Free AI Savings Calculator—Discover your automation potential in 2 minutes→
ZEROSLIDE
← All Case Studies
Legal

Contract Review & Analysis

A mid-size law firm (120 attorneys, 400+ contracts reviewed monthly)

90% time savings on contract review, NDAs approved in 5 minutes vs 11 hours

KEY RESULTS

90%
Reduction in time spent on routine contract review. NDAs: 11 hours → 35 minutes including human verification.
94%
Clause identification accuracy, vs. 85% for manual review. AI catches clauses humans miss.
10x
Throughput increase on due diligence. 200-hour M&A review now takes 20 hours.
+22%
Margin improvement on fixed-fee work. Predictable review time enables profitable pricing.

Before & After

✗ Before

  • •Average NDA review time: 11 hours
  • •Complex contract review: 40-80 hours
  • •Clause identification accuracy: 85% (human)
  • •Junior associate utilization: 60% on review
  • •Fixed-fee profitability: -15% margin
  • •Contract cycle time: 2-3 weeks

✓ After

  • •Average NDA review time: 5 minutes (AI) + 30 min (human verification)
  • •Complex contract review: 4-8 hours
  • •Clause identification accuracy: 94% (AI) + human verification
  • •Junior associate utilization: 25% on review, 75% on analysis
  • •Fixed-fee profitability: +22% margin
  • •Contract cycle time: 3-5 days

The Challenge

This corporate law firm's bread and butter was M&A and commercial transactions—work that involves reviewing thousands of pages of contracts. Junior associates spent 60% of their time on contract review, leaving senior partners to handle client strategy. The economics were upside down: review work was being commoditized while clients demanded faster turnaround.

PAIN POINTS

  • ×Standard NDA review took 11 hours—associates read every line looking for deviations from firm templates
  • ×Due diligence for mid-size M&A deals required 200+ hours reviewing target company contracts
  • ×Inconsistent clause identification: different associates flagged different risks on identical language
  • ×Fixed-fee arrangements were money-losers: firms couldn't predict review time accurately
  • ×Client pressure for faster turnaround conflicted with thoroughness requirements

Technology Stack

  • →NLP model fine-tuned on 50K legal contracts for clause extraction
  • →Custom taxonomy of 1,400+ clause types across 40 legal domains
  • →Playbook integration comparing terms against firm standards
  • →Risk scoring model trained on litigation outcomes
  • →Redline generation with suggested alternative language

Implementation Approach

1

Phase 1: Clause Extraction Model (Weeks 1-3)

Fine-tuned NLP model on firm's historical contracts (50K documents). Model identifies and extracts 1,400+ clause types: indemnification, limitation of liability, termination, change of control, IP assignment, etc. Accuracy: 94% on clause identification (vs. 85% for junior associates in blind tests).

2

Phase 2: Playbook Integration (Weeks 4-5)

Encoded firm's negotiation playbooks: acceptable positions, fallback language, red lines. System compares extracted clauses against playbooks and flags deviations. Partners can update playbooks; changes propagate to all future reviews.

3

Phase 3: Risk Scoring & Prioritization (Weeks 6-7)

Built risk model trained on litigation history and partner feedback. Each deviation gets a risk score based on: financial exposure, precedent in firm's experience, client risk tolerance. Reviewers see highest-risk items first—no more reading 300 pages to find 5 issues.

4

Phase 4: Redline Generation (Weeks 8-10)

System generates redlined versions with suggested alternative language from playbooks. Associates review AI suggestions rather than drafting from scratch. Reduced redlining time by 70%. Partners review associate work, not raw contracts.

Results Breakdown

90%

Reduction in time spent on routine contract review. NDAs: 11 hours → 35 minutes including human verification.

94%

Clause identification accuracy, vs. 85% for manual review. AI catches clauses humans miss.

10x

Throughput increase on due diligence. 200-hour M&A review now takes 20 hours.

+22%

Margin improvement on fixed-fee work. Predictable review time enables profitable pricing.

Key Learnings

  • 1.AI doesn't replace lawyers—it changes what they do. Associates shifted from reading contracts to analyzing AI output and client advising.
  • 2.Playbook maintenance is an ongoing investment. Stale playbooks = stale AI recommendations. Budget for quarterly updates.
  • 3.Start with high-volume, low-complexity contracts (NDAs, standard vendor agreements). Build trust before tackling bet-the-company M&A.
  • 4.Risk scoring needs calibration per client. Aggressive client ≠ conservative client. One size doesn't fit all.
  • 5.The data captured enables practice management insights: what clauses get negotiated most, where deals stall, which clients are most demanding.

Industry Context

LawGeex research shows AI achieves 94% accuracy on NDA risk identification vs. 85% for experienced lawyers. Major firms report 90% reduction in routine contract review time. The legal AI market is projected to reach $1.1B by 2026. The key isn't replacing lawyers—it's letting them focus on judgment and strategy while AI handles pattern matching.

TIMELINE

60 days including model fine-tuning

Get notified when we publish new case studies

We publish 2-3 deep dives per month. No spam, just real results from real deployments.

Ready to achieve similar results?

Let's discuss how we can transform your legal operations.

Book a 15-min Call →