For law firms, in-house legal, and compliance teams

Contracts reviewed
at partner speed.

Production AI for contract review at scale, clause risk scoring against your playbook, redline suggestions with reasoning, and matter management — delivered in 6 to 10 weeks. Privilege-respecting, SRA-aware, cited every line.

Active engagement with a Paris-based commercial practice
Privilege & litigation holds respected by default
SRA Information Security & ICAEW PCRT-aware

Contract volume up. Partners’ nights still 12 hours.

Most law firms we work with have the same three problems — and adding associates stopped being a viable answer after rates compressed.

01

NDAs and MSAs you can’t review at scale

Inbound contracts arrive faster than your associates can read them. 80% of NDAs and MSAs are 95% standard, but you still need a partner-defensible review on the 5% that differs.

02

Risk allocation hidden in subtle clauses

Limitation of liability caps, indemnities, IP assignment, governing law, dispute resolution — each can reallocate millions of pounds of risk in a single paragraph. Missing one is malpractice; finding all of them is expensive.

03

Privilege boundaries and the regulator

SRA Information Security, client confidentiality, litigation hold rules, and conflict-of-interest checks all stack on top of the regular AI governance question. One sloppy retrieval and you have an SRA complaint.

Legal AI with the privilege boundary baked in.

We build AI systems that pass partner-down review and SRA Information Security audit — not AI demos that retrieve from privileged work product.

  • Contract intake & classification NDA / MSA / SOW / LPA / share-purchase agreement — auto-classified, routed to the right associate, with first-pass clause extraction in under 90 seconds.
  • Clause risk scoring vs your playbook Limitation of liability, indemnity, IP assignment, governing law, dispute resolution — every clause scored against the firm playbook with the exact paragraph cited.
  • Redline suggestions with reasoning trace AI-proposed redlines with side-by-side diff and a cited reasoning trace for each. Partner accepts, rejects, or amends. Audit log preserved at partner level.
  • Matter workbench & cross-matter knowledge Each matter has its own retrieval scope, audit trail, and version history. Cross-matter knowledge sharing under partner-controlled permissioning — never across privilege boundaries.
Stack we route across
ModelsAnthropic Claude · Mistral · open-weight extraction models
Knowledge layerFirm playbook · precedent library · standard forms · counterparty registry
StandardsISDA · LMA · FIDIC · ICC arbitration · LSE Listing Rules
HostingEU/UK-resident: Scaleway · OVHcloud · AWS · on-prem option
Compliance postureSRA Info Sec · ICAEW PCRT · UK GDPR · EU AI Act
Audit & evaluationParagraph-level citation · retrieval traces · privilege check · version control

The contract review workbench, live.

A representative view of the contract intake, clause analysis, redlines and matter workbench we ship for law firms. Click between tabs, switch language — the output is partner-defensible in whatever language your counterparty negotiates in.

Insightrix · Contract Review Workbench Live Contract intake Demo
Aaru.eu

Contract intake · today’s queue

Emails, portal uploads, e-signed PDFs — auto-classified, routed to the right associate, with first-pass clause extraction in under 90 seconds.
time window">
Contracts in
218
+12%
NDA share
62%
standard forms
Auto-classified
94%
+3pp
Median first-pass
84s
-22s
Doc IDTypeCounterpartyConf.PartnerStatus
doc_a14fNDA · mutualFalcon Energy DMCC0.97@ABauto
doc_a14eMSA · SaaSAcme Tech Ltd0.92@JWassociate review
doc_a14dShare purchaseHawthorne Holdings LLP0.94@RSpartner review
doc_a14cSOW · engineeringBouvier & Associés0.89@ABassociate review
doc_a14bLPA · fundPark Lane Family Office0.91@JWpartner review
doc_a14aEmploymentAcme Tech Ltd0.96@ABauto

Clause analysis · MSA · doc_a14e

Every clause scored against the firm playbook with the exact paragraph cited. Diff vs your standard MSA position, with reasoning trace.
risk filter">
3 clauses worth raising at negotiationLimitation of liability is uncapped, not the firm-standard 12 months' fees. IP assignment is broad rather than carve-out. Governing law is New York rather than your default England & Wales.
#TopicPosition in docPlaybookRiskStatus
cl. 9.1Limitation of liabilityuncapped · gross-negligence onlycap at 12 months' fees0.86raise
cl. 14.3IP assignmentbroad · all deliverableslicence-back on pre-existing0.78raise
cl. 22Governing lawNew York · courts of NYEngland & Wales standard0.72raise
cl. 11.4Termination for convenience90 days · either party30 days standard0.54review
cl. 7.2Indemnificationmutual · IP & third-partymutual · IP only0.48review
cl. 18Confidentiality3 years post-termination3 years standard0.12accept
cl. 19Force majeurestandard market clausemarket standard0.08accept
cl. 20Noticesregistered post & emailstandard0.05accept
Reasoning trace · cl. 9.1 Limitation of liability
Counterparty’s MSA leaves liability uncapped except for gross negligence and wilful misconduct (p. 11, ¶ 2). Firm playbook v3.4 (p. 8) calls for a cap at 12 months’ fees, with carve-outs for IP infringement, breach of confidentiality and data-protection breaches. Diff is material; raise at negotiation round 1. Comparable precedent: M-184 (Acme Tech · 2025-08) where counterparty accepted a 24-month cap with the same carve-outs.
playbook v3.4 p. 8M-184 precedentpartner: @JW

Redlines · cl. 9.1 · proposal v2

AI-proposed redline with side-by-side diff and a cited reasoning trace. Partner accepts, rejects, or amends. Audit log preserved at partner level.
MSA · SaaS form round 1
Redlines proposed
42
this matter
Partner-accepted
82%
+6pp
Median draft time
9m
from 2h baseline
Hours saved · matter
38h
at partner rate
doc_a14e · cl. 9.1 +2 −1 · reviewed by @JW
9.1Liability shall be uncapped except in cases of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
9.1+Liability shall be capped at 12 (twelve) months’ fees paid under this Agreement,
9.2+save for: (a) IP infringement; (b) breach of clause 18 // confidentiality;
9.3+(c) data-protection breaches under applicable law; or (d) gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
9.4 Nothing in this clause limits liability that cannot be limited by law.
Why this redline?Firm playbook v3.4 (p. 8) caps liability at 12 months' fees. Carve-outs for IP, confidentiality and data protection match the standard exclusions. Counterparty accepted equivalent wording on matter M-184 (Acme Tech, 2025-08). Recommended for round-1 send.
Action
Every action logged at partner level · SRA-defensible audit trail

Matter workbench · live matters

Each matter has its own retrieval scope, audit trail, and version history. Click a row to drill in — cross-matter knowledge sharing respects privilege boundaries.
practice filter">
RefClientMatter typePracticeDocsPartnerStatus
M-218Hawthorne HoldingsShare purchase · UKM&A218@JWopen
M-214Acme Tech LtdMSA · SaaSCommercial42@ABopen
M-212Falcon Energy DMCCJoint venture · UAEM&A112@RSreview
M-211Bouvier & AssociésEmployment · FR labourEmployment18@ABopen
M-208Riyadh Trading Co.ICC arbitration · KSADispute488@RSlitigation hold
M-204Park Lane Family OfficeLPA · alternative-investment fundCommercial68@JWsigned
Tip: click any matter to drill into its workbench (right).
SRA-aware · ISDA · LMA · ICC arbitration218 contracts processed today · 94% auto-classified1,284 clauses scored · 14 raised vs playbook42 redlines drafted · 82% partner-accepted412 live matters · privilege respectedscaleway-paris · firm precedent library indexed live req 142,481

What our engagements typically deliver.

contract-review capacity for the same team
70% faster clause analysis on standard forms
6–10 weeks kick-off to production

Tell us about your contract backlog.

A 30-minute call. We will look at one actual contract under NDA, and tell you which clause-extraction or redline use case to ship first — and which to defer until your SRA Information Security review is signed off.

  • NDA in place before the call — live contracts welcome.
  • We will say if a use case crosses your privilege boundary.
  • You leave with a one-page scoped roadmap, even if you do not engage.
UK practice lead Raj is at raj.singh@insightrix.co.uk.

By submitting, you agree to our privacy policy. We respond within 24 working hours and never share your details.

Common questions before we talk.

Do you give legal advice?

No. We deliver tools that make your associates and partners 3× faster on contract review and clause-risk scoring. Legal advice — and professional liability — stays with the firm. Outputs are cited at the paragraph level and partner-reviewed before they leave the practice.

How do you handle privilege and litigation holds?

Privilege is respected by default. Documents flagged as privileged or under litigation hold never enter the model context — they're routed through a redaction lane first. We have shipped under firm-specific privilege protocols and the SRA Information Security framework.

Can we feed in our internal playbook and precedent library?

Yes. Your firm's playbook (M&A, commercial, employment), past precedents, and standard form positions all sit alongside the public-source layer in retrieval. Every clause score is diff'd against your playbook with the exact paragraph cited.

How do you handle data residency and confidentiality?

EU-resident or UK-resident hosting on Scaleway / OVHcloud / AWS, on-prem under your perimeter for high-sensitivity matters. DPA and NDA signed before any client document is touched. No third-party data ever leaves your environment.

Partner-defensible legal AI. In weeks.

Book a 30-minute call. We will scope a use case that delivers in 6 to 10 weeks — with the privilege-respecting audit trail your second-line and the SRA will both rely on.

Book a Free Call