S
Syntracts
Syntracts is a contract intelligence platform from Syntracts Inc. of Washington, DC, built to run entirely inside a law firm's or legal department's own environment. It ingests contracts by upload or from the firm's document management system, extracts the specific data points a knowledge management team defines using small models fine-tuned for each customer on synthetic data generated from that customer's documents, lets reviewers confirm or correct each extraction, and delivers the structured results through an API 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 third-party model or API is called. It announced a multi-year deployment at an unnamed AmLaw 25 firm in June 2025 and was selected for A&O Shearman's Fuse incubator. Pricing is not published.
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.
The models are the product. Syntracts exists to extract defined data points from contracts using models fine-tuned 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. Without the models there is nothing to deliver. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Accuracy is claimed, not measured. The home page promises no hallucinations because the models are custom trained, and shows headline statistics for data extraction accuracy without a figure; the company's releases describe the output as highly accurate and verifiable. No test set, accuracy figure or error rate is published, and nothing describes how an extraction links back to the clause it came from. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
A review screen is offered and little more is said. The home page describes an interface for confirming each extraction and correcting errors, with corrections used to improve the models over time. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Results without names. The company's June 2025 release announces a multi-year enterprise partnership with an unnamed AmLaw 25 firm after a six-month pilot, and says Syntracts was one of two companies selected for A&O Shearman's Fuse incubator, which is a programme selection rather than a customer result. The figure quoted in coverage of its October 2025 funding, an 80 per cent cut in contract review time, carries no customer or method, and the home page's own statistics display no numbers. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 architecture carries the commitment. The home page says Syntracts runs entirely within the customer's controlled environment, and the company's releases say no data leaves client systems or reaches third-party language models or APIs and that each customer's models are built for that customer. The home page says only synthetic data is used to fine-tune the models, never the customer's data, while the June 2025 release says that synthetic data is generated from each customer's own legal documents, so a buyer should read the two together. No agreement is published, and privilege and work product are not addressed by name. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026, and searched for published terms. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 position is architectural and unwritten. The company says documents stay in the customer's own environment and no third-party model is called, which puts retention and deletion largely in the customer's hands. No privacy policy, retention or deletion commitment, subprocessor list or incident practice is published for what Syntracts itself handles, such as support access or the synthetic data derived from customer documents. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026, and searched for published terms. No customer agreement or terms are published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an extraction is wrong. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Integration is claimed in general terms only. The 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 API-first, feeding dashboards and AI assistants. No document management system, knowledge platform or assistant is named, and no API documentation is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Deployment in the customer's environment is the core of the offer. The home page says Syntracts operates entirely within the customer's controlled environment, and the company's releases describe full on-premises deployment in which processing and storage both stay inside the firm's systems, with no third-party model calls. What differs between deployment options, the infrastructure required and any hosted alternative are not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 point-in-time attestation, with more promised. The home page states that Syntracts has completed a SOC 2 Type I audit and is working to complete ISO 27001 certification and a SOC 2 Type II audit. The Type I report is not offered, no auditor or date is given, and the two further audits are not yet claimed as complete. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
The architecture is described without the base models. The company says it uses its own stack of small open-source language models, fine-tuned for each customer on synthetic legal data and run inside the customer's environment, with no third-party model or API involved. Which open-source models are used, and whether customers are told when they change, is not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026. No price, tier or unit of charge is published; access is by demo request. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 buyer and the work are specific: knowledge management teams at large law firms, and corporate legal teams, extracting defined data points from contracts to build deal profiles and knowledge databases. What the product does not handle, by document type, language or firm size, is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 personalises models, with no matching term located in the published agreement. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The company's June 2025 release says its models are trained on synthetic legal data generated from each customer's own legal documents, and the home page says corrections help the system learn and improve over time; the home page also says only synthetic data, never the customer's data, is used to fine-tune the models. Customer documents therefore shape a model built for that customer. The qualifiers the company states 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.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026. Documents are described as staying in the customer's own environment, but no retention or deletion position is published for what Syntracts holds, including the synthetic data derived from customer documents.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's two 2025 releases on 22 September 2026. Contracts can be ingested from the firm's document management system, but nothing says whether its access controls or ethical walls carry through to the extracted data in the knowledge management database.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026, and searched for published terms or a privacy policy. Nothing addresses requests from authorities or other third parties for customer data.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026. The product works on each customer's own contracts, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified.
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.
Checked the home page on 22 September 2026. The product extracts contract data rather than citing legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026. A review screen lets users confirm or correct extractions, but no confidence indicator or 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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Syntracts, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. 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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026. No material 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.
The home page promises reduced costs, less manual data entry and a reduction in deal profiling time, and coverage of the October 2025 funding cites an 80 per cent cut in contract review time. 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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list is published; what a firm can pass to a client is the company's statement that processing stays in the firm's environment with no third-party model or API.
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.
Checked the home page and the company's releases on 22 September 2026. No record of AI involvement, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described.