Contract review is one of the most time-intensive tasks in legal work — and much of that time is spent on reading, extracting and summarising information that is already in the document. Finding the indemnification clause, identifying the governing law, spotting missing terms — these are tasks that require careful reading, not legal judgement.
Claude can do the reading. It processes long documents quickly, extracts specific clauses on request, flags unusual or missing terms and produces plain-English summaries for non-legal stakeholders. The legal judgement — whether to sign, what to negotiate, what the risk actually means — stays entirely with you.
Key insight: Claude is a reading and summarising tool in a legal context — not a legal adviser. It finds and explains what is in the document. Whether that matters, and what to do about it, is always a human decision.
Clause extraction
Find and extract specific clauses — indemnity, liability cap, termination, governing law — from long contracts.
Risk flagging
Identify unusual, missing or potentially problematic terms that warrant closer legal review.
Plain-English summaries
Translate complex contract language into clear summaries for business stakeholders who are not lawyers.
Version comparison
Compare two versions of a contract and identify what has changed between drafts.
Compliance checklists
Check a document against a list of required provisions and flag what is present, absent or unclear.
First draft clauses
Draft standard clauses for legal review — NDAs, liability limits, data processing terms.
Without Claude
Read a 40-page supplier contract manually to find the liability cap and termination provisions. Takes 90 minutes. Miss the negotiation deadline.
With Claude
Paste the contract. Ask Claude to extract the liability cap, termination clause and any unusual provisions. Reviewed in 5 minutes. Negotiation prepared on time.
These three prompts cover the most common legal document tasks. Each one is designed to give Claude enough context to produce a useful first pass — saving hours of reading time before the qualified review begins.
Key insight: Always tell Claude the jurisdiction and the context before asking it to review a contract. "This is a UK commercial supply agreement" produces much sharper output than just pasting the document. Context shapes what Claude flags as unusual.
Prompt 1 — Contract clause extraction and risk summary
Act as a legal analyst. Review the following contract and extract the key commercial and legal terms. Flag anything that looks unusual, missing or potentially risky.
Context: [e.g. UK commercial supply agreement / US SaaS licence / Employment contract — UK law]
Our position: [e.g. We are the buyer / We are the service provider / We are the employer]
For each of the following clauses, provide: the exact clause location, a plain-English summary, and a risk flag if applicable:
- Liability cap and exclusions
- Indemnification obligations
- Termination rights (for cause and for convenience)
- Governing law and jurisdiction
- Data protection obligations
- Intellectual property ownership
- Payment terms and late payment provisions
At the end, provide a Risk Summary: list any clauses that are missing, unusually one-sided or that you recommend a qualified lawyer reviews before signing.
[Paste the contract text here]
Prompt 2 — Plain-English contract summary for non-lawyers
Act as a legal summariser. Translate the following contract into a plain-English summary suitable for a business stakeholder who is not a lawyer. They need to understand what they are agreeing to — not the legal detail behind it.
Context: [Type of contract and jurisdiction]
Audience: [e.g. CFO / Operations Director / Sales Director]
Produce:
1. What this contract is — one sentence
2. What we are committing to — bullet points, plain language
3. What the other party is committing to — bullet points, plain language
4. Key dates and deadlines — list any that require action
5. Three things to be aware of — the most important points for this stakeholder to understand before signing
Keep the language clear and direct. No legal jargon. If a term needs explaining, explain it in brackets.
[Paste the contract text here]
Prompt 3 — NDA review checklist
Act as a legal analyst. Review the following NDA against standard protective provisions. Flag any provisions that are missing, unusually broad or potentially problematic for the disclosing party.
Context: [e.g. Mutual NDA / One-way NDA — we are the disclosing party / UK law]
Check for and comment on each of the following:
1. Definition of confidential information — is it appropriately defined or too broad/narrow?
2. Permitted disclosures — are the carve-outs reasonable?
3. Duration — how long does the obligation last? Is this standard for this type of agreement?
4. Remedies — does the NDA include injunctive relief provisions?
5. Return or destruction of information — is there an obligation on the receiving party?
6. Governing law — is this appropriate for our jurisdiction?
Flag: [REVIEW REQUIRED] next to any provision that a qualified lawyer should examine before signing.
[Paste the NDA text here]
Always ask Claude to flag what it is uncertain about
Add this to any legal prompt: "Flag any provisions where your interpretation may be uncertain or where the answer depends on jurisdiction-specific law you may not have current information on."
Claude's knowledge has a cutoff — law changes
Regulations, case law and statutory requirements change. Claude may not reflect the most current legal position. Always verify regulatory references against current official sources.
Legal work carries significant professional and commercial risk. Claude is a powerful reading and drafting tool — but the boundaries of what it should and should not be used for in a legal context are clear.
Key insight: Claude is an excellent first pass — not a final review. Use it to cut the reading time before qualified legal review, not to replace that review. The higher the stakes of the document, the more important the human check.
Every high-stakes document needs qualified legal review
Claude's output on a contract is a starting point for legal review — not a substitute for it. Any document that will be signed, enforced or relied upon in a dispute must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer.
Anonymise before pasting confidential contracts
Remove counterparty names, commercially sensitive figures and any information subject to confidentiality obligations before pasting contract text into Claude. Use placeholder labels — "Party A", "Supplier X".
Always specify the jurisdiction
Legal requirements differ significantly between jurisdictions. Always tell Claude which jurisdiction applies — "UK law", "New York law", "EU GDPR context" — so it can calibrate its output appropriately.
Verify all regulatory references independently
Claude's training data has a cutoff. Any specific regulatory article numbers, compliance thresholds or statutory deadlines it references must be verified against current official sources before being relied upon.
Important: Claude does not provide legal advice. It summarises, extracts and drafts — it does not advise on legal risk or strategy. Any contract that will be signed or relied upon must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.