Best AI Use Cases for Legal Teams in 2026

Required

CLM

Reads the agreement record, approved extraction fields, status, parties, and amendments.

Writes draft metadata and summary for legal review.

Files

Reads the executed agreement, exhibits, schedules, amendments, and OCR text.

Optional

Docs

Writes a client- or business-facing summary using the approved template.

Upload the complete document set and extraction template. Confirm that scans are readable and amendments are included.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the field schema, summary template, one lawyer-approved summary, and three complete agreement sets covering clean text, controlling amendments, and a genuinely missing term ready.

Help me set up a contract-term summarization workflow.

It should extract the approved fields from the complete agreement set and cite
the controlling text. It must never turn interpretation into an extracted fact.

1. Ask me which document or contract tools hold the files and summary record.
2. Ask me for the field schema, summary template, and required citation format.
3. Ask me how exhibits, schedules, amendments, definitions, and OCR issues are handled.
4. Ask me for one lawyer-approved summary to use as the output example.
5. Build the workflow so each field includes the value, document, clause, page,
   and supporting text after applying amendments in the approved control order.
6. Preserve conflicts and uncertainty, mark absent terms Not found, and route an
   incomplete or unreadable document set instead of filling the gap.
7. Test it on my three agreement sets and show me the summary and exception list.

What good looks like

Across the three tests, every populated field should trace to controlling text, the amendment should override the right language, and the absent term should remain Not found. Correct any bad citation, wrong document order, or inferred value and rerun the same agreements.

Choose your trigger

Run it when the contract record is marked complete and includes the agreement, schedules, exhibits, and known amendments. Route incomplete sets and material OCR uncertainty to legal before creating the summary.

What runs without you

The workflow can populate draft contract metadata and prepare the cited summary. Legal reviews the controlling terms and approves the record before anyone relies on it. Sample summaries monthly and reopen the workflow whenever a later amendment or missing schedule is added.

Pairs well with review contract deviations and review due diligence - one extraction pass feeds the term sheet, the redline, and the diligence table.

Required

CLM

Reads the draft, deal context, approved playbook, clause positions, and approval matrix.

Writes issues, status, and draft redline for review.

Recommended

Docs

Reads approved fallback language and precedents.

Writes a marked-up review copy.

Optional

CRM

Reads commercial context needed by the approval matrix.

Upload the draft, playbook, and deal-context sheet. The workflow should use the selected playbook version and never a generic internet clause.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the current playbook, approved fallback language, one reviewed issue table, and three agreements covering company paper, minor deviations, and material exceptions ready.

Help me set up a contract-deviation review workflow.

It should compare a counterparty draft with the controlling playbook and prepare
a redline and issue table. It must never accept or send the agreement.

1. Ask me which contract and document tools hold the draft, playbook, and redline.
2. Ask me how agreement type, entity, region, and deal context select the playbook.
3. Ask me for clause positions, fallback text, severity, and approval thresholds.
4. Ask me for one reviewed issue table and redline to use as the format example.
5. Build the workflow so each issue cites the draft language and playbook position,
   distinguishes missing from changed clauses, and applies only approved severity.
6. Use approved fallback language when available; otherwise state the exact legal
   or business decision and route it to the required owner.
7. Test it on my three agreements and show me the redline, issues, and routes.

What good looks like

The company paper should show no false deviations, minor changes should use approved fallback language, and material exceptions should reach the right owner with exact citations. Correct any wrong playbook, missed clause, or invented fallback and rerun the same agreements.

Choose your trigger

Run it when a counterparty draft arrives with complete agreement type, entity, region, and deal context. Keep bespoke agreements without a controlling playbook outside the automated comparison.

What runs without you

The workflow can prepare the issue table, fallback draft, and redline, but a lawyer reviews every result permanently and owns the response. Check playbook versions monthly and rerun open matters whenever an approved clause position changes.

Pairs well with summarize contract terms - the term sheet says what the draft does; the playbook review says what to do about it.

Required

Docs

Reads approved forms, clauses, drafting guidance, and style.

Writes a clearly labeled review draft.

Matter management

Reads verified parties, facts, jurisdiction, dates, owner, and matter restrictions.

Writes the draft link and unresolved issue list.

Optional

Files

Reads supporting source documents and exhibits.

Upload the approved precedent and a verified fact sheet. Never ask the agent to choose a form from uncontrolled public examples.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the approved precedent set, fact-sheet template, one lawyer-approved draft, and three prior matters covering complete facts, missing facts, and an amended form ready.

Help me set up a legal-document drafting workflow.

It should turn verified matter facts and an approved precedent into a review draft.
It must never create a final document, filing, or external send.

1. Ask me which matter and document tools hold the facts, precedent, and draft.
2. Ask me how document type, entity, and jurisdiction select the approved precedent.
3. Ask me for required facts, allowed clause choices, and the consistency checklist.
4. Ask me for one approved draft that shows how the precedent should be completed.
5. Build the workflow so every inserted fact maps to its source, approved language
   stays unchanged unless instructed, and unresolved choices remain explicit.
6. Mark missing facts [INPUT NEEDED] and check parties, definitions, numbering,
   references, dates, exhibits, signature blocks, and conflicting provisions.
7. Test it on my three prior matters and show me the draft and issue list for each.

What good looks like

The three drafts should use the correct precedent, contain only verified facts and approved language, and expose missing facts or conflicts. Correct any invented fact, changed boilerplate, broken definition, or missed cross-reference and rerun the same matters.

Choose your trigger

Run it from a matter task with a selected precedent, lawyer owner, document type, jurisdiction, and fact sheet. Keep bespoke and filing-critical documents outside the workflow unless they have their own approved process.

What runs without you

The workflow can create the review draft and issue list, but a lawyer reviews every document and resolves every drafting choice. It never files, sends, or labels the document final, and it should stop if the approved precedent changes while a draft is in progress.

Pairs well with research legal questions - open drafting questions route straight into the research memo.

Required

Legal research

Reads primary and secondary authority, treatment, jurisdiction, and current status.

Docs

Reads the question, factual assumptions, memo template, and internal precedent.

Writes a research draft with links and quotations.

Optional

Matter management

Reads matter facts, parties, deadlines, and prior research.

Use official public sources and provide the question, jurisdiction, date, and factual assumptions. Counsel should independently verify every authority.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have a precise research template, authority and citation rules, one counsel-approved memo, and three past questions covering direct authority, conflicting authority, and sparse authority ready.

Help me set up a legal-research workflow.

It should produce a source-verified research draft for counsel review. It must
never fabricate authority or present an unverified citation as support.

1. Ask me which research and document tools I use and where the draft should land.
2. Ask me for the precise question, facts, jurisdiction, as-of date, and exclusions.
3. Ask me for the authority hierarchy, citation style, treatment checks, and template.
4. Ask me for one approved memo that shows the expected depth and uncertainty.
5. Build the workflow so it searches controlling authority first and records each
   citation, court or agency, date, status, proposition, quotation, and link.
6. Verify treatment and effective dates, distinguish binding and persuasive sources,
   and expose factual gaps or conflicting authority rather than forcing a conclusion.
7. Test it on my three past questions and show me the source table and memo draft.

What good looks like

Every material proposition in the three tests should have verified authority and status, quotations should be exact, and conflicts or sparse authority should remain visible. Remove any unsupported proposition or stale treatment and rerun the same questions.

Choose your trigger

Run it manually from an approved research request with a precise issue, facts, jurisdiction, as-of date, and counsel owner. An incomplete request should return focused intake questions rather than a generic memo.

What runs without you

The workflow can assemble the source table and first memo draft, but counsel reviews every proposition, analysis, and conclusion. Recheck authority immediately before the work is used, especially when the matter remains open or a source has changed status.

Pairs well with draft legal documents and monitor regulatory changes - research answers today’s question and monitoring catches when the answer changes.

Required

Data room

Reads the scoped files, folder structure, metadata, versions, and request list.

Recommended

CLM

Reads contract types, extraction fields, playbooks, and linked amendments.

Writes draft contract metadata and issues.

Optional

Docs

Reads the workstream checklist and reporting template.

Writes the diligence table and summary.

Use an exported, numbered document set with a manifest. Stable document IDs are essential for citations and incremental updates.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the locked request list, workstream and materiality rules, one reviewed diligence table, and three test folders containing duplicates, amendments, and a missing or material document ready.

Help me set up a due-diligence review workflow.

It should inventory the scoped data room and prepare a source-linked diligence
table and review queue. It must not infer a conclusion from a missing document.

1. Ask me which data-room and review tools hold documents and the diligence table.
2. Ask me for the locked scope, request list, workstreams, and naming rules.
3. Ask me for version, amendment, materiality, issue, and citation rules.
4. Ask me for one reviewed diligence entry showing the expected issue treatment.
5. Build the workflow so it inventories files, identifies duplicates and versions,
   classifies workstreams, and reconciles the room against the request list.
6. Extract only approved fields and issues with document ID, clause, page, and
   quotation; route unreadable, missing, and material items to lawyer review.
7. Test it on my three folders and show me the manifest, table, and missing list.

What good looks like

The three tests should reconcile their manifest counts, consolidate duplicates correctly, apply amendments in order, and keep missing or material items visible with exact citations. Correct any version, scope, or materiality error and rerun the same folders.

Choose your trigger

Run it at the agreed data-room cutoff and again when newly numbered files arrive. Keep out-of-scope folders excluded, preserve the file manifest, and surface access failures instead of treating them as missing documents.

What runs without you

The workflow can update the manifest, populate source-linked fields, and route potential issues. Lawyers review every issue conclusion and materiality call. During active diligence, reconcile the manifest daily and alert the workstream owner whenever a file is replaced or access is lost.

Pairs well with summarize contract terms - the same clause extraction runs across the whole document set.

Required

Matter management

Reads taxonomy, required fields, teams, priority and conflict rules.

Writes a staged intake, classification, and route.

Recommended

Email

Reads the request and attachments.

Writes a draft request for missing information.

Optional

Forms

Reads structured intake responses and requester confirmations.

Use a structured intake form and have the agent prepare the matter record and missing-information email for review.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the intake taxonomy, priority and conflict rules, one well-prepared matter, and three real requests covering a routine request, an urgent or conflict-sensitive case, and an incomplete request ready.

Help me set up a legal-intake triage workflow.

It should turn an approved intake message or form into a complete routed matter.
It must never resolve conflicts or make a legal-priority judgment outside the rules.

1. Ask me which intake, matter, and task tools receive requests and hold the queue.
2. Ask me for the taxonomy, required fields, owners, and confidentiality rules.
3. Ask me for explicit urgency, conflict, legal-hold, and escalation criteria.
4. Ask me for one well-prepared matter and one useful missing-information follow-up.
5. Build the workflow so it extracts the requester, entity, counterparty, request
   type, decision, jurisdiction, deadline, value, and confidentiality from the request.
6. Apply only the approved rules, ask narrowly for missing facts, and route low
   confidence, conflicts, holds, and urgent matters to the designated lawyer.
7. Test it on my three real requests and show me the matter record and route.

What good looks like

The routine request should become a complete matter, the urgent or conflict case should reach the correct lawyer immediately, and the incomplete request should receive a focused follow-up. Correct any missing deadline, wrong queue, or overcollection of sensitive data and rerun the same requests.

Choose your trigger

Run it only on the designated legal intake mailbox or form. Exclude spam, quarantine attachments that fail security checks, and leave arbitrary employee email outside the matter-creation workflow.

What runs without you

The workflow can create low-risk matter records, request missing fields, and notify the assigned queue. Legal reviews urgency, conflicts, holds, and every ambiguous request. Audit routing and missed deadlines monthly, and update the rules whenever ownership or intake categories change.

Pairs well with draft legal documents - a clean intake arrives with the facts the draft needs.

Required

Official sources

Reads named regulator publications, registers, rules, guidance, dates, and source links.

Docs

Reads jurisdiction, topic, entity, product, and impact map.

Writes the watchlist and preliminary impact questions.

Optional

Chat

Writes defined urgent alerts and the regular digest.

Use saved official-source alerts and let the agent deduplicate and summarize them. Avoid relying only on secondary newsletters for status or effective dates.

Paste this into your agent or automation tool. Have the official-source list, scope and status rules, one useful watchlist entry, and three past publications covering a relevant change, a correction or duplicate, and a deadline-sensitive item ready.

Help me set up a regulatory-monitoring workflow.

It should turn new official publications into a deduplicated legal watchlist and
owner alert. It must not issue legal advice or declare business impact as fact.

1. Ask me which official sources and tracking tools should be connected.
2. Ask me for jurisdictions, topics, business scope, and excluded publications.
3. Ask me for status vocabulary, urgency rules, deadlines, and the owner map.
4. Ask me for one useful watchlist entry to use as the output example.
5. Build the workflow so it preserves source URL, identifier, issuer, jurisdiction,
   publication date, status, comment deadline, and effective date.
6. Deduplicate versions and corrections, summarize the actual change, and create
   preliminary scope questions and an owner route without asserting legal impact.
7. Test it on my three past publications and show me the watchlist and alerts.

What good looks like

The relevant publication should reach the right owner, the correction should consolidate with the original, and the deadline-sensitive item should alert on time with the correct status and dates. Correct any source, deduplication, scope, or routing error and rerun the same publications.

Choose your trigger

Scan the approved official sources daily or weekly according to their risk tier. Send immediate alerts only for the defined deadline or final-action conditions, and keep unchanged or out-of-scope items out of the watchlist.

What runs without you

The workflow can maintain the watchlist and send the scheduled digest automatically. Counsel determines legal and business impact and owns every response. Review the source list and ownership map quarterly, and alert when an expected source fails to update or becomes unavailable.

Pairs well with research legal questions - a flagged change becomes a scoped research question with a deadline.