Review contracts against the playbook.
Keep lawyers at the judgment points.
Gotham helps Indian legal teams extract clauses, identify deviations, build review tables and prepare lawyer-ready issues—while keeping every finding tied to the agreement that supports it.
The operational problem
Contract review slows down when every agreement begins as an unstructured reading exercise. The reviewer must locate relevant language, compare it with an approved position, identify commercial and legal consequences, and communicate exceptions consistently.
A useful contract-review system should reduce repetitive locating and comparison work without hiding uncertainty. It should show the clause, the governing playbook rule and the reason for escalation so the reviewer can correct the analysis before it becomes advice, a redline or an approval.
A defensible workflow, step by step
Define the playbook
Set required clauses, preferred positions, fallbacks, prohibited language and escalation rules for the agreement type.
Ingest and classify
Identify documents, versions, agreement types and relevant parties before substantive review begins.
Extract with support
Capture clauses, dates, obligations and defined terms with pinpoint references to the underlying document.
Compare and flag
Apply the approved playbook, distinguish missing language from deviations and surface ambiguous cases.
Review and redline
A lawyer validates findings, resolves context and decides the negotiation position or redline.
Record the outcome
Export the issues, decisions and structured fields needed for approval, diligence or downstream operations.
What to evaluate before you buy
Pinpoint traceability
Can a reviewer move from each issue or extracted field to the exact supporting language?
Playbook fidelity
Can the system represent fallback positions and escalation rules—not merely detect clause names?
Cross-document context
Does it account for schedules, amendments, definitions and precedence between documents?
Word round-trip
Do redlines, comments, formatting and version history survive the actual negotiation workflow?
Permission boundaries
Can matters, ethical walls and confidential contract sets be separated and audited?
Bulk-review controls
Can reviewers filter, correct and export a consistent table across a diligence set?
Where lawyer judgment remains essential
Gotham is a work product and decision-support system—not a substitute for professional judgment. Outputs should be reviewed by a qualified professional with the relevant matter context.
- Whether a deviation is acceptable in the commercial context.
- How definitions, schedules, amendments and governing documents interact.
- The legal effect of ambiguous drafting or an unusual factual setting.
- Which fallback to propose and when to escalate to the business.
- The accuracy and completeness of the final advice, redline or approval.
Prove it in a bounded two-week pilot
Use representative work, a fixed baseline and named reviewers. The objective is not a polished demonstration; it is evidence about whether the workflow improves real work safely.
Design the pilot →Pilot scope
- One representative agreement type and an approved playbook.
- A controlled set of previously reviewed contracts, where available.
- The same reviewers and acceptance criteria for baseline and pilot.
Measure
- Finding precision and missed material issues.
- Lawyer correction time—not only first-pass speed.
- Traceability, Word usability and review consistency.