdictions view auto renewal terms as requiring conspicuous placement and a full summary. It holds true that burying it in a summary would be a practice that consumer regulators act on. We will adopt language to better explain it, but we will still place it in a spot that will be easily noticeable to readers.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Compliance copy can be either overly vague or overly confidently wrong. This example is neither. The guide describes the discretion allowed by the regulation and the test to be used in those cases. In cases where the regulation does not provide discretion, the language is void and unambiguous. Internal Audit had no feedback.
I review external copy for a regulated lender, and that usually means deleting at least half of it. This had qualifiers in the right spots and no made-up stats. I only had to mark 2 sentences. That is the least I’ve marked on any outside first draft.
The writer was able to successfully deliver the requested copy, but also took the time to point out that including nine form fields broke the promise within the headline. That’s not their job. They’re correct. We reduced it to four.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees