Use Cases
Reviewing Counterparty Contracts Against Your Playbook
When a counterparty sends their paper, a lawyer traditionally reads the whole document looking for problems. This takes time. Some things get missed. The same issues come back on every deal because there is no system that remembers what was wrong last time.
The problem
Most legal teams at mid-size companies are reviewing counterparty contracts the same way they did a decade ago: manually, sequentially, from page one. The General Counsel has defined standards, including liability caps, notice periods, governing law, and data protection clauses, but those standards live in their head or in a document that no review process systematically checks against.
The result is that standard violations recur. The same liability cap issue that appeared on the last MSA appears on this one. The same missing data protection clause. The same governing law deviation. The GC explains the issues each time. They come back each time.
No system knows what the rules are and checks every incoming contract against them automatically.
How Lexnus solves it
Upload the counterparty contract
Upload any PDF or DOCX received from a counterparty. No formatting requirements. Lexnus accepts the document as it arrives.
Lexnus selects your playbook
Based on the contract type detected, Lexnus selects the matching playbook automatically. An incoming MSA is evaluated against your MSA playbook. An NDA against your NDA playbook. If you have not yet built a playbook for that contract type, Lexnus flags it.
Analysis runs
The AI model reads the contract and extracts structured values: the liability cap in clause 8, the notice period in clause 14, the governing law in clause 22. These extracted values are passed to your playbook rules for evaluation.
Each rule produces one result:
- Violation: The contract contains language that breaks your rule. Example: "Limitation of liability is $5M. Your policy requires a maximum of $1M or 12 months fees."
- Gap: A clause your playbook requires is missing from the counterparty's paper entirely.
- Pass: The rule is satisfied.
Review the flagged issues
The analysis result lists every violation and gap, the exact contract text that triggered each one, and the approved fix: the clause from your library that should replace or supplement the problematic language. The lawyer reviews this list, not the full contract. Standard issues are handled. Unusual or high-stakes deviations get the attention they deserve.
Route for approval if required
Rules can be configured to escalate to the GC when triggered. If a liability cap violation requires GC sign-off before the contract proceeds, the analysis result routes the specific item to the designated approver automatically. No separate email. No chasing.
What this changes
Before Lexnus: Lawyer reads the full contract. Finds some issues, misses others. Explains the same liability cap problem for the twelfth time. The GC reviews it again. The deal slows down.
With Lexnus: Upload the contract. Analysis returns in under a minute. Lawyer reviews a list of specific, rule-referenced violations with approved fixes alongside. Standard issues are resolved without GC involvement. Genuine exceptions escalate to the right person with full context.
The same issues stop recurring because there is now a system that catches them every time.
Who this is for
In-house lawyers at mid-size companies who receive counterparty paper regularly and spend a disproportionate amount of time on review that should not require their level of expertise.
General Counsel who are the last line of defence on every contract because there is no system that catches standard issues before they reach them.
Legal Ops teams building scalable contract review workflows who need a consistent, auditable process that does not depend on individual lawyers remembering all the rules.