Contract Review reads a contract you upload, paste, or link (.pdf / .docx / .txt, up to 20 MB), checks whether it is even valid under Philippine law, rates each clause Must Fix / Should Fix / Optional with a specific legal basis, catches the protections that are missing, and returns a revised draft with Track Changes plus a Tier 1–3 negotiation roadmap. Inference is localized to the Philippines and adjacent secured Asia-Pacific regions, with zero training-data retention on your documents.
Triage the queue, not just the contract
In-house teams and BPO legal units do not have a "review one contract" problem. They have a queue: vendor agreements, NDAs, and service contracts, each needing a first pass before it reaches a senior reviewer. The bottleneck is rarely the hard judgment call — it is the first read, the triage, and building a redline from scratch on the seventieth substantially similar agreement.
Contract Review compresses that first pass. It does not replace the reviewing attorney; it gets the document to them already triaged — risky clauses marked, missing ones named, a draft redline attached, and the fixes sorted by what matters in the negotiation. And it starts where a Philippine lawyer starts: with whether the contract is valid at all.
What you get
A risk-rated report, not a summary
Every clause comes back rated Must Fix, Should Fix, or Optional, rolled up into an overall read with counts — and a separate count of the clauses that are Missing. Before any clause, the review runs a validity check (the Art. 1318 three elements — consent, object, cause) and a structural scan that catches the blank that was never filled and the figure that contradicts the words.
A legal basis behind every flag
This is the part that separates a review from a vibe. Each flag is tied to a specific Philippine provision — a one-sided self-help remedy under Art. 1308, a penalty a court may reduce under Art. 1229, personal-data handling that needs an R.A. 10173 framework. Behind the flags is a coded library of 20 red flags (10 Philippine-specific, 10 universal), each with its legal basis, so a finding is auditable rather than asserted.
It catches what's missing, not just what's wrong
A contract's biggest risk is often a clause that isn't there. Contract Review detects absent protections — no limitation of liability, no force majeure, no dispute-resolution mechanism, no representations and warranties, no data-privacy clause — and drafts standard clause language to add, with a priority and a legal basis for each.
A redline you can actually use
Every Must Fix or Should Fix item produces a full redline: the original language, a suggested replacement shown as a tracked change, the rationale, the legal basis, a priority, and a fallback if the counterparty pushes back. It is delivered as a DOCX with Track Changes — open it in Word, read each comment, accept or reject each edit. A structured JSON report is available where a team wants to pipe findings into other tooling.
A negotiation roadmap, not just a list
The findings come organised the way you negotiate them: Tier 1 deal-breakers (validity problems, uncapped liability, a missing data-processing agreement), Tier 2 should-haves (mutual representations, indemnification, dispute resolution), and Tier 3 concession candidates you can trade. A concession map makes the trade explicit — "give up Tier 3-X to win Tier 2-Y" — so you walk into the call with a plan, not a problem list.
How it works, briefly
Under the single "Start Review" click is an 11-step pipeline, shown live on a progress timeline: it reads the contract, identifies its type and your position, searches and shortlists the governing Philippine law and retrieves the exact provisions, checks validity (Art. 1318) before judging anything, reads every clause across 16 categories, runs the 20-flag red-flag scan, drafts the redline, builds the Tier 1–3 roadmap, and assembles the report. Want the honest, stage-by-stage detail — with the full flag library and a worked lease example? Read How Contract Review Works.
Giving it a contract
Three input modes, so the contract reaches the tool however it arrives — upload a file (.pdf, .docx, .txt, up to 20 MB), paste the text, or point it at a URL. Two optional settings sharpen the review: Client Position tells it which side you are on, so it reads from your client's risk perspective; Focus Areas let you name the clauses you care about most — "check termination and indemnity" — so the review weights them.
Who it's for
- In-house & BPO legal teams — clear a queue of substantially similar agreements with a validity-first triage, a redlined DOCX, and a tiered plan, instead of building each redline from scratch.
- Solo practitioners & small firms — a structured, Philippine-specific checklist behind every review, with redline language that drops straight into your markup.
- Procurement & founders — turn a contract you don't fully understand into a short list of what to push back on and what to trade, before it reaches counsel.
Honest about what it is
Contract Review is a review assistant, not legal advice — its own output says so. It surfaces and prioritizes issues, drafts redlines, and maps a negotiation; the legal bases it cites make a finding auditable, not infallible. The reviewing attorney owns the final judgment and the signed contract. The tool's job is to make sure nothing material reaches that attorney unflagged.
Related reading
- How Contract Review Works — the full, stage-by-stage account of the pipeline.
- Obligations & Contracts — the Civil Code framework every clause is read against.
- Deep Synthesis — for the research question behind a clause, with traceable sources.
FAQ
How do I give Contract Review a contract?
Upload a file (.pdf, .docx, .txt, up to 20 MB), paste the text, or provide a URL. You can optionally set your client's position (first or second party) and name focus areas like termination or indemnity so the review weights those clauses.
How does it rate each clause?
Must Fix (material risk or against mandatory law), Should Fix (negotiable — a redline is generated), or Optional (acceptable). Absent protections are listed separately as Missing. The ratings are triage, not a substitute for an attorney's judgment — and each finding carries a specific legal basis.
What does it produce?
A risk-rated findings report with the flags and a redline per issue, a revised draft as a DOCX with Track Changes, and a structured JSON — all organised into a Tier 1–3 negotiation roadmap.
Is my contract used to train AI models?
No. Documents you submit are never used to train, fine-tune, or improve any AI model. Inference runs in the Philippines and adjacent secured Asia-Pacific regions; connections use TLS 1.3 and stored content is encrypted with AES-256. Intellegal handles user content as a data processor under RA 10173 (the Data Privacy Act).
Does it replace a lawyer?
No. It surfaces, prioritizes, and redlines issues; it does not give legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Its output carries the reminder that it is AI-assisted analysis, not legal advice. A licensed attorney remains responsible for the final review.