AI Contract Review
Attorneys spend 2 to 5 hours reviewing a single commercial contract manually. That time includes reading every clause, comparing against market norms, identifying what is missing, and writing up findings for the client. AI contract review does the scan in minutes and returns a structured report. Attorneys spend their time on the findings that matter, not the reading that precedes them.


Risk Categories Flagged
The most useful contract review tools return specific findings by clause, not general summaries. Every risk includes the location, the problem, and a suggested resolution.
Clauses that shift broad indemnity obligations onto your client with no cap or carve-out.
Missing limitation of liability caps, uncapped consequential damages, or unlimited liquidated damages.
Provisions absent from the document that market-standard agreements include: IP ownership, data protection, dispute resolution, change-of-control rights.
Termination for convenience rights favoring the other party, or cure periods shorter than 5 days.
Vague definitions, undefined terms, and clauses that courts have read against the drafting party.
The following contract types have the most consistent patterns of missing protections and non-standard risk allocation.
Mutual vs. one-way, definition scope, exclusions, injunctive relief clauses.
SOW process, payment terms, IP ownership, limitation of liability, and service levels.
Non-compete scope, IP assignment, at-will language, termination grounds, severance terms.
Misclassification risk, IP ownership, confidentiality, and tax status language.
License scope, data handling, uptime SLAs, termination rights, and data portability.
Rent escalation, CAM charges, assignment restrictions, default and cure provisions.
Warranty terms, delivery obligations, indemnification, and force majeure.
Reps and warranties, indemnification baskets, closing conditions.
Member contributions, profit allocation, management structure, transfer restrictions.
Release scope, confidentiality, non-disparagement, and enforcement provisions.
IP ownership is the most commonly overlooked risk in service and consulting agreements. A clause that vests IP in the vendor means your client does not own the work being created for them.
Whether the clause is present and correctly drafted for the applicable jurisdiction and work type.
Whether IP created using client data is clearly owned by the client, not the vendor.
Whether background IP owned by the vendor is properly licensed for the client's continued use.
Employment agreements contain 6 provisions that generate the most post-execution disputes. AI review flags each one with jurisdiction-specific enforceability analysis.
Geography, duration, and activity restrictions reviewed against governing state law.
Which employees and clients are covered, and whether the scope is enforceable.
What inventions and work product the employee assigns, and carve-outs for prior work.
Whether state-specific language requirements are met for the governing jurisdiction.
Grounds for cause, notice requirements, and cure rights reviewed for compliance.
Bonus forfeiture conditions, clawback triggers, and equity vesting acceleration terms.
Review time covers the initial risk scan. Attorney analysis, client discussion, and negotiation drafting are separate.
| Contract Type | Manual Review | With AI Review | Saved |
|---|---|---|---|
| NDA (5-8 pages) | 45-75 min | Under 5 min | ~93% |
| MSA (20-30 pages) | 3-4 hours | Under 12 min | ~93% |
| Employment Agreement (10-15 pages) | 90-120 min | Under 8 min | ~92% |
| Vendor Agreement (15-25 pages) | 2-3 hours | Under 10 min | ~92% |
| Commercial Lease (20-40 pages) | 3-5 hours | Under 15 min | ~92% |
Upload any contract in PDF or Word format. Get clause-level findings with section location, risk explanation, market deviation, and suggested revision.
Submit any contract in PDF or Word format. NDAs, MSAs, employment agreements, leases, and more.
AI analyzes every provision against market standards and jurisdiction-specific requirements.
Each flagged finding includes the section location and what the clause says.
Every risk notes how the clause deviates from market-standard terms.
Each finding includes recommended language for negotiation or redlining.
The current version reviews English-language contracts governed by US law. Multi-language support is on the roadmap.
Yes. Upload both versions and the tool produces a comparison report identifying which changes introduce or remove risk.
No. The review is an attorney productivity tool, not a legal opinion. The report informs attorney judgment. The attorney delivers the legal advice to the client.