AI Document Review and Risk Analysis
Watch HAQQ review contracts, flag legal risks, and rank clause-level issues - powered by AI trained for legal document analysis.
Document Review and Analysis
Justinian can review any document you upload and provide analysis, risk identification, redline suggestions, improvement recommendations, and alternative clause language. Upload via the paperclip icon, then describe what you want Justinian to focus on.
- The document under review, with a count of the issues found across it.
- Every flagged clause, ranked by risk rather than listed in document order, so the worst problem is the first thing you read.
- Open a clause to see the issue, why it matters in this jurisdiction, and what to do about it.
- The suggested redline, shown as tracked changes you can accept, edit or reject.
- Ask for the same change in more or less aggressive language before you send it to the other side.
How to Start a Document Review
1
Upload the document
Click the paperclip icon in the chat input bar and select the file (PDF, DOCX, or plain text). Multiple files can be uploaded for comparative review.
2
Describe your focus
Tell Justinian what to look for: liability exposure, IP ownership gaps, non-standard termination clauses, or compliance with a specific regulation.
3
Select the AI level
Use the Legal AI Twin level for the most thorough review — it accesses your eFirm data and trusted legal libraries for cross-referencing.
4
Review the output
Justinian returns a clause-by-clause analysis with severity ratings (High / Medium / Low), flagged issues, and recommended language.
Review Output Fields
| Field | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Clause Reference | Section / clause number in the original document | § 7.2 — Limitation of Liability |
| Risk Level | High / Medium / Low severity rating | High — uncapped indemnity |
| Issue Description | Plain-language explanation of the risk | No monetary cap on supplier's indemnification obligation |
| Recommendation | Suggested revision or alternative language | Cap indemnity at 100% of total fees paid under the agreement |
| Jurisdiction Note | Jurisdiction-specific enforceability comment | UAE courts may void uncapped indemnities under Federal Decree-Law No. 5/2023 |
Scenario
MSA Liability Review
A client sends you a Master Service Agreement from a US tech vendor. You need to identify every clause that exposes your client to uncapped liability before the next negotiation round.
Steps
Upload the MSA → Prompt: 'Review this MSA and identify every clause that exposes the client to uncapped liability. Flag severity and suggest capped alternatives.' → Justinian returns 8 flagged clauses with severity ratings and redline suggestions.
Result: Full risk register generated in under 2 minutes. Each flagged clause includes alternative language ready to paste into the redline.
Tip
For the most precise results, specify the party perspective: "Review from the buyer's perspective" or "Analyze as tenant's counsel." This changes which clauses are flagged as favorable vs. unfavorable.
Track Changes
3 deleted3 inserted
Redlining and Track Changes
Justinian produces redlined versions of documents within the Canvas editor with a built-in track changes feature. Changes are shown visually so you can accept or reject each modification individually.
Redlining Workflow
1
Upload and prompt
Upload the document and describe the changes: 'Cap indemnification at total contract value, change governing law from English to DIFC law, add a 30-day cure period before termination, and delete the non-compete clause.'
2
Canvas editor opens
Justinian opens the document in the Canvas editor with all proposed changes visible as tracked changes — additions in green, deletions in red strikethrough.
3
Accept or reject
Review each change individually. Accept the ones you want, reject the ones you don't. You can also edit the proposed language before accepting.
4
Export the final version
Export the clean or marked-up version as DOCX or PDF for client delivery or counterparty negotiation.
Important
When requesting multiple changes in a single prompt, number them (1, 2, 3…). Justinian processes numbered instructions more accurately than paragraph-form requests.
Fallback Language - Indemnification Clause
Fallback Language Generation
When negotiating a contract, Justinian generates alternative clause language for different outcomes. Ask for 3 levels: your preferred position, a reasonable middle ground, and the minimum acceptable position.
Fallback Language Levels
| Level | Strategy | Example (Indemnification) |
|---|---|---|
| Position A — Preferred | Maximum protection for your client | Indemnification capped at total fees paid; excludes consequential damages; 12-month survival period |
| Position B — Middle Ground | Balanced risk allocation | Indemnification capped at 2x fees paid in prior 12 months; includes direct damages only; 18-month survival |
| Position C — Walk-Away | Minimum acceptable terms | Indemnification capped at 3x annual fees; includes direct and indirect damages; 24-month survival; mutual indemnification |
Scenario
Negotiation Preparation
You're about to enter a 3-hour negotiation session for a technology licensing agreement. The counterparty's counsel has pushed back on 4 key clauses.
Steps
Upload the agreement → Prompt: 'For clauses 5.2 (IP ownership), 8.1 (indemnification), 12.3 (termination), and 14.1 (non-compete), generate 3 levels of fallback language: preferred, middle ground, and walk-away position. Frame from the licensor's perspective.' → Justinian returns a structured playbook.
Result: 12 alternative clause versions (3 per clause) generated in under 3 minutes. Walk into negotiations with a structured playbook — pivot instantly without drafting on the fly.
Data Room Review0/5 analyzed
Master Service AgreementQueued
IP Assignment AgreementQueued
Employment Contracts (x5)Queued
Lease AgreementQueued
Share Purchase AgreementQueued
Data Room Review
Process multiple documents from a data room and produce consolidated analysis. Attach 5-8 contracts at a time, ask for specific analysis, then consolidate individual reviews into a single due diligence report.
Data Room Analysis Workflow
1
Batch upload documents
Attach 5-8 contracts at a time via the paperclip icon. Supported formats: PDF, DOCX, plain text.
2
Specify the analysis scope
Tell Justinian what to look for across all documents: change of control provisions, IP ownership clauses, material liabilities, termination risks, or assignment restrictions.
3
Review individual analyses
Justinian returns a per-document analysis with flagged issues, risk ratings, and key terms extracted.
4
Request consolidation
Ask Justinian to consolidate findings into a single due diligence report with a prioritized risk register and recommended conditions for the SPA.
Info
For large data rooms (50+ documents), process in batches of 5-8 and ask Justinian to maintain a running risk register. The AI carries context across the conversation, so each batch builds on the previous analysis.
Reading Your Filing Against the Other Side's
Review is not only a document on its own. Upload your pleading and opposing counsel's together and the comparison becomes adversarial: which position is better supported, where yours is exposed, and what the other side is relying on that you have not answered.
Running an adversarial comparison
1
Upload both filings
Attach your pleading and the opposing one in the same message, and say which is which. Without that the analysis treats them as two neutral documents rather than two sides.
2
Ask which is stronger, and why
Not just a summary. Ask it to weigh the two positions and give reasons — the reasons are what you argue against, and they surface the assumption the other side is resting on.
3
Ask where yours is weak
The useful half. Send it looking for your own gaps: unsupported assertions, an argument you raised but never evidenced, a point of theirs you left unanswered.
4
Draft the reply from the same thread
Ask it to draft your responsive pleading in the same conversation, so it answers the specific points it just finished analysing instead of arguing in the abstract.
Tip
Keep all four steps in one conversation. The reply is only as good as the comparison it follows, and starting a fresh chat to draft it throws away the analysis you just paid for.
Briefing a Matter, Not Issuing a Command
The strongest results come from describing a matter the way you would brief a colleague rather than typing a request. Give it the facts, the posture, and where you are stuck: who the client is, the relevant history, what the other side has done, and what you are trying to achieve. It comes back with the shape of the case and the steps open to you, and you work it from there.
Scenario
Briefing a family matter
A client has been married seven years, has two children, and a dispute has arisen with their spouse. You want to know the routes available before advising.
Steps
Describe the situation in plain terms — the marriage, the children, the nature of the dispute, and the outcome the client wants — then ask what options exist and what each requires. Follow up on the ones worth pursuing.
Result: You get the routes with what each demands in evidence and procedure, and can press on the promising ones. The exchange runs as a discussion rather than a single answer, which is where it behaves less like a search box and more like a second opinion.
Multi-Jurisdiction Comparison - Termination
| Jurisdiction | Notice Period | Severance | Grounds |
|---|
Legislative Analysis and Comparison
Justinian knows all laws across all jurisdictions and languages. Compare provisions across multiple jurisdictions, assess compliance with specific regulations, or flag non-compliant provisions against recent law amendments.
Legislative Analysis Capabilities
| Capability | Example Prompt | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-jurisdiction comparison | Compare employee termination provisions in UAE, UK, and France | Side-by-side table of notice periods, severance requirements, and procedural obligations per jurisdiction |
| Compliance gap analysis | Flag provisions in this employment contract that don't comply with DIFC Employment Law No. 2/2019 | List of non-compliant clauses with specific law references and suggested amendments |
| Legislative update impact | How does the new UAE Labor Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021) affect this employment agreement? | Clause-by-clause impact assessment with required amendments |
| Regulatory comparison | Compare data protection obligations under PDPL, GDPR, and CCPA | Comparative matrix of requirements, penalties, and compliance thresholds |
Summary
Upload any document for clause-level review, redlining with track changes, fallback language generation, data room analysis, and multi-jurisdictional legislative comparison.