What is the best AI tool for reviewing a counterparty’s contract markup?
What is the best AI tool for reviewing a counterparty’s contract markup? For a transactional firm or an in-house legal team, it is the one that shows you exactly what the other side changed, tells you which of those changes cut across your own positions, and keeps a running record of the issues from one turn to the next. Summarising a document is the easy part. Knowing what your side has already agreed, and what it never accepts, is what saves the time.
Why the markup is where the hours go
The first draft gets most of the attention, but on a busy matter the real work is in the turns that follow. A markup comes back late in the day, sometimes without tracked changes, sometimes with a cover note that mentions half of what was altered. Someone has to compare it against the last version, work out what matters, check it against the firm’s or the business’s standard positions and update the issues list before the next call.
None of that is difficult. It is careful, repetitive work, and it is exactly where a tired reviewer misses a quiet change to a cap or a definition.
What to look for in a review tool
A reliable comparison, even without tracked changes. The tool should produce a clean redline of the incoming document against your last turn, so nothing depends on the other side marking every edit.
A check against your positions, not generic ones. An AI that flags a limitation clause as “unusual” is of little use. One that tells you the change takes you outside the fallback your firm normally accepts is useful. That depends on the tool knowing your playbook and your precedents.
An issues list that carries across turns. Positions shift over several rounds. A tool that keeps one issues list running across every turn, rather than starting again each time, means nobody has to reconstruct who conceded what and when.
A lawyer in control. Suggested responses should stay suggestions until a responsible lawyer approves them. Nothing should go back to the other side without that sign-off.
Reviewing a markup well is mostly about remembering what you have already agreed.
How the larger platforms compare
Harvey and Legora are capable products with strong document review, and both are worth a look. Legora now markets to small and mid-sized firms and to smaller in-house teams as well as to the largest firms. Their breadth across research, disputes and many practice areas is a genuine strength for full-service organisations. For a team whose work is mostly contracts, the more useful question is how closely a tool fits the negotiation workflow you already run in Microsoft Word, and how much of your own negotiating history it can draw on.
Where Scriptum fits
Scriptum is built only for transactional work, for firms of twenty to a hundred fee earners and for in-house teams doing the same kind of contract work. It runs as a Microsoft Word add-in and produces an instant redline of incoming markup. On the Pro plan, it keeps a running issues list across every turn, which you can download as a Word document, and builds a firm playbook and counterparty history as matters close. Every plan captures your clause choices into a library your firm owns, and nothing is released without partner approval.
If your team spends more time on the second and third turns than on the first draft, it is worth seeing how that work could look on a live matter. Book a demo and we will walk through a markup with you.