Contract analysis
Most contract work is not one agreement. It is the master agreement, three amendments, two side letters, the SOWs, and an email thread arguing about what the parties actually meant. CaseClerk reads the whole set at once and answers in plain English, naming the file and the page every answer came from.
One free trial on 25 pages of your own documents. No card required.
Last updated September 2026
Upload the contract set
Drop in the agreement, the amendments and the related correspondence. Then ask what changed, what is owed, and what the risk is.
AI contract review software reads a contract, finds the clauses that matter, pulls out obligations, dates and dollar amounts, and flags language that deviates from what you normally accept. The good tools cite where each finding came from so an attorney can verify it in seconds rather than rereading the agreement. It does not replace legal judgment on bespoke, high-stakes drafting. It removes the hours spent locating the relevant paragraph in the first place.
CaseClerk approaches it from the file level instead of the clause level. You upload every document in the matter, up to 1,000 files, and ask questions across all of them at once. Plans run $99 to $499 a month by page volume, with one free 25 page trial before any card is involved.
Create a vault for the matter
One vault per deal or dispute. Everything about that matter lives there and nowhere else.
Upload the whole set
Drag in the agreement and everything around it. Add more as the deal moves; the vault is not a one-shot upload.
Ask the question you would ask an associate
"What are our termination rights and what notice is required?" or "List every clause that shifts liability to us." Plain English, no query syntax.
Verify against the source
Each answer names the file it came from. Open it, confirm the language, and move on. That verification step is what makes the output usable in front of a client.
There is no single best tool for contract review. There are four common approaches, and they fail in different places. Here is an honest read on each, including where CaseClerk is the wrong choice.
| Approach | Where it wins | Where it falls down | Typical US cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associate reads it manually | Judgment on bespoke, high-stakes drafting, and anything that needs a human to own the risk | Slow and expensive on volume. A 400 page deal file can eat days of billable time before anyone forms a view | Commonly $200 to $500 an hour or more |
| General AI chat (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini) | Cheap, immediate, and fine for summarizing a single pasted clause | Long agreements exceed practical context limits, answers vary between runs, and nothing points back to a page number. Firm confidentiality settings have to be checked before client material goes in | About $20 to $30 per user per month |
| Word-native redlining tools (Spellbook, LegalOn and similar) | Redlining and clause suggestions inside the document you are drafting, against a playbook | Built around one contract at a time. They are drafting assistants, not a way to interrogate a whole file of related agreements and correspondence | Roughly $99 to $600 per user per month on published tiers |
| CaseClerk | Reads every document in the matter at once and answers with the source file named, including scans and mixed formats | Not a Word redlining tool. It will not draft your clauses or produce a redline for you. If your job is papering agreements in Word, buy a drafting tool instead | $99 to $499 a month by page volume |
Competitor pricing above is drawn from publicly posted pricing pages as of September 2026 and changes without notice. Check the vendor's own page before you budget.
Corporate and transactional groups
Diligence on a target's contract stack: change of control, assignment, exclusivity, most favored nation, and every renewal date that will bite after closing.
Commercial litigators
Working out what the parties actually agreed across an amended, restated and side-lettered agreement, then finding the correspondence that shows how they behaved.
In-house counsel at a growing company
One lawyer, several hundred vendor and customer agreements, and no contract lifecycle system. Ask what your termination and auto-renewal exposure looks like this quarter.
Solo and small firm attorneys
Firms that cannot staff a document review team but still take deal work. The Solo plan at $99 a month covers 2,500 pages, which is a real deal file, not a demo.
Employment practices
Non-competes, restrictive covenants and offer letters across an employee population, checked for the terms that vary from your standard form.
Real estate and construction
Leases, purchase agreements, subcontracts and change orders, where the answer usually lives in an exhibit nobody wants to reread.
Accuracy depends heavily on the contract and the tool. On common commercial agreements with familiar structure, NDAs, MSAs, service agreements, employment contracts and standard commercial leases, purpose-built legal AI performs well at locating clauses, extracting obligations and flagging language that departs from a norm. On structured finance instruments, cross-border regulatory agreements and heavily negotiated M&A purchase agreements, accuracy drops and attorney review is not optional.
The practical difference between tools is not raw accuracy. It is whether the tool tells you where its answer came from. An answer you can verify in eight seconds is useful even when it is occasionally wrong. An answer with no citation is a liability no matter how good the model is, because checking it costs as much as doing the work yourself. CaseClerk names the source document on every answer for exactly this reason, and says plainly when a file could not be read rather than filling the gap.
General-purpose chat assistants have a second problem that gets less attention: they are not deterministic. Ask the same question about the same clause twice and you can get two different readings. For work that has to be repeatable across a review team, that alone rules them out.
No, and any vendor telling you otherwise is selling you a malpractice claim. AI contract review changes who does the searching, not who owns the judgment. It reads faster than a person, finds the paragraph, and lays out what the document says. Deciding whether a liability cap is acceptable for this client on this deal is legal advice, and that stays with the attorney.
Where it changes economics is the front half of the job. A first pass across a 400 page file that used to cost most of a day now takes the time it takes to type a few questions. The attorney then spends their hours on the two clauses that actually matter. Firms that report the biggest gains are not the ones that cut review headcount. They are the ones that stopped writing off the unbillable hours spent finding things.
Anything you can upload as a document. In practice, AI contract review earns its keep on high-volume, semi-standardized paper: NDAs, vendor and procurement agreements, SaaS and licensing contracts, employment agreements, commercial leases, subcontracts, and the long tail of amendments that attach to all of them.
The harder and more valuable case is the mixed file. A real matter is rarely one clean PDF. It is a signed scan of the original, a Word redline of the second amendment, an Excel schedule of fees, a PowerPoint deck the business team circulated, and forty emails. CaseClerk reads PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OpenDocument, RTF, CSV, plain text and image scans, so the whole set goes into one vault instead of being triaged by format first.
It depends entirely on the tool's terms and controls, and it is a question you have to answer before the first upload, not after. The specific things to check are whether your content is used to train models, how long it is retained, who at the vendor can access it, and whether the arrangement is compatible with your duty of confidentiality and any client outside counsel guidelines that apply.
General consumer AI accounts are usually the wrong starting point because their defaults are built for consumers. Enterprise tiers of the same products often flip those defaults, which is why the answer for a firm is rarely a flat yes or no. We wrote up the specifics for the tools firms ask about most, including whether ChatGPT Enterprise is safe for law firms and how Microsoft Copilot for Microsoft 365 handles firm confidentiality.
In CaseClerk, documents live in a vault tied to one matter. They are not pooled across clients, and the question history stays with that case. Firms on the Firm plan and above can put a confidentiality agreement in place before anything is uploaded.
The market splits into three bands. General AI assistants sit at roughly $20 to $30 per user per month and are not built for this. Word-native drafting and redlining tools published tiers in the region of $99 to $600 per user per month during 2026. Enterprise legal AI platforms sold to large firms are quoted, not listed, and land well above that.
CaseClerk is priced on pages reviewed rather than seats, which suits firms where the volume moves month to month. Solo is $99 a month for 2,500 pages, Professional is $249 for 10,000, and Firm is $499 for 30,000. Enterprise is custom. The full breakdown is on the pricing page, and there is one free trial on 25 pages of your own documents before a card is involved.
The comparison that matters is not tool against tool. It is tool against the billable hour you are currently spending to find a clause. At a $300 hourly rate, the Solo plan pays for itself if it saves twenty minutes a month.
The two phrases get used interchangeably in vendor marketing, but practitioners generally mean different things. Contract review is the act of reading a specific agreement against a standard: does this deviate from our playbook, and what do we push back on. Contract analysis is the broader question of what a body of agreements says: what are we exposed to, what renews when, and where does the same term appear in different words.
Redlining tools do the first well. CaseClerk is built for the second, and for the messy in-between case where the answer requires reading the agreement together with everything that amended it. If your work is drafting, buy a drafting tool. If your work is figuring out what a pile of documents actually says, that is what this is for. You can see the full feature list for document review and case file analysis, or browse the rest of our legal AI guides for US firms.
There is no single best tool, because the work splits in two. If you are drafting and redlining in Word against a playbook, a Word-native tool like Spellbook or LegalOn fits that workflow better than anything else. If you need to interrogate a whole file of related agreements, amendments, schedules and correspondence, a file-level tool like CaseClerk fits better. Pick by which half of the job you actually spend your hours on.
Yes. CaseClerk reads image scans alongside native files, so a flattened PDF of a signed original goes into the same vault as the Word amendments. Quality still matters: a clean 300 dpi scan reads reliably, a skewed phone photo of a stapled page is harder. When a document genuinely cannot be read, CaseClerk says so rather than guessing at the contents.
It works well for small firms, and arguably better than for large ones, because a small firm cannot staff a document review team at all. The Solo plan is $99 a month for 2,500 pages, which covers a genuine deal file rather than a demo. Firms with one or two attorneys taking transactional work are the clearest fit.
Upload time depends on your connection and the size of the set. Once the vault is built, questions are answered in the time it takes to read the response. The realistic saving is on the first pass across a large file: work that took most of a day to orient yourself in becomes a handful of questions, and the attorney's remaining hours go to the clauses that need judgment.
Upload the whole thing, and everything around it. The point of a matter vault is that the answer to "what is our termination right" often depends on an amendment, an exhibit, or a side letter that a clause-level tool never sees. Uploading a single clause works, but it throws away the reason to use a file-level tool.
Yes. Every account gets one free trial on 25 pages with your own documents and no card required. There is no ongoing free plan. After the trial you pick a plan starting at $99 a month or you do not, which is a deliberate choice: we would rather show you real output on your own contract than run a permanently limited free tier.
Upload the agreement, the amendments and the correspondence, then ask what your obligations are. One free trial on 25 pages, no card required.
Start free trialAI document review features
What CaseClerk does across a whole case file: contract analysis, discovery review and sourced answers.
Pricing from $99 a month
Four plans priced on pages reviewed per month, plus one free trial on 25 pages.
Is ChatGPT Enterprise safe for law firms?
The confidentiality, retention and bar ethics questions to settle before client material goes into a general AI tool.
Sign up