An answer with a citation to the clause arrives in 10–30 seconds instead of 20–40 minutes of searching through folders. The lawyer gets the extract and its source.
Business teams ask legal what a clause means, whether a term is standard, what was agreed with a supplier. Answering means opening documents someone already read last month.
Full-text search returns twenty documents when the answer is one paragraph in one of them. The lawyer still reads all twenty.
The position taken on a similar case two years ago is in a mailbox. New advice gets written from scratch, sometimes inconsistently.
Contracts, policies, templates, past advice and regulatory material are ingested from your DMS, drives and mailboxes, with permissions preserved.
Documents are split along their own structure — clause, section, schedule — so a retrieved passage is a meaningful unit rather than an arbitrary window of text.
A question returns a direct answer plus the exact passages behind it, with document name, version and clause reference. No citation, no answer.
Retrieval runs inside your access model. A user only ever gets passages from documents they are already entitled to open.
New and amended documents are picked up on a schedule, and superseded versions are marked so answers do not quote a clause that no longer applies.
We build in your stack rather than moving you onto ours. The list below is what this solution most often connects to — other systems are a scoping question, not a blocker.
It can retrieve the wrong passage, which is why every answer shows its sources and the clause reference. It is built so that checking is fast, not so that checking is unnecessary. For anything consequential a lawyer still reads the clause — the saving is in finding it.
We use cookies for analytics — to see which pages bring enquiries. Nothing else, and nothing before you agree. Cookie Policy