AI for contract review that rates every clause and says why
Upload an NDA, a share purchase agreement or any other contract. NeoLaw rates each clause for risk and explains the rating, compares the draft with your firm’s playbook and proofreads it for drafting errors. Tell it which party you act for, and the whole review takes that side.
Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement · reviewed for Kappa Systems Ltd14 clauses · Cyprus law
8.2Liability capped at €10,000High · 8A leak of Kappa’s source code would cost far more than €10,000, and the cap leaves Kappa to absorb the rest.Risk · Fix drafted
4.3Disclosure to third partiesCriticalFirm standard: only to Representatives bound by the same duties. Draft: to “any third party” for the Purpose.Playbook
7.4Broken referenceFixRefers to Clause 12.5, which does not exist.Drafting
2.1Confidential InformationMedium · 5Protects only information marked “confidential”, so anything Kappa says in a meeting falls outside it.Risk
10.1SurvivalMajorFirm standard: confidentiality lasts five years after termination. Draft: it ends with the Agreement.Playbook
14.1Name mismatchFix“Lambda Capital Ltd” in the parties block, “Lamda Capital Ltd” in clause 14.1.Drafting
3.2Undefined termFix“Representatives” is used throughout but never defined.Drafting
1.1Blank placeholderFill“[●] 2026” where the Effective Date should be.Drafting
13.1Governing law and courtsLow · 2Cyprus law and the courts of Cyprus, as Kappa would expect.Risk
10 of 10 findings shown
Illustrative example: the agreement, parties and findings shown are fictitious.
Risk
Contract risk analysis, clause by clause
NeoLaw splits the contract into clauses and gives each one a risk score from 1 to 10, shown as low, medium or high. Every rating comes with its reason, written with reference to the clause’s own wording.
From your side.Choose the party you act for, and the ratings, reasons and fixes are written for that side.
One score for the contract.Clause scores roll up into an overall rating out of 10, with liability, indemnity, termination and IP clauses weighted more heavily.
Fixes for the riskiest.The highest-risk clauses come with replacement wording. Ask, and NeoLaw drafts a fix for any other medium- or high-risk clause.
Long contracts. If a review runs out of time, NeoLaw shows how many clauses it has rated so far and finishes the rest when you ask.
Playbook
Your contract playbook, applied to every draft
A playbook is your firm’s set of standard clauses, with the positions you accept and the wording you prefer. NeoLaw matches each clause of the draft with the closest standard and decides whether it deviates.
Counts as a deviation
Example
Weaker protection
Firm standard: liability capped at the Purchase Price. Draft: capped at €50,000.
An added obligation
The draft adds a 24-month non-solicitation where the firm standard has 12 months.
A missing protection
The standard confidentiality clause survives termination for five years; the draft has no survival period.
Different scope
Disclosure is allowed to “any third party” instead of to Representatives bound by the same duties.
Minor, major or critical.Every deviation gets one of three grades and a note on how the clause differs. Rewording and ordinary boilerplate variations do not count.
Built from your templates.An administrator builds the playbook by hand, or uploads a template contract in Word or PDF and NeoLaw extracts the clauses from it.
One standard for the firm.Every lawyer’s contracts are checked against the same default playbook. Lawyers can read it; administrators edit it.
No playbook yet? The playbook check stays off until your firm sets a default playbook. The rest of the review runs as usual.
Drafting
The drafting errors that survive three rounds of review
A separate proofreading pass looks only for objective, textual defects and leaves legal risk to the risk review. Each issue quotes the exact words it found.
Check
What it catches
Blank or placeholder
“[●]”, “[insert amount]”, “TBD”, empty brackets, and dotted or underscored blanks. A blank next to a date or a euro amount is marked high.
Date issue
Dates left blank or written as a placeholder.
Broken reference
References to clauses, schedules, annexes or exhibits that do not exist, such as “Schedule 4” in an agreement with three schedules.
Number mismatch
Figures that disagree with the words, such as “ten (15) days”.
Name mismatch
The same company or person spelled two ways, such as “Lambda Capital Ltd” and “Lamda Capital Ltd”.
Undefined term
Defined terms that are used but never defined.
Typo
A defined term written one way where it is defined and another way elsewhere.
Placeholders and inconsistent company names are also caught by fixed rules that run alongside the AI.
Watch it
A Seller’s draft, reviewed for the Buyer
The same checks on a share purchase agreement. Step through reading, risk, playbook and drafting, then the fixes and the Word file, or click a step to stop on it.
Share Purchase Agreement · Seller’s draft v1
WHomeInsertReviewViewTrack Changes · On
Seller’s draft v1 · reviewed for the Buyer
Share Purchase Agreement
between Alpha Holdings Ltd (the “Seller”) and Beta Ventures Ltd (the “Buyer”)
4.1
Completion. Completion shall take place on [●] at the offices of the Seller’s advocates in Nicosia.
7.2
Limitation of liability. The aggregate liability of the Seller for all Claims shall not exceed €50,000the Purchase Price.Playbook · Major
8.4
Restrictive covenants. For five (5)three (3) years after Completion, the Seller shall not carry on any business competing with the Business anywhere in the European Unionin Cyprus.Playbook · Minor
11.3
Notices. A notice sent by registered post is deemed received ten (12)twelve (12) days after posting.
12.1
Governing law. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the Republic of Cyprus, subject to Clause 14.3.
Reading
Splitting the Seller’s draft into clauses and defined terms.
Clauses41
Schedules2
Defined terms37
Governing lawCyprus
Legislation consultedContract Law, Cap. 149
Rating risk
Every clause gets a rating and a reason. The riskiest get a drafted fix.
7.2Limitation of liabilityHighA €50,000 cap leaves the Buyer exposed on any claim above that sum.
8.4Restrictive covenantsMediumFive years across the EU may be too wide to enforce, which could leave the Buyer with no covenant at all.
4.1CompletionLowCompletion date not yet agreed.
Checking your playbook
Compared with your firm’s standard positions when acting for a buyer.
7.2Liability capMajorFirm standard: cap at 100% of the Purchase Price. Draft: €50,000.
8.4Non-competeMinorFirm standard: three years, Cyprus only, to keep the covenant enforceable. Draft: five years, EU-wide.
Checking the drafting
The errors that survive three rounds of review.
4.1Blank placeholderFill“[●]” where the completion date should be.
11.3Figures and words disagreeFix“ten (12)” days.
12.1Broken cross-referenceFixClause 14.3 does not exist.
Redlining
Apply a fix and it goes into the document as a tracked change.
7.2Raise the cap€50,000 → the Purchase Price
8.4Narrow the non-competefive (5) → three (3) years · EU → Cyprus
11.3Fix the notice periodten (12) → twelve (12)
3 fixes drafted3 tracked changes4.1 and 12.1 left for you
Back to Word
Your own .docx, with the tracked changes as native Word revisions.
FileSPA_v2.docx
Goes back to the Seller asv2
ChangesWord tracked changes
FormattingKept from the original
How the fixes reach the other side as Word tracked changes is covered on the AI contract redlining page.
Cyprus law
Cypriot legislation, brought into the review
When a contract is governed by Cyprus law, or names no governing law at all, NeoLaw searches Cypriot legislation for the contract’s type and its most common kinds of clause. What it finds goes to the risk review, and the reasons can then name the law they rely on.
Contract review draws on legislation only. For judgments on a point, use Cyprus case law search, which covers 69,898 judgments in English or Greek.
After the review
A summary, the obligations and a negotiation plan
Plain-English summary.What the contract is, what your client gives and gets, what to watch out for and a bottom line a non-lawyer can follow, alongside an executive summary and a brief on the risks of signing as drafted.
Obligations.Who must do what, grouped by party. Ask for the full register and NeoLaw lists every obligation in every clause.
Negotiation strategy, on demand.An overall approach, priorities in order, an ideal and a fallback position for each key clause with the arguments for it, possible concessions and your red lines.
Privacy
Reviewed on our own private model.
NeoLaw runs on its own private language model, on GPU servers we operate in Limassol. Contract review, chat with a contract and questions about your mailbox run there by default.
Strict private mode, which your firm can turn on, keeps every AI step on the private model, including reading scanned pages and search
NeoLaw does not train or fine-tune models on your documents
The application, its database and your files are hosted in the EU
AI contract review uses a language model to read a contract clause by clause, the way a reviewing lawyer would, and report what needs attention. In NeoLaw that means a risk rating with reasons for every clause, a comparison with your firm’s playbook and a proofread for drafting errors. A lawyer decides what to change.
Can NeoLaw review an NDA?
Yes. NeoLaw reviews any contract, so NDA review works the same way as the review of a share purchase agreement, a lease, an employment contract or a services agreement. It identifies the type of contract and takes it into account when it rates each clause. In an NDA, clauses such as the definition of Confidential Information, permitted disclosures, how long the duties last and any cap on liability each get their own rating and reason.
What is contract risk analysis?
Contract risk analysis means reading each clause for what it exposes your client to, such as uncapped liability, one-sided termination rights or a wide indemnity. NeoLaw scores each clause from 1 to 10, labels it low, medium or high, and explains the score with reference to the clause’s own wording.
What is a contract playbook?
A contract playbook is a firm’s set of standard positions and preferred wording for the clauses it negotiates most often, such as liability caps, confidentiality and governing law. NeoLaw keeps one default playbook for the whole firm. An administrator builds it by hand or extracts it from a template contract, and every review is compared with it.
How accurate is AI contract review?
We do not publish an accuracy figure, because results depend on the contract and on your playbook. Every finding shows its reasoning or quotes the text it relies on, so a lawyer can check it, and nothing changes in the document until a lawyer applies it.
Which contracts and files can it review?
Any contract in Word (.docx) or PDF, up to 50 MB, including scanned PDFs of up to 150 pages. Long contracts take longer. If a review runs out of time, NeoLaw shows how many clauses it has rated and finishes the rest when you ask.
Is our contract used to train AI models?
No. NeoLaw does not train or fine-tune models on your documents. Contract review runs on NeoLaw’s own private language model by default, on GPU servers we operate in Limassol.
How do we get started?
Request access at chat.neolaw.ai/register. Our team activates new accounts after a manual approval. Once you are in, an administrator can set up the firm’s playbook by hand or extract it from one of your templates, and you can upload your first contract.
Review one of your own contracts.
Request access and our team will activate your account. Upload an NDA or any agreement you know well, and compare NeoLaw’s findings with your own.