Buying on-site AI for a law firm
Start with one contract comparison

Buy a defined comparison, not a promise to review a whole matter. Matrix can be configured to compare contracts; agree the authoritative agreement and proposed revision, document formats, applicable firm playbook rules and output fields. A difference register is not a complete legal review.

A matter chronology or Microsoft Word draft needs its own scope. Chronology entries must link to records and preserve conflicting dates. Drafting and review inside Word are available where supported; confirm compatibility during scoping. Counsel must approve any client-facing draft.

• List the base agreement, proposed revision and authorized schedules or amendments by name. Record who approved their use and which version governs; a similar filename is not a substitute.
• Require references to both versions, changed wording and supporting context. Distinguish missing terms from moved text, and agree how uncertain matches appear in the register.
• For separately scoped Word work, test a permitted document in the agreed setup. Compare formatting and rewritten language with the source; support for every document or configuration is not assumed.

A reference helps the reviewer find evidence; it does not settle its legal meaning. A definition, exclusion or missing schedule can change how a clause reads. Check the context, then reconcile the delivered register with the authorized input list. Unreadable files, absent attachments and conflicting dates must remain visible, not disappear from a tidy result.

• Open each difference in both files. Verify filename, version, clause or page and surrounding wording. An untraceable reference remains unresolved, not verified.
• Follow cited definitions, exceptions and schedules before accepting an entry. Retain references to absent attachments and mark them missing; the main agreement may not contain everything.
• For a separately scoped chronology, compare document dates with dates stated inside records. Preserve conflicting dates and their supporting documents for the assigned reviewer to resolve.
• Reconcile authorized inputs with files actually read. Name unreadable scans and incomplete documents, assign follow-up owners and retain those items in the delivered register.

The firm holds every administrator account and controls matter access. Maintenance is on site, by invitation, with access the firm grants and removes; Synexas retains no account. Ordinary setup and support do not let Synexas view or receive working data; the optional proof below is the sole exception. Counsel decides legal, privilege and disclosure questions and approves client-facing drafts. Local deployment guarantees neither privilege, confidentiality, security nor compliance. Matrix is offline by default. IT may approve agents reaching outside services, usually to read and, where the task requires, to send. Requests carry what the agent sends. Matrix accepts no requests from outside the company.

• Test firm-approved accounts with different matter permissions. Check that each opens only authorized files; record denials without revealing restricted content in search results or summaries.
• Compare account lists and maintenance records before and after an invited on-site visit. Name who grants access, supervises work and confirms its removal.
• Ask IT to inspect network rules and local audit-log exports against agreed event coverage and retention needs. Identify what an agent would send to any approved outside service and who authorizes the connection.
• An optional custom-workflow proof uses only data you authorize, always under an NDA. Confidential data may be approved; personal data requires a lawful basis you confirm. Choose your site on a Matrix Synexas brings or Synexas's own offline environment, and confirm deletion afterwards. This alone is the exception to Synexas not viewing or receiving working data.

Before work starts, agree the deliverable, accuracy criteria, reviewer and response to failed checks. Use representative authorized files, not only a clean agreement. The checks below are procurement questions, not reported test results or legal advice. Request a demo with a task description only; never submit working data through the website form.

• Include a missing schedule, unreadable file, conflicting dates and a changed clause whose surrounding definition matters. Define each expected exception or review action before seeing the output.
• Have the reviewer reconcile output with a manually checked source register. Account for omitted changes, unsupported differences and wrong locators; distinguish errors from deliberately excluded material.
• Record the affected file version, original output, reviewer correction and recheck result. Repeat relevant cases after configuration changes rather than assuming a correction still holds.
• Assign every unresolved item an owner and next action. Record handoffs and obtain counsel approval where needed. Dropping difficult files must not produce an apparently empty exception list.