S
Syntracts
Syntracts is a contract intelligence platform from Syntracts Inc. of Washington, DC, built to run inside a law firm's or legal department's own environment. It ingests contracts by upload or, through its API, from document management systems such as iManage, NetDocuments and SharePoint, and extracts the data points a knowledge management team defines, structured to the firm's own schema. The extraction uses small open source models tuned for each customer on synthetic data generated from that customer's documents.
Reviewers can confirm or correct each extraction, and the structured results go back into knowledge management databases, dashboards and the AI assistants a firm already uses. The company says no data leaves the customer's environment and no outside model or API is called, and has said that besides on premises hosting it can run in an Azure virtual private cloud or purely in the cloud. It announced a multiyear deployment at an unnamed AmLaw 25 firm in June 2025, was selected for A&O Shearman's Fuse incubator, and raised a $5.3 million seed round led by Hyperplane in October 2025. Pricing is not published.
Syntracts, 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.
Alternatives to Syntracts
Vendors in the same categories as Syntracts whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- DDraftwiseDraftwise supports contract drafting, review and negotiation in Microsoft Word using a firm's own deal history.
- AAerofilerAerofiler is contract management software from Aerofiler Pty Ltd of Sydney, founded by former MinterEllison lawyer Don Nguyen with Jarrod Mirabito and Stuart Loh.
- CCentariCentari is a deal intelligence platform for transactional law firms and investment funds.
- LLexCheckLexCheck is AI contract review software that applies a company's own negotiation positions to incoming contracts and returns an issues list and proposed redlines inside Microsoft Word.
- PPostSigPostSig is a contract performance platform for agreements after signature, from PostSig, Inc. of San Francisco, used mostly by market data, finance, procurement, legal and compliance teams…
- AAracor AIAracor is a deal platform that reads the documents behind a transaction and ties every finding to the language it came from.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
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.
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.
Syntracts exists to pull defined fields out of contracts with models built for each customer and to deliver that structured output into the firm's other systems; the review screen and the API carry the models' output. Its releases describe outputs structured to schemas the firm defines and sent through an API into dashboards and AI assistants, and the company has described further uses such as demand letters and due diligence. Without the models there is nothing to deliver.
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.
A promise of no hallucinations leads the home page, resting on custom trained LLMs that are said to ensure accurate outputs, alongside headline statistics for data extraction accuracy without a figure; the releases call the output highly accurate and verifiable. In an Artificial Lawyer interview of 21 October 2025 the company put accuracy above 90 percent, and at 95 percent as measured by customers, without a test set or method.
Syntracts publishes no test set or error rate on its own pages, and nothing describes how an extraction links back to the clause it came from.
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.
Users confirm each extraction and correct errors in Syntracts' review interface, with corrections used to improve the models over time. Its June 2025 release says outputs are structured to match schemas the firm defines, requiring no post processing or human in the loop review. Nothing commits that a lawyer or knowledge manager reviews output before it enters a database or an AI assistant, and no threshold, limit or audit trail is 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.
Syntracts' June 2025 release announces a multiyear enterprise partnership with an unnamed AmLaw 25 firm after a six month pilot, and its October 2025 release describes the partnership as awarded after competitive evaluations. The June release also says Syntracts was one of two companies selected for A&O Shearman's Fuse incubator, a program selection rather than a customer result. Both releases claim contract profiling time cut by at least 80 percent, shrinking reviews of several hours to under 30 minutes and to near zero in workflows integrated through the API, with no customer or method.
The October release announces a $5.3 million seed round led by Hyperplane with Khosla Ventures, Top Harvest Capital, Fortitude Ventures, Myriad Venture Partners and Point72 Ventures.
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 product runs within the customer's own systems, per the home page, and the releases say no data leaves client systems or reaches outside language models or APIs, and that each customer's models are built for that customer. Customer documents are the source of the synthetic data used to tune those models, and Syntracts says only synthetic data, never the customer's data, is used for tuning. No privacy policy, terms or agreement is published, and privilege and work product are not addressed by name.
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.
Nothing states what the product is and is not, that its extractions are not legal advice, or how it supports the supervising lawyer's duties, and no terms are published to say otherwise. Syntracts describes the product as built for BigLaw and corporate legal teams, and no limit by jurisdiction or user is stated.
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.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure is published on Syntracts' home page or in its two 2025 releases. The company describes its models as trained on synthetic data derived from each client's documents and improved from reviewer corrections, without describing how a change is tested before it reaches a customer.
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.
Syntracts keeps documents in the customer's environment and calls no outside model, so retention and deletion fall largely to the customer. No privacy policy, retention or deletion commitment, subprocessor list or incident practice is published for what Syntracts itself handles, such as support access or synthetic data made from customer documents. A trust center at trust.syntracts.com is linked, and Syntracts states a completed SOC 2 Type I audit.
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.
No customer agreement or terms are published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an extraction is wrong, and Syntracts' site and announcements say nothing on it. No privacy policy or data processing addendum is published either.
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.
Syntracts' October 2025 release says that through its secure API, firms can pull documents from systems like iManage, NetDocs or SharePoint and organize them into structured data, and send the results back into the tools they already use, from dashboards to AI assistants, while keeping information in their own environment. Its home page says contracts can be ingested from the firm's document management system and results inserted into any existing database or workflow, and the company describes the platform as built around its API.
No knowledge platform or assistant is named, what each connection moves in which direction is not described, and no API documentation is 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.
Everything runs within the customer's controlled environment, by the home page's account, and the releases describe full deployment on premises, with processing and storage both inside the firm's systems and no outside model calls. In an Artificial Lawyer interview of 21 October 2025 the company said that besides on premises hosting it can accommodate an Azure virtual private cloud or pure cloud. What differs between those options and the infrastructure required are not published.
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.
A completed SOC 2 Type I audit is claimed on the home page, with ISO 27001 certification and a SOC 2 Type II audit still in progress. A trust center at trust.syntracts.com is linked. The Type I report is not offered on the site, no auditor or date is given, and the two further audits are not yet claimed as complete.
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.
Syntracts says it uses its own stack of small open source language models, which its June 2025 release calls proprietary, tuned for each customer on synthetic legal data derived from that customer's own documents and run inside the customer's environment. Which open source models are used, and whether customers are told when they change, is not published.
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.
No price, tier or unit of charge is published, and access to Syntracts is by demo request. Neither 2025 release states a price.
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.
Syntracts' customers are knowledge management teams at large law firms and corporate legal teams, and its October 2025 release describes the product as built for BigLaw and corporate legal teams, extracting defined data points from contracts to build deal profiles and knowledge databases. The company has also described use for demand letters and due diligence. What the product does not handle, by document type, language or firm size, is not stated.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Syntracts, 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.
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 22, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA 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.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Public material states that customer content trains, refines or personalizes models, with no matching term located in the published agreement. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
Customer documents shape a model built for that customer. Syntracts' June 2025 release says the models are trained on synthetic legal data generated from each customer's own legal documents, the October 2025 release says they are fine tuned on synthetic legal data derived from each client's own documents, and its home page says corrections help the system learn and improve over time. Its home page also says only synthetic data, never the customer's data, is used to tune the models.
The company's stated qualifiers are that the training data is synthetic, the model is per customer, and it runs in the customer's own environment. No agreement is published.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
Documents stay in the customer's systems by design, but nothing published says how long Syntracts keeps anything it holds, including synthetic training data, or how it is deleted.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Nothing says whether the firm's access controls or ethical walls carry through to the extracted data in the knowledge management database, although contracts can come straight from document management systems such as iManage, NetDocuments and SharePoint.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Nothing published addresses requests from authorities or other third parties for customer data, and Syntracts publishes no terms or privacy policy.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
The product works on each customer's own contracts, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified on Syntracts' home page or in its releases.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
The product extracts contract data rather than citing legal authority, and nothing on Syntracts' home page addresses checking authority for later history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Users can confirm or correct extractions on Syntracts' review screen, but no confidence indicator, and no path in which the model declines an extraction it cannot make reliably, is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
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 maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case naming Syntracts, and no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product appears in the public record. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No material on Syntracts' home page or in its releases refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Syntracts' home page promises reduced costs, less manual data entry and shorter deal profiling, and its releases claim contract profiling time cut by at least 80 percent, a cut also cited in funding coverage. Nothing addresses how work done with the product is billed or disclosed to a firm's clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
What a firm can pass to a client is Syntracts' statement that processing stays in the firm's environment and calls no outside model or API. No subprocessor or model provider list is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
No record of AI involvement, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described on Syntracts' home page or in its releases.