Clment vs LegalOn: how they compare in 2026
The choice centers on how the team obtains its review instructions and pays for activity. Clment emphasizes customer rulebooks, selectable negotiation strategies and an English language workspace. LegalOn adds a substantial library of prepared attorney playbooks, custom playbook generation and broader language support. Their Word workflows also differ: Clment passes an editing copy through OneDrive and returns a version, while LegalOn supports review inside Word. Clment's subscription plans make seats, contract capacity and AI unit allowances visible, including a free starting plan. LegalOn's current packages include unlimited AI usage and reviews but require a quote for the subscription amount. LegalOn prioritizes risks as low, medium or high, while Clment's selected strategy determines which issues become the focus of negotiation.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
AI powers contract classification, clause review, redlines, extracted dates and answers about agreements. A rulebook supplies the team's positions, while the chosen review strategy controls which findings enter a proposed markup. Single agreement questions use the full text, and portfolio questions retrieve relevant material from stored contracts. The application also retains a contract repository, versions, reviewer comments, key dates and calendar reminders. Those records and collaboration functions remain useful independently of a new model response. Clment is separate from Contract Eagle's older lifecycle platform; the AI review product combines its own ongoing contract workspace with the model driven analysis.
Review reads a contract against each playbook guideline in turn and drafts redlines. Assistant answers questions about the open contract in Word or the browser, drafts fallback language and issues lists, and runs one click skills that extract terms, check definitions and summarize obligations. The Playbook Agent builds playbooks from a team's policies, templates and past redlines. The Intake Agent asks requesters follow up questions and routes a complete matter, classified by contract type, urgency, counterparty and deal value, and the Triage Agent screens low risk agreements against the playbook. Vault extracts key data, dates and obligations from the signed repository into a table a team can filter, and answers questions such as which contracts renew in the next 90 days. Translate pairs DeepL with LegalOn's own translation agent and sends back only the changes in the counterparty's language. All of it runs on models applied to playbook content that LegalOn's attorneys write.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Findings quote the clause behind the recommendation, and answers link to the source contract and page. Single document analysis uses a 200,000 token context window, while questions across the portfolio use retrieval augmented generation. Review rules and supporting attachments give the model additional context. When a point appears to require external authority that cannot be grounded in the supplied contract or rulebook, the finding is marked for human verification. Classification carries confidence estimates, but those estimates do not measure citation correctness. No test set, reproducible accuracy result or error rate accompanies the current review system, and the terms warn that output may omit material issues.
Review grounds each issue in a playbook standard written by LegalOn's attorneys or by the customer, with the guidance and sample clauses behind it. Each guideline runs as its own check against the contract, about two dozen in parallel, rather than one pass over the whole document. The 2026 Contract Review Benchmark, released in June, set LegalOn against 11 general purpose AI systems across 3,282 pairwise reviews on 21 guidelines. An LLM judge, separate from the systems tested and blind to authorship, picked the more accurate, complete and useful review, and legal experts validated a sample of its outputs. LegalOn ranked first on all 21 provision types and finished a full review in 2.3 seconds. A downloadable report sets out four failure modes of general models on contract provisions.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Three review strategies set the default content of a redline. Understand and Negotiate includes findings of medium severity and above; High priority only includes high severity findings; Strict includes every deviation. A reviewer's explicit choice, custom wording or agreement with a finding takes precedence over that default. Reviewers can exclude a change, record their reasoning and generate a Word file with attributed tracked changes. Unsupported external points return for human verification. Proposed rulebook refinements also require approval and retain versions. API keys can automate reviews and content changes, but cannot alter membership, billing, security settings or integrations; those actions require a signed in administrator.
Routine paper moves on its own and judgment stays with the user. The Triage Agent screens low risk agreements against the playbook, approves the standard ones and escalates the exceptions, and the Intake Agent follows up with requesters until intake is complete. Every agent returns output for review, with legal setting the guardrails and keeping final approval. Review ranks each issue low, medium or high with the playbook guidance behind it, and redlines land as tracked changes a user accepts or rejects. One click AI Revise in Word works through the same tracked changes. Who sets the line between standard and nonstandard paper, and what happens after a wrong approval, is not described.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
The current application offers a free plan, paid subscriptions and step by step review workflows, but no named production customer or measured deployment result accompanies the Clment review product. Acme and Northwind agreements illustrate classification, liability findings, proposed changes and version comparison in the product demonstration. Those examples do not identify a customer's actual contract work. Contract Eagle's longstanding lifecycle product has separate customer stories, including ManpowerGroup, but those stories concern that older system. A study of review time, missed clauses or negotiated outcomes for the current Clment release is not available.
Four customer stories pair a named company with figures. TriHealth, a Cincinnati health system whose legal team handles more than 1,500 contracts a year, cut review time by 75%. Its associate general counsel says clinical trial agreements that took hours now take about 20 minutes. Industrial Service Solutions saves its lead reviewer more than 15 hours a week and cut turnaround by 70%. Achievers, an HR technology company, reports NDA review time down 70% and $1,000 to $2,000 saved per third party contract. MCEA Holdings, a Japanese holding company, handles 50% more contracts without added headcount and resolves matters 20% faster. Each story names the speaker and role and sets out the starting point, such as a two week turnaround at Industrial Service Solutions and 15 to 20 minutes per NDA at Achievers. The site counts more than 9,000 customers.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The subscriber agreement prohibits Contract Eagle and its subprocessors from training machine learning models on customer data. It also treats customer data as confidential and limits staff access to people who need it for their duties. Each organization has an isolated workspace, with authentication and roles enforced by Clment. AI providers can retain input and output for up to 30 days, with longer retention or controlled staff review for flagged misuse and legal requirements. Confidential information can be returned or destroyed on instruction, subject to legal retention. The agreement does not specifically address attorney client privilege or work product, and tenant isolation does not describe matter level walls.
Customer content stays the customer's property under section 7.2 of the subscription terms, with a license to LegalOn only to provide the service. Each customer account runs in a segregated environment with strict access controls, and data is encrypted at rest and in transit. Azure OpenAI processes content under terms that it is not used to train, retrain or improve the models and is not stored for any period, including for abuse monitoring. Section 7.3 lets LegalOn aggregate or deidentify customer content into analyses it owns and uses to improve the service, provided they cannot be linked to the customer. Section 2.2 states that LegalOn is not a law firm and that communications between LegalOn and the customer carry no attorney client privilege. Work product handling is not addressed.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Clment reviews agreements supplied by the user and does not draft original contracts or provide an attorney's approval. Its terms describe informational software, disclaim legal advice and require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on output. Reviewers control findings and wording, with an executive summary available for colleagues who are not lawyers. The product supports English language contracts and adapts rulebooks to governing law rather than treating every agreement as subject to one country's norms. Named professional competence duties, supervisory procedures for law firms and a complete jurisdictional support boundary are not specified.
Section 2.2 of the subscription terms says LegalOn is neither a law firm nor an attorney and is no substitute for an attorney's advice, and the website terms add that it gives no legal advice. Solution pages sell review to procurement, sales and contract management teams as well as lawyers, and the law firm page offers playbooks that adjust to each client's risk profile. Competence and supervision duties are not addressed, and international playbooks give guidance across 23 countries with no stated limit on where the product may be used.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Review behavior is constrained by rulebooks, source grounding and a prohibition on treating unsupported external authority as established fact. The model should not strengthen a position merely because a user asks for a more combative response, and reviewers approve changes to the rulebook. These are controls on a particular contract review, separate from governance of the models themselves. An accountable AI governance owner, a release testing program and findings about uneven performance across contract types or groups are not specified. The named founder and data protection contact do not have a stated responsibility for evaluating model bias or approving AI releases.
The 2026 Contract Review Benchmark tests LegalOn against other AI systems. Pairwise reviews were judged by an LLM blind to authorship, and legal experts validated a sample of its decisions. Results are reported by provision type, with a report on four failure modes of general models, and a workflow survey of 500 legal professionals sits beside it. Attorneys on staff write the playbooks and keep them current as laws and standards change. An owner for model governance is not named.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The data processing agreement names the hosting, AI, conversion, security, backup and payment providers, with at least 30 days notice for new subprocessors and an objection process. Access is limited by organization and role, with confidentiality obligations for staff and optional enforced multifactor authentication on paid plans. Encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Customers have 90 days after termination to export their data, followed by deletion, subject to legal and technical exceptions. AI processing has a separate limit of up to 30 days with misuse and legal exceptions. Breach notices must arrive without undue delay, with assistance for the customer's reporting obligations and remediation of the cause.
Each customer account runs in a segregated environment with strict access controls, data is encrypted at rest and in transit, and LegalOn runs annual penetration tests, regular vulnerability scans and a patch management process. Contracting plans add enterprise single sign on, multifactor authentication and IP allow lists. The data processing addendum keeps a subprocessor list with functions and locations in the trust center, currently Google Cloud Platform, Auth0, Microsoft Azure for the OpenAI service and Datadog. A new subprocessor comes with prior written notice and ten days to object, and a personal data breach is reported to the customer without undue delay. Under section 9.2 of the subscription terms a customer can export content during the term, and LegalOn may delete it 30 days after the term ends. Trust center controls include data retention procedures, deletion of customer data on exit and tested continuity and disaster recovery plans.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Paid subscribers receive an intellectual property indemnity for permitted use of the service, with exclusions including customer data, third party data, modifications and combinations. The general liability cap is the prior year's fees; Free has a cap of NZ$100. The IP indemnity, confidentiality breaches, fraud, willful misconduct, personal injury and required refunds sit outside that cap. A software conformity warranty carries commercially reasonable efforts to fix defects. AI accuracy and suitability are expressly unwarranted, and users must check the result. Certain Azure related confidentiality losses are excluded, subject to the data agreement. No insurance commitment or specific remedy for an erroneous contract recommendation is stated.
Section 12 of the subscription terms caps each party's liability at the fees paid or payable in the 12 months before the claim. For a customer with no payment obligation, such as a trial, the cap is $1,000. Lost profits, lost data and consequential damages are excluded, and the cap does not limit the customer's own indemnity or payment duties. Against third party claims that use of the service infringes a United States patent, trademark or copyright or misappropriates a trade secret, LegalOn defends or settles and pays damages finally awarded. The indemnity does not reach the customer's negligence, abuse or misapplication of the service. The warranty promises that the service performs materially as documented, and the rest of the service is provided as is. The trust center holds a 2025 cyber insurance policy released on request, and California law governs the terms.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Each user connects a Microsoft or Google account to edit a contract or redline in Word Online or Google Docs. Clment places a copy in the connected drive, tracks the session and imports the edited file as a new Word version. Users can delete the drive copy and make the revision active during check in; only the session owner or an invited participant can finish that step. One editor can hold a version at a time. API keys provide regional access to contract work, signed webhooks report events, and MCP connects other assistants. Calendar feeds expose contract dates without permitting changes through the calendar.
Word is the main working surface, with review, redlining, drafting, questions and one click AI Revise built on Word's tracked changes. Requests arrive from Slack, email and custom forms, with Microsoft Teams also included in the Productivity Suite intake options, and SharePoint, Google Drive and Box connect for direct access to files. A public REST API covers three areas. The Contract and Files API moves contract files and data in and out, and the User Management API manages users, groups, workspaces and departments. The Matter API creates matters from a ticketing tool, form or CRM and keeps status, assignees and messages in sync. Access uses OAuth 2.0 client credentials and is scoped to the workspaces a user already holds. iManage and NetDocuments are not named.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Clment runs on Azure with separate regional workspaces in the United States, Frankfurt, London, Sydney, Auckland and Toronto. European Union storage is in Frankfurt, with AI inference in Sweden Central. For other regions, AI processing may occur outside the selected storage region; the complete processing locations are not specified. Backups stay within the chosen jurisdiction. New Zealand uses local Azure redundancy and a separate local backup provider because Azure has no second region there. If that region becomes permanently unavailable, the terms offer recoverable data or redeployment to Australia at Contract Eagle's expense.
Hosting runs in the United States on Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform, with a segregated environment for each customer account. ISO 27017 certification covers the controls for multi tenant cloud operation. The data processing addendum brings in standard contractual clauses and the UK addendum for personal data moved from Europe, and the privacy policy says personal information may move to the United States or Japan. No single tenant, private or regional option is offered, and where Azure OpenAI processes model calls is not stated.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
SOC 2 Type II covers security, availability and confidentiality, with the report available on request under a confidentiality undertaking. The service terms also commit to regular independent security testing, AES 256 encryption at rest, transport encryption, tenant isolation and limited staff access. Administrators can require Microsoft or Google sign in, disable passwords or enforce multifactor authentication for password users on paid plans. Contract activity records identify the user, action, resource and time. The auditor, examination period and report date are not accessible alongside the attestation claim. Enterprise subscribers may negotiate audit rights beyond the standard report access.
SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27017:2015 certification are stated. The trust center holds the 2025 SOC 2 report in English and Japanese and the 2025 ISO 27001 and 27017 certificates. A 2025 cloud web penetration test, a network vulnerability assessment and security white paper v1.3 sit beside them, all released through a request for access. Badges on the integration and pricing pages name ISO 27007 and ISO 27011 where the security page names 27017.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Claude language models run through Azure AI Foundry, while GPT language and embedding models run through Azure OpenAI Service. Microsoft supplies the inference infrastructure rather than the model companies' own hosting. Anthropic and OpenAI remain named in the subprocessor schedule, alongside Adobe and Aspose for optical character recognition and conversion. The agreement does not promise a particular model, provider or version and allows substitution without notice. New subprocessors generally require 30 days notice, but that is a separate obligation from changing a model within the existing supply chain. Exact current model versions and the routing between them are not specified.
Microsoft's Azure OpenAI service is the named model provider for review and drafting, under terms that it does not train on or store customer data, including for abuse monitoring and debugging. Translation runs on DeepL alongside LegalOn's own translation agent. The subprocessor list places Microsoft Azure beside Google Cloud Platform, Auth0 and Datadog, and a new subprocessor comes with prior written notice. Review runs focused checks per guideline in parallel. Which models serve those checks, and where they run, is not stated.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Pro includes five users, 250 contracts, ten rulebooks and 10,000 monthly AI units for $149 monthly or $1,490 annually. Business increases these allowances to 20 users, 1,000 contracts, unlimited rulebooks and 25,000 monthly units for $329 monthly or $3,290 annually. Enterprise is quoted separately. Uploads use one unit per page, questions ten, and a standard review 250 plus five per page. Extra packs start at $19 for 1,000 units and expire after 12 months. The free plan has one user, 25 contracts and an initial allowance. Migration, data entry and template configuration are outside routine subscription support.
Pricing is set in a sales conversation, and the pricing page lays out three plans without figures. Core Review, for solo attorneys and fractional general counsel, includes unlimited chat, review and redlining, 135 or more playbooks, a document repository, more than 100 templates and the Word add in. Contracting Suite adds custom playbooks, the Playbook Agent, Vault and Vault Projects, team training, dedicated support and enterprise sign on. Productivity Suite adds Matter Management with intake and triage agents, a matter dashboard and matter intelligence. Every plan includes unlimited usage and guided onboarding. Entity Management, Board, Translate, international playbooks and managed playbooks are further modules.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The product serves legal teams, operations staff and people reviewing their own commercial agreements. It handles incoming English language contracts, including software agreements and commercial leases, with classification across 16 categories and more than 60 types. Reviews work from the agreement's governing law and the user's chosen rulebook. It does not create original agreements, provide an attorney's sign off or support non English contract estates. Teams needing large enterprise procurement connections, matter management or bespoke lifecycle workflows are directed to other products. Precise law firm size segments, government uses and a complete list of supported legal jurisdictions are not specified.
Buyer pages cover in house legal, legal operations, procurement, contract management, sales and law firms, and industry pages cover construction, financial services, business services, private markets, healthcare, manufacturing and software. Playbooks are specific to contract type and to whether the customer sends or receives the paper, and international playbooks cover common commercial contracts in 23 countries, from the United Kingdom to Singapore. Translation runs across 28 or more languages. The product covers contracting work from intake to signed agreements, plus entity and board records. Litigation and legal research are outside it.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The service agreement prohibits training any machine learning model on customer data and extends that prohibition to subprocessors. The data agreement repeats the ban for personal data. Contract Eagle may create anonymized aggregate analytics for internal product development, but the express model training restriction still applies. Reviewer decisions can improve a customer's versioned rulebook after approval; that feature changes instructions rather than granting permission to train a model.
Section 7.3 of LegalOn's subscription terms, last modified 1 June 2026, allows LegalOn and its affiliates to aggregate or deidentify customer content, alone or combined with data from other sources. The resulting analyses may be used for internal business purposes "including to improve the Services", and LegalOn owns them and may disclose them as long as they cannot reasonably be linked to the customer. The data processing addendum keeps the same right to use deidentified or aggregated customer data to improve LegalOn's systems after the contract ends.
No clause carves model training out of that use. At the model layer, Microsoft's Azure OpenAI service runs under protections that keep customer data out of training, retraining or improving its models.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Customers can instruct return or destruction of confidential information, with written confirmation of destruction within 30 days, subject to legal retention. A terminated account has a 90 day export period, and encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Separately, AI providers may retain inputs and outputs for up to 30 days, or longer for flagged misuse or legal duties. No customer setting eliminates all of these retention paths.
Model calls through Azure OpenAI leave no customer data stored for any period, including for abuse monitoring and debugging. Contracts in Vault stay for the subscription term, a customer can export them, and LegalOn may delete them 30 days after the term ends. Personal data is kept as long as reasonably necessary, and no customer setting for retention during the term is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Clment enforces its own organization boundaries on each read and write, with invitation based membership and administrative control over sign in methods. API keys operate in the organization's home region and can access workspace content but cannot change roles or security settings. Each person's drive editing connection is separate. A document management system's matter permissions are not inherited at retrieval time, and internal ethical wall arrangements are not specified.
Inside a customer, contracts are organized by workspace, project or department, and workspace access is set by user group, with changes cascading to every user in the group. API calls are scoped to the workspaces a user already holds. Each customer account runs in its own segregated environment. These permissions govern contract access and the scope of API responses; walls at the level of a single matter are not described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The confidentiality clause requires notice as early as reasonably possible before legally required disclosure, together with reasonable action to avoid or limit the disclosure. A further provision requires prompt written notice where law permits it. The data agreement also requires notice before processing personal data to satisfy a legal requirement when permitted. A public transparency report describing received demands is not available.
Section 8.2 of the subscription terms requires prior notice of a legally compelled disclosure where the law permits, and reasonable help if the customer contests it. Under the data processing addendum, LegalOn tells the customer of requests from regulators about personal data and does not answer them without approval. The privacy policy allows disclosure to law enforcement and authorities for legal compliance. No transparency report is offered.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Answers use uploaded contracts, supporting material and the chosen rulebook. Single agreement questions use a full context window, while portfolio questions retrieve relevant passages from stored files. Rules may come from the customer, an AI drafting wizard or Clment's supplied rulebook. The customer retains ownership of its data and grants a service processing license. An external primary law collection, its rights basis and its refresh schedule are not identified.
Playbooks are written and maintained by LegalOn's attorneys for each contract type and negotiating position, more than 135 of them, and are kept current as laws and standards change. More than 100 attorney drafted templates sit beside them. Playbook Agent also turns the customer's guidelines, templates and previous redlines into custom review instructions. The legal sources and licensing basis behind each prepared standard are not named.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Clment cites agreement passages and rulebook positions while reviewing contractual obligations. Its review method flags external authorities that cannot be grounded in the supplied material for human verification. That control does not check whether a case has been overruled or a statute amended. No licensed citator or subsequent history mechanism is specified for authorities that appear in contract material or reviewer instructions.
Review tests contracts against playbook standards rather than case law, and the playbooks are kept current as laws change. No flag on cited cases or check of later history is part of the product.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
If a finding appears to depend on an external statute, case, regulation or standard that the supplied agreement or rulebook cannot support, Clment marks it as needing verification instead of asserting the authority as fact. This behavior applies across review strategies. Classification also exposes confidence estimates, but those are separate from the unsupported authority warning. No public evaluation demonstrates how consistently the warning catches unsupported assertions.
Review flags each issue with an importance of low, medium or high and supplies the playbook guidance and sample clauses behind it. No path is described for an issue the product cannot assess.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database contains no court or disciplinary record about fabricated legal citations attributed to Clment or Contract Eagle as of October 15, 2026. Clment primarily reviews supplied agreements and attaches contract passages to its findings. The database result does not measure the accuracy of those findings, the appropriateness of a suggested redline or the validity of legal authority supplied in a rulebook.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming LegalOn. Its products review, draft and manage contracts for in house and contracting teams.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The terms require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on contract output. The product also keeps reviewer decisions and makes users responsible for the agreement they accept or amend. These provisions address use of the tool without mapping its controls to a named bar opinion or professional ethics rule. No jurisdiction specific ethics guidance for lawyers is identified.
The company's research covers AI adoption, a workflow survey of 500 legal professionals and its contract review benchmark. No named bar opinion or jurisdiction specific ethics guidance accompanies those studies.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Clment's current packaging addresses organizations reviewing their own commercial agreements, including legal and operations teams and individuals handling business contracts. The terms limit use to internal business or personal purposes. Review automation and reusable rulebooks reduce that internal work. The product does not describe a law firm time billing workflow, client fee adjustments or disclosure of AI savings on an invoice to a legal client.
LegalOn sells to in house legal, legal operations, procurement, contract management and sales teams, and to law firms. Its law firm page pitches taking on more clients by cutting manual review time by up to 85%. TriHealth, a Cincinnati health system, reports clinical trial agreements that once took hours now reviewed in about 20 minutes, a 75% reduction. No per matter billing record or guidance on client fee treatment accompanies those savings claims.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The data agreement names Microsoft Azure, Anthropic, OpenAI, Cloudflare, Aspose, Adobe, Catalyst Cloud and Airwallex, with their functions and regional scope. Claude and GPT inference currently runs on Azure infrastructure. Customers receive advance notice of new subprocessors, with emergency exceptions and an objection route. The service agreement and data agreement are available before signup, but a client facing AI consent or outside counsel disclosure pack is not specified.
The trust center keeps the subprocessor list that the data processing addendum points to, with Google Cloud Platform, Auth0, Microsoft Azure for the OpenAI service and Datadog, their functions and processing locations. A new subprocessor is announced with ten days to object. The SOC 2 report, ISO certificates and security white paper are released on request, and no client facing disclosure template is offered.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Contract activity records the user, action, resource and timestamp. Review findings retain decisions, comments and source passages, and generated Word changes carry attribution and a review reference. Support can supply an organization wide activity export for a requested period. These records preserve parts of the work, but no document level export combines the exact model version, retrieved sources and human verification into a court disclosure record.
Review ties each issue to the playbook standard behind it, and Matter Management keeps each request's history, status and cycle time. No record of AI use for a court filing is offered.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Clment if
- The team wants to choose among three negotiation strategies for each review.
- English language review and customer maintained rulebooks fit the workflow.
- A free plan and visible seat, contract and AI unit allowances are useful.
Choose LegalOn if
- Reviewers need a substantial library of attorney developed playbooks.
- Contract review needs to work inside Word and across several languages.
- The team prefers quoted packages with unlimited AI usage and reviews.
In summary
Clment
Clment combines a contract workspace with AI review against an organization's rulebooks. Its three negotiation strategies change which issues receive attention, while reviewers make explicit decisions and can replace proposed wording. The AI Legal Index highlights the source quotations, page references and approved rulebook revisions that support that workflow. The service focuses on English language agreements and can open editing copies through OneDrive or Google Docs before returning a new version. A free plan includes one user and an initial AI allowance. Paid plans increase seats, contract capacity and monthly AI units, with review and other activities consuming those units at different rates.
LegalOn
LegalOn starts with a library of more than 135 attorney developed playbooks and adds review against a team's own positions. Playbook Agent can turn guidelines, templates and previous redlines into review instructions. The AI Legal Index identifies that combination of ready made content and custom guidance as a practical distinction. Review works in Microsoft Word and the browser, with risks organized by priority and translation across more than 28 languages. Core Review, Contracting Suite and Productivity Suite combine different capabilities, including broader intake and contract workflows. Their current pricing descriptions include unlimited AI usage, reviews and storage, with the subscription amount determined through a quote.
Questions buyers ask
Do both support custom review rules?
Yes. Clment uses customer rulebooks with an approval process for revisions. LegalOn supports custom playbooks and can generate instructions from guidelines, templates and prior redlines through Playbook Agent. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do language capabilities differ?
Clment focuses on English language contracts. LegalOn combines review with translation in more than 28 languages. Translation support does not itself establish legal coverage for every jurisdiction. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Is AI review unlimited?
Clment meters activities against AI units and offers additional units separately. LegalOn's current package descriptions include unlimited AI usage, reviews and storage. The LegalOn subscription amount is quoted for the selected team and capabilities. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do both products edit the original file in Word?
Clment's OneDrive workflow opens an editing copy and returns a new version to the contract workspace. LegalOn offers review within Word, as well as a browser workflow. The editing location is therefore a meaningful difference. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Both products support contract review and drafting. The comparison follows current product, help and pricing information without a hands on test. Neither vendor reviewed it. Contract Eagle Limited operates Clment as a separate AI review service.