W
Workday Contract Lifecycle Management

Workday Contract Lifecycle Management and Workday Contract Intelligence form an enterprise contract lifecycle platform, both powered by Evisort AI. Together they cover intake, drafting, AI redlining against a corporate playbook, negotiation, approval routing, signature and a single contract repository. The platform is sold to legal, procurement and finance teams, among others. Its AI engine combines traditional, generative and agentic components, including a proprietary large language model fine tuned for contracts and an orchestration layer that applies multiple models per task.

OCR and AI ingestion handle poor scans and handwriting, pretrained extraction covers roughly 30 standard contract terms, and customers can build their own extraction models for other terms. An Ask AI layer answers questions with links to the source documents. Workday acquired Evisort in 2024 and now sells the technology only under the Workday name. The platform holds an accredited ISO/IEC 42001 certification, first achieved as Evisort in October 2024.

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.

Workday calls the platform AI native, and the Evisort product it grew from was built around AI. What Workday sells today is a full contract lifecycle platform, from intake and approval routing to signature and the repository. Those workflow and repository functions do not need generative AI and would still work without the models. The models drive OCR and AI ingestion, pretrained and custom extraction, AI redlining against a playbook and the Ask AI layer.

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.

Ask AI answers include links to the source documents, and extraction ties each term to the contract it came from. Workday says it improves prompt language for custom models so users need no prompt engineering skill. It also says applying multiple models to each task maximizes accuracy. It publishes no accuracy figure, hallucination rate, test set, evaluation method or independent benchmark.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Autonomy and Oversight ModelAutonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a mechanism. Human in the loop appears as a phrase rather than a described control.

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.

The platform includes agentic AI and automates routing and approval. AI redlining suggests targeted edits rather than applying them. Advanced administration offers custom roles and access settings, which govern who uses the product rather than what it decides alone. The product pages do not say what the agentic components run unaided, and they set no threshold at which a workflow stops or passes to a person. They describe no review step a lawyer must clear.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Workday's quantified claims for the product carry a footnote saying they rest on select customer stories and on average results from Workday Contract Intelligence. A named practitioner at Harbor Global gives an attributed endorsement. The product pages pair no named customer with figures and a date, and carry no case study with measured results. Four customer names from before the acquisition, among them Microsoft and McKesson, appear only in older Evisort material.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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 pages cite responsible AI safeguards backed by ISO 42001, 27001 and 27701. ISO 27701 is a privacy information management standard, and the pages give no other privacy position. Workday also offers access controls by role. The pages do not say how customers or matters are kept apart or how attorney client privilege and work product are treated. They also leave training and retention unaddressed. The repository is meant to hold every executed agreement across legal, HR, finance and M and A.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

The datasheet says contract data should be open to teams across the business. It describes Ask AI as letting users across the enterprise ask questions and act with confidence on the answers, so people outside legal are meant to act on the analysis. The datasheet and product pages take no position on legal advice as against tooling, on competence or supervision duties, or on limits by jurisdiction.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureGovernance is documented and owned: who inside the vendor is accountable, what is tested before release, and what has been found and disclosed about uneven output across matter types or populations.

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.

The platform holds an accredited ISO/IEC 42001 certification, achieved as Evisort in October 2024 and carried forward under Workday, with Schellman as the certifying body. Workday's compliance page also carries a NIST AI Risk Management Framework attestation. That attestation covers the design, development, use and evaluation of AI products rather than the management system alone. Workday publishes no results of testing before release and names no owner for model governance. It discloses nothing on uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Workday describes its stewardship practice for the company as a whole rather than for the contract products. It screens subprocessors as a standing practice, encrypts database and transaction log backups, and uses TLS to protect network traffic against eavesdropping and tampering. Workday's cloud security and privacy certifications support these practices. Backups are retained for a period that Workday says varies by system, with no figure given.

That material names no subprocessors and sets no retention period or deletion control for contracts, prompts and Ask AI outputs. It describes no breach notification practice.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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.

Workday's datasheet, its product overview pages in three regional editions and its newsroom are product marketing, and none of them says who bears the loss when output is wrong. They state no indemnity, liability cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position. None of them links to a customer agreement.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Signature runs through Docusign or Adobe Sign, revenue data through Salesforce, and storage through Box, SharePoint and shared drives. Drafting runs in Microsoft Word 365. Workday cites an API and productized integrations, with self service configuration and enterprise administration controls. The platform aims to sync across existing repositories rather than require migration into a new one. The named integrations include no legal document management connector such as iManage or NetDocuments.

The product pages offer no integrations index and do not document, for each integration, what moves in which direction or what an administrator sets up.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

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.

Workday's security documentation describes the platform as a multitenant SaaS application in which multiple customers share one physical instance of the service. It also describes recovery point objectives. Workday names no hosting regions for this product and offers no residency choice for it. It does not say where processing happens as distinct from storage, or which regional infrastructure serves the contract products. Workday runs regional site editions, but none states a residency option.

Source: Operator Verified
AA on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCurrent independent attestation with named scope, reachable without a sales call: a trust center carrying reports, dates and the standards actually covered.

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 SOC 3 report for Workday Contract Intelligence and Contract Lifecycle Management is public. It gives an auditor's conclusion on this product without an agreement or access request. The TRUSTe Enterprise Privacy and Data Privacy Governance Practices Certification names the contract product in scope, with TRUSTe as third party verification agent under the Data Privacy Framework. That certification is benchmarked against five frameworks, among them the OECD Privacy Guidelines and GDPR.

For Workday as a whole, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certificates, SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports and an EU Cloud Code of Conduct adherence report are published. The SOC 2 covers any Workday system holding customer data. An independent third party audits it every year, and the report is open to customers and prospects. Workday does not name the auditing firm for the SOC reports.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

Workday runs a proprietary large language model fine tuned for contracts. An orchestration layer applies multiple large language models to particular tasks, combining traditional, generative and agentic techniques. Workday owns one model layer and calls on others. Its product material does not identify those external models or their providers, or say where they run. It makes no commitment to tell customers when the supply chain changes.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Commercial TransparencyNo pricing information published at any level, including the unit of charge.

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.

Workday publishes no price, rate, unit of charge or tier structure for the contract products, and the product pages link to no pricing page. Every commercial path ends in a contact or demo request. Third party analysis describes pricing as quote based under Workday's enterprise model, with no public price list or free trial. It says contract volume, users, modules, integrations and any bundling with other Workday products drive the price.

The same analysis says the product is now negotiated as part of the wider Workday platform rather than bought on its own, so it cannot be priced standalone.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

Workday names nine business functions as users, among them legal, procurement and finance, and the buyers are corporate teams. The product covers the contract lifecycle from intake to storage. Workday publishes its full extraction schema, roughly 30 standard terms from assignment and change of control to liability cap and termination for convenience. Custom models handle any other term. Workday states no organization size the platform is not built for and no industry focus. Beyond the ingestion layer recognizing contract languages, it gives no jurisdiction or language coverage.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

3 public documents

The public pages on file for Workday Contract Lifecycle Management, 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.

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?

Terms silent

A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.

The product pages and datasheet do not say whether customer content may be used to train models. The ISO 42001 certification shows that an AI management system exists, not what its training position is.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Not addressed

No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.

The platform is a system of record that syncs continuously with existing repositories. The product pages do not say how long contracts, prompts, Ask AI conversations or generated outputs are kept. They also do not say whether a customer controls the retention window or can delete material.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

The datasheet says advanced administration allows custom user roles and access controls for enterprise provisioning and security. It describes no roles or scoping rules and does not say how the controls are enforced. Nor does it say whether Ask AI and repository lookups respect those controls for each user at query time. The product is built to open contract data across business functions. No document management integration supplies permissions for it to inherit.

Source: Vendor PublishedCustomize user roles, access controls, and more for enterprise-grade provisioning and securityAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Not addressed

No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.

The product pages carry no commitment to notify a customer of a government or law enforcement request for its data, and link to no transparency report. They also link to no customer agreement or data processing agreement, which is where such a clause would sit.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026
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?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

The product holds no primary law collection. Retrieval runs against the customer's own contracts, synced from shared drives, cloud repositories and enterprise systems, so their provenance is the customer's. Third party material from before the acquisition described the proprietary contract model as trained on a collection of public contracts and legal documents. Workday's current material gives no scale, source or license basis for that training set.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

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.

The product works on the customer's own agreements and has no case law research feature. Workday describes no treatment signal or check of later history and names no citator license. Governing law is captured as an extracted term. That term identifies the law that applies to a contract, not whether any authority is still good law.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Workday says Ask AI returns clear, reasoned answers with source links. It does not describe what Ask AI does when the contracts do not support an answer, and the product shows the user no path to decline and no confidence signal. A text quality field among the extracted terms flags poor scans rather than low confidence in an answer.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

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 maintained by Damien Charlotin tracks court decisions worldwide involving hallucinated AI content and records the tool implicated where known. It records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Workday's contract products or their Evisort predecessor. Published 2026 sanctions summaries and secondary trackers do not name them either.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 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 product pages do not engage bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state bar guidance. Workday frames its responsible AI material around its ISO 42001 certification. That certification governs Workday's own AI management system, not the professional duties of the lawyers among its users.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Savings claims only

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.

Workday claims dramatically faster contract turnaround at lower cost, with quantified results footnoted to select customer stories. The buyers are in house and business teams that do not bill clients by the hour, so the savings are enterprise cost rather than billable time. The product pages describe no per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes and give no guidance on billing or client disclosure.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Not addressed

No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.

Workday publishes its ISO certifications, including the accredited AI certification with Schellman as the certifying body. The product pages carry no subprocessor list, no statement of which model providers see customer content, no data processing agreement and no client consent and notification pack.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

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.

Ask AI answers link to their sources, extraction ties each term back to its agreement, and workflow automation logs routing and approvals for each contract. Together they let a reader trace what was relied on. No export per document brings together the model used, the sources retrieved and human verification. Several unnamed models work on each task, so the product could not state the model used in any case.

Source: Vendor Publishedanswers include links to sources so users across the enterprise can act with confidenceAs of Aug 29, 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 430 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 14, 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