MotherAI Workspace for law firms: contract comparison with access controls and approval
MotherAI Workspace can be configured to compare two contract versions within one client matter. AI prepares the material; a lawyer checks conclusions and approves the next step.
Updated: 2026-09-22 · MotherAI
Illustrative workflow. Controls and integrations are scoped during implementation; this is not a customer case study.
Task: compare two contract versions
A client returns an amended contract. A junior lawyer needs to identify changes, compare them with the agreed instructions and prepare issues for the supervising lawyer. Start with two specified versions and the client brief, not the firm’s entire document archive.
Risk: the wrong client, version or conclusion
A general chat tool may not reflect matter-level access or the firm’s rules for external providers. Risks include disclosing a document, using an outdated version, missing a change or producing a confident but unsupported conclusion.
Configured controls
During setup, define the client workspace, authorised users and permitted sources. Choose an approved model and environment for those documents, such as LOCAL ONLY. Allow drafting, not autonomous delivery of advice. Require the assigned lawyer’s approval before a designated outbound action. Agree records covering source documents, actions and approval.
Result: a briefing for the lawyer, not automatic advice
The intended output is a change summary linked to the relevant material and draft questions for the client. The lawyer reviews the significance of the changes and decides what happens next. The team can later retrieve the supporting material and approval instead of searching personal chat histories.
What the output could look like
Illustrative example with fictional data, not a customer reference or a guaranteed format for every deployment.
| Source | Identified change | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Contract A, versions 1 and 2, clause 4 | Payment term changed from 30 to 60 days | Draft for lawyer review |
| Contract A, version 2, appendix 2 | Referenced appendix is not among permitted inputs | Request the source; do not guess its content |
Limits
AI can miss or misinterpret a change. A source record does not prove that a legal conclusion is correct. Workspace is not a legal research database or a substitute for professional responsibility. Confidentiality, rights to use documents and provider terms require assessment for the specific deployment.
Before going live
Using test documents, check that another client’s access, an unapproved model and sending without approval are rejected. Compare the draft with a lawyer-reviewed reference. Measure time to an approved briefing and corrections required, not just generation speed. No client documents are needed for the initial discussion.
Acceptance criteria for deployment
Requirements to verify during deployment. This list does not claim that these tests have already been completed.
- A user for client B cannot retrieve client A’s material.
- An unapproved model is not used.
- The draft is not sent without required approval.
- A lawyer verifies changes against the sources.