Departments · Legal and Compliance AI for Legal and Compliance: Review Contracts, Track Deadlines, Organise Evidence

Tasks in legal and compliance

Each example below describes a typical process, not a client project. AI prepares information. The people responsible check sources, exceptions and implications. What can be automated depends on your contracts, data and internal approvals.

1. Review contracts against your standards

A contract review often starts by asking whether an incoming draft meets your agreed requirements. To do this, AI needs not only the contract but also your approved templates and review criteria.

• Input: a draft contract, the relevant template and a list of points to review.
• AI prepares: identifies relevant clauses, compares them with your requirements and flags missing, changed or ambiguous passages, with references to their locations in the document.
• In-house counsel review: each flagged passage in the context of the whole contract. They assess risks, draft changes and decide how to proceed.
• Output: a review report with references to the relevant passages, open questions and a record of the outcome of the human review.

The report does not constitute legal approval. If a term is used differently in the contract and the template, it must be considered in context. AI should make uncertainty visible rather than present an apparently definitive finding.

2. Track deadlines and termination dates

A contract may contain several relevant dates. Its start, term, renewal and termination provisions are not always in the same place. A calendar entry alone does not explain how a date was determined.

• Input: signed contracts, amendments, recorded contract data and existing calendar entries.
• AI prepares: extracts potential dates and rules, links them to passages in the documents and suggests entries or reminders. It flags contradictions and missing information.
• In-house counsel review and approve: the authoritative version of the contract, the rules for calculating deadlines and every date used to make a decision.
• Output: confirmed dates in a contract register or deadline calendar, each linked to the contract and the person responsible.

With amendments and differing provisions, it is not enough to copy a date from one clause. A reminder supports the person responsible. It does not replace a review of the contract.

3. Prepare documentation for AI use and data protection

Information about systems, purposes, data and responsibilities is often spread across IT, other departments and legal teams. For a review, the information needs to be traceable and up to date.

• Input: existing system descriptions, internal requirements, contracts and information from the departments responsible.
• AI prepares: organises the information according to your documentation structure, identifies each source and lists missing or contradictory details.
• In-house counsel review: the legal classification and drafts together with IT and the other teams responsible. They decide which information to include.
• Output: a reviewed draft document with outstanding points, sources and named responsibilities for further work.

This could support work on a record of processing activities under Article 30 of the GDPR. The information required and who is responsible for it must be assessed in each case. For further context on AI use, see the EU AI Act and AI and data protection. This is not legal advice.

4. Gather supplier documents and certificates

Supplier contracts, questionnaires, certificates and other supporting documents often sit in different places. Legal and compliance teams need to know which document belongs to which business relationship and whether it still needs review.

• Input: supplier records, contract storage, emails and your list of required documents.
• AI prepares: assigns documents to suppliers, captures any identifiable validity dates and produces an overview of missing or unclear evidence.
• Compliance reviews: the allocation, currency and significance of the documents. The person responsible decides whether to request further information.
• Output: a traceable list of evidence with sources, review outcomes and outstanding requests.

Gathering documents remains a shared process. Supplier records and coordination with contractual partners also involve procurement. A certificate is not deemed sufficient simply because it has been filed.

5. Answer questions about internal policies

Employees often look for a specific rule, such as how to share a document or use an approved tool. An answer is useful only if it is clear which version of the policy it comes from.

• Input: approved policies, process descriptions and a question from someone in the company.
• AI prepares: searches the permitted documents and drafts an answer with a source reference. If sources are missing or contradictory, it refers the question to the appropriate team.
• Compliance reviews: sensitive answers, unresolved exceptions and indications that policies are outdated or inconsistent.
• Output: an answer supported by a source, or a question passed on because the available sources do not resolve it.

Such an assistant needs a maintained set of sources and appropriate access rights. Answers about technical configuration and internal rules for AI use should be coordinated with IT. AI does not set new rules.

6. Organise documents for internal reviews

Before an internal review, decisions, approvals and related evidence often need to be brought together. The challenge is less about writing a summary than finding the right version of each document.

• Input: the scope of the review, existing evidence, approval records and the relevant department's filing structure.
• AI prepares: creates an index of available documents, links related items and flags gaps or different versions.
• Compliance reviews: whether the documents are complete, correctly assigned and suitable for the intended purpose.
• Output: a reviewed set of evidence with source references and a list of points still to be resolved.

Bringing documents together does not establish that a process meets every requirement. Even a well-organised file may reveal missing evidence. These gaps should be recorded and assigned to the people responsible.

Systems and document storage

Legal and compliance teams rarely need another isolated list. What matters is where the authoritative contract version is held, which system maintains supplier records and who confirms dates. A connection may transfer data or point to its source. The right approach depends on your existing environment and the interfaces available.

The table describes possible processes, not guaranteed features of any particular product. Details concerning SharePoint and other third-party software are stated as at October 2026; check specific features and terms with the manufacturer. We do not claim partner status. Before connecting systems, we establish which one is authoritative and whether changes may be written back to it. An email attachment can be an input. It should not silently replace a reviewed contract version. Read more about connecting recurring processes under automation and document processing.

Limits and approvals

We do not provide legal advice. AI can compare passages, gather questions and prepare reports. Your in-house counsel decide whether a clause is enforceable, an action is permissible or evidence is sufficient. Legally significant assessments are not adopted solely on the basis of an AI response. Human approval must be visible in the process.

Every review report should identify the relevant passage in the contract, the template used and the document version reviewed. If a contract is later amended, an older report does not automatically apply to the new version. For unclear cases, a status such as “open” is more useful than approval without grounds. AI can also prepare the wording of a follow-up question. Sending it and taking a substantive position remain with the person responsible.

Confidentiality must be addressed before processing. Law firms may also have specific duties of confidentiality and professional secrecy. This page is for in-house legal teams; it does not replace an assessment of a law firm's obligations. For each data source, define who may view documents and which processing steps are permitted.

Article 50 of the EU AI Act sets out transparency obligations for certain AI systems and content. It does not follow that every internal contract review report must be labelled. Your in-house counsel must assess whether an obligation applies to the specific process. The official text is linked under the EU AI Act and in the sources at the end of this page. This is not legal advice.

Data: contracts, deadlines and evidence

File names are often not enough for a useful contract register. Helpful metadata includes the contractual partner, contract type, authoritative version, person responsible, start date, term and review status. Every field extracted from a document should link back to its source passage. Where information is missing, the field remains open until a person confirms it. An AI assumption must not quietly become an authoritative record.

The rules for calculating deadlines must also be documented: Which version applies? Does a renewal depend on an action? Who checks a proposed date, and who receives a reminder? Where provisions conflict, the register must show the conflict. A deadline calendar can provide a dependable basis for the people responsible only when its data has been confirmed.

Access is based on role and task. Someone who needs a reminder does not necessarily need the entire contract. For reports and evidence, define who may change, approve and retrieve them. Retention and deletion should be assessed against your requirements and the applicable rules rather than applying one period to every document. The GDPR includes principles for processing and requirements concerning security and the use of processors. How these apply in a particular case requires legal assessment. Read more under AI and data protection. This is not legal advice.

If your process requires servers in the EU, include this in your operational and supplier requirements. Access rights, logging and which data leaves a service are equally important. The location of storage alone does not answer these questions. For companies outside the EU, such as in Switzerland or the United Kingdom, data flows and applicable requirements need separate assessment.

Bespoke applications for legal and compliance

A bespoke application can cover a missing step between existing systems. It does not have to replace your DMS or contract management software. First, establish which system holds the authoritative data and which views the department needs for its work. You can then decide whether a small application is enough or more extensive software development makes sense.

A deadline calendar app could show confirmed dates, source passages and responsible people in one view. A contract register could show which document version has been reviewed, which questions remain open and when the next decision is due. An evidence file could bring documents together with their review status and source. In all three cases, changes are logged and legally significant entries are used only after approval.

We can develop these interfaces to complement existing systems. How data enters and flows back is established before development begins. For more on implementation, see app development and software development. Whether an AI agent can prepare a step depends on the task and the available approvals.

Where to start

An initial look at your processes does not require new software. Ask yourself: How many active contracts do you have, and who keeps track of their deadlines? Where is the signed version stored? Is there a record of amendments? Who decides when dates conflict? And can you trace an entry back to its source during a review?

Then choose a clearly defined process, such as reviewing one type of contract against an existing template or gathering evidence for a specific area. Establish which data is accessible and who will review the results. Only then can you assess where automation helps and which decisions must remain with your in-house counsel. To discuss the legal and technical aspects of a process, write to us through the contact form.