C
Clment

Clment reviews incoming English language contracts against a team's rulebook and turns the resulting decisions into tracked changes in Word. Users upload PDF or Word files, choose the material to review, select a rulebook and set a review strategy. Findings quote the supporting clause, and reviewers can agree, disagree, supply their own wording or exclude a change. The system can propose rulebook revisions from repeated reviewer decisions, with approval required before a revision takes effect.

The workspace retains contracts, extracts dates and parties, sends renewal reminders and answers questions about one agreement or a portfolio. Word Online and Google Docs connections let users edit a copy and return it as a new version. An API, webhooks and an MCP server support automated reviews and access from other assistants.

Contract Eagle Limited, a New Zealand company, operates Clment as a separate product alongside its older contract management system. Clment serves legal teams, operations staff and people reviewing their own business agreements. It does not draft original agreements or provide a lawyer's sign off. Free, Pro, Business and Enterprise plans combine contract and user limits with metered AI usage. Customer data cannot train models under the service terms.

Compared with

Clment, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

Capability grades

All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Autonomy and Oversight ModelWhat the system runs alone, what constrains it, and how a lawyer checks it are all published: modes, thresholds, review surfaces, and the route a matter takes back to human judgment. A categorical limit on a named mode or tier, stating what its output may not be used for, meets the threshold limb without a number.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Operational and Outcome EvidenceNo production evidence located. Announcements, funding and launch coverage are not deployment evidence.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

8 public documents

The public pages on file for Clment, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.

Pricing

$124 per month, billed $1,490 annually

USD, as published, never converted
  • A free plan supports one person and 25 contracts.
  • Pro costs $149 monthly or $1,490 for a year.
  • AI reviews use an allowance that depends on contract length.
  • Extra capacity is sold in packs, and Enterprise needs a quote.

Pro costs $149 monthly or a displayed $124 per month billed as $1,490 annually. It includes five users, 250 contracts, ten rulebooks and 10,000 monthly AI units. Business costs $329 monthly or a displayed $274 per month billed as $3,290 annually, with 20 users, 1,000 contracts and 25,000 monthly units. Enterprise requires a quote. Free includes one user, 25 contracts and 1,000 initial units.

Implementation: Signup and the free plan require no sales process or payment card. The subscription includes routine support, fixes and minor enhancements. Data entry, migration and template configuration remain the customer's responsibility, with no fixed assisted implementation price.

Confidentiality and data terms: The service terms and Data Processing Addendum apply to subscribers. SOC 2 reports require a confidentiality undertaking. Enterprise customers can negotiate additional audit arrangements.

Note: Displayed monthly equivalents are rounded; the annual invoice amounts are $1,490 and $3,290. A standard review uses 250 units plus five per page, and a deep review uses 400 plus ten per page. Additional packs start at $19 for 1,000 units and expire after 12 months. Taxes are extra, price increases require at least 30 days notice, and cancellation requires 14 days notice before the billing period ends.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill not use Data to train any machine-learning modelAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedas and when requested by the Disclosing PartyAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedA key cannot touch settings.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedas early as reasonably possible before such disclosureAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedCitations link directly to source contract and pageAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedFindings cite only what the contract or your rulebook actually supports.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedit marks the finding needs verificationAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

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.

Source: Vendor Publisheddoes not replace professional legal judgmentAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Outside the fee relationship

The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedits own internal business purposesAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedList of Sub-ProcessorsAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedEvery state-changing action against a contract or review writes an audit row.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 16, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746