Every contract is read in full before anyone can say yes
Read
Example
Clauses extracted and compared against your playbook, with the deviations listed first.
Industries · Legal
Contracts reviewed at the speed of the business, with every clause traceable.
Clause extraction, risk scoring and first drafts grounded in your own precedent, with every suggestion traceable to its source.
Typical problems
Three problems we see every time.
Risk is scored by whoever is available that day
Predict
Example
A consistent risk score per clause, learned from how your team has negotiated before.
A missing obligation surfaces months later
Detect
Example
Obligations, dates and renewals flagged at signature and tracked afterwards.
The case
One system, in production.
Legal
A legal-tech platform reviews a contract in half the time.
A reader that flags the clauses a lawyer needs to see and drafts the review note, inside the platform its users already trust.
-45%less time reviewing a contract
92%of flagged clauses confirmed by a lawyer
What is specific here
The data and the rules of the sector.
Legal work is judgement over text, and the text is confidential. What is specific here is not the model but the boundary around it: where the documents live, who can see them, and the proof that every suggestion came from your own precedent.
- Privilege and confidentiality
Documents stay in your environment, access is named and logged, and nothing is used outside the matter it belongs to.
- Precedent as the ground truth
Suggestions are grounded in your own precedent and playbooks, never in a generic model's idea of a fair clause.
- The lawyer decides
The system extracts, compares and drafts; a lawyer accepts, edits or rejects, and the record shows who did what.
Who we work with
Teams that ship with us.
Before you ask
Questions from this sector.
Where do our contracts go?
Nowhere. They are processed in your environment, in EU regions you approve or on-premise, and nothing trains a shared model.
Can it use our own precedent and playbooks?
Yes, and it should. The system is grounded in your precedent, so its suggestions read like your team's, not like a generic template.
What happens when it is unsure?
It says so. A clause below the confidence threshold is handed to a lawyer with the evidence attached, never silently accepted.
Let's build what comes next. Together.
Tell us what you are building and what changes if it works. You get a straight answer on whether AI can solve it.
Talk to usor write to hello@maistik.studio