Clause extraction and contract abstracts
Pull parties, term, renewal, termination, limitation of liability, indemnities, governing law and assignment provisions into a structured abstract, with the clause reference for each.
Legal · Canada
Private document AI that finds the clause, compares it with your standard position and cites the page, so lawyers spend their time on judgment rather than on searching.
Why now
Legal work is largely reading and comparing text: agreements and their amendments, side letters, precedents, productions, decisions and correspondence. Today's models handle that text well enough to find clauses, compare them with a firm's standard positions and summarize a file, provided every statement links back to the source so a lawyer can check it. The value is in narrowing the search: which of several hundred contracts have uncapped liability, which leases renew next quarter, which emails in a production discuss a particular term. Legal advice, strategy and the final read of any document stay with the lawyer.
Use cases
Pull parties, term, renewal, termination, limitation of liability, indemnities, governing law and assignment provisions into a structured abstract, with the clause reference for each.
Compare a counterparty draft with your standard positions and flag deviations, such as uncapped liability or a one-way indemnity, with approved fallback language for the lawyer to accept or change.
Review a data room for the issues the deal team specifies and populate the chart with cited extracts, leaving materiality calls to the lawyers.
Search past agreements, memos and opinions by meaning rather than keywords, limited to the matters each user is permitted to open.
Extract notice periods, renewal windows and reporting obligations, and send reminders to the responsible lawyer or business owner before each deadline.
Turn long email threads, transcripts or productions into a dated chronology, each entry linked to the document it came from.
Example workflow
A business team submits a vendor's master services agreement through an intake form or a shared mailbox.
The system extracts key terms and compares each clause with the legal team's playbook positions.
It flags deviations (uncapped liability, broad data-use rights, auto-renewal without notice) and drafts a redline using fallback language from approved precedents.
A lawyer reviews each flag, edits or rejects the suggested language and decides what to negotiate. Nothing is sent to the counterparty without that review.
The agreed terms are recorded in the contract register, with renewal and notice dates set as reminders.
Data and privacy
Lawyers and paralegals in Ontario are bound by the Law Society of Ontario's confidentiality rules, and law societies across Canada have issued guidance on generative AI covering competence, supervision and the protection of client information. Personal information in client files is also subject to PIPEDA or provincial privacy law. We build legal AI with that in mind: deployment inside your own cloud tenancy or on-premises, open-weight models where client data must not reach a third-party AI service, access controls that mirror matter permissions and ethical walls, and no use of your documents to train shared models. Whether a particular use suits a particular client file remains a professional judgment for your firm.
Kitchener-Waterloo
Law firms and in-house teams in Waterloo Region do a great deal of contract-heavy work for technology companies, manufacturers, insurers and family businesses. We're in Kitchener and can meet your lawyers and clerks in person for discovery.
General chatbots can, which is why we don't use them unguarded for research. The systems we build answer only from documents you connect, such as your precedents, contracts or a research collection you are licensed to use, and they cite the passage behind each statement. If the source isn't there, the answer says so. A lawyer still verifies every authority before relying on it.
Yes. Search is filtered by the same access rules as your document management system, so each user only gets answers from matters they are permitted to open, and restricted matters can be excluded entirely. Queries and results are logged, which helps if you ever need to show who saw what and when.
Yes. Current models read and compare French and English agreements well, which matters for files involving Quebec parties or bilingual documents. Extraction and playbook checks can run in either language, and summaries can be written in whichever language the lawyer prefers, with citations pointing back to the original clause rather than to a translation.
Related
Cited answers over contracts, policies, filings, tickets and internal knowledge, including questions that span many documents.
Learn moreOpen-weight models running in Canadian cloud regions or on your own hardware, for data that can't leave your control.
Learn moreAgents that plan, call your tools and APIs, coordinate hand-offs and ask for approval before anything irreversible.
Learn more7 min read
Microsoft 365 Copilot and ChatGPT Enterprise vs custom AI agents: what each does well, where each falls short, a decision table and how to use both.
Read the guide7 min read
RAG vs fine-tuning vs long context for enterprise documents: when each fits, why citations and access control matter, graph RAG, and how to evaluate it.
Read the guide7 min read
How to run AI on sensitive data in Canada: PIPEDA, Quebec Law 25, PHIPA, Canadian cloud regions, private LLM options and a practical data residency checklist.
Read the guideInsuranceBanking & Financial ServicesAccountingHealthcareManufacturingReal Estate
A 30-minute call is enough to tell whether AI is a fit, what a first project would look like and what it would take to run it in production.