No. Enforceability depends on the actual document, the governing law, the facts, and often the jurisdiction's specific case law on the clause in question. A chatbot opining on whether a non-compete is enforceable, whether a limitation of liability holds, or whether a liquidated damages clause is reasonable would be unreliable, and the client would build expectations on it. The system prompt declines enforceability opinions, declines interpretation of specific clauses, and routes to the consultation where the attorney reviews the document.

Yes. Configure your review tiers in your content (typically by page count: under 15, 15-50, 50-100, over 100) and the bot quotes from those tiers based on the prospect's description. For ambiguous descriptions the bot asks the page count, since most contract review fees scale with document length. Drafting tiers usually scale by complexity (single-party NDA, mutual NDA, services agreement with statements of work, full MSA framework) and the bot routes by deal shape.

Yes. Configure your most common types as separate content (NDA, services agreement, employment, SaaS terms, vendor agreement, equipment lease, etc.) and the bot recognises the type from the prospect's description. Each type has its own intake. An NDA needs to know the parties and the protected information. An employment agreement needs to know the role and the equity structure. A SaaS MSA needs to know the deal size and the customer's industry. The bot captures accordingly.

Breach intake routes to litigation. The bot captures the contract at issue, the specific clause allegedly breached, the dates of the breach, the damages exposure, and any notice or cure correspondence already exchanged. It also asks whether litigation is already filed or contemplated, because pre-litigation cure work is different from active litigation defense. The litigator walks into the consult with the matter already framed by document and timeline.

If your firm offers ongoing general counsel or contract management services, configure that as a separate service line and the bot routes accordingly. Fractional GC clients get the right intake (business stage, contract volume, types frequently encountered, in-house counsel status), and the bot books with the GC attorney rather than the per-contract attorney. Per-contract intake routes to the standard transactional team.

Yes, with appropriate routing. International contracts add governing-law, jurisdiction, language, and enforcement considerations that vary by deal. Configure your international capacity in your content and the bot routes accordingly. For contracts in jurisdictions your firm does not cover, the bot can refer to known partner firms rather than book a consult that ends in a referral. Cross-border SaaS deals are common enough to warrant specific intake fields if you handle them frequently.

By describing the tradeoff at an educational level and routing the decision to the consultation. Templates work for routine, low-stakes contracts; custom drafting is required for material deals or unusual structures. The bot does not make the call for the client, because it depends on facts the attorney assesses (deal size, counterparty leverage, regulatory context, business model fit). What the bot does is capture enough information that the attorney can make the recommendation in the first 15 minutes of the call.

Pre-engagement communications are not yet attorney-client privileged. For contract work specifically, prospects often share substantive deal details, counterparty information, and confidential business context, so the privacy posture matters. The widget message makes the pre-engagement status clear. Most firms set short retention windows (30 days) on conversation logs, do not store document uploads in chat (instead using a separate secure-upload portal post-engagement), and migrate substantive content into the matter file once engagement starts.