The Problem
Legal teams were reviewing hundreds of similar agreements — vendor contracts, partnership terms, licensing deals — but had no systematic way to compare terms across documents. Critical clauses around liability caps, termination rights, indemnification, and non-compete scope varied widely. Outliers that created significant business risk were getting missed during manual review, and there was no institutional memory of what "standard" terms actually looked like across the firm's history.
The Solution
Runpoint built a contract analysis platform that scores, compares, and benchmarks legal agreements at scale.
Automated Clause Analysis
Uploaded documents are parsed and evaluated against a comprehensive set of firm-defined criteria — termination provisions, indemnity terms, liability caps, most-favored-nation clauses, non-compete scope, and more. Each dimension receives a score with direct links to the relevant clause text.
Historical Benchmarking
Every scored term is plotted against the firm's historical distribution, immediately flagging where a new agreement falls relative to precedent. Reviewers see at a glance whether a liability cap is at the 10th percentile or the 90th — without manually pulling comparable deals.
Counterparty Pattern Detection
Over time, the system reveals which counterparties consistently push aggressive terms, giving negotiators strategic intelligence before they sit down at the table.
The Results
- Risky outliers caught that manual review consistently missed
- Review time reduced significantly for standard agreement types
- Institutional knowledge preserved — the firm's negotiation history became a queryable asset
- Negotiation leverage improved through systematic counterparty pattern visibility