Extract contract obligations into an owned register
Legal review starts from a clause-linked obligation register with dates, owners, and open interpretations.
The problem
Renewals, notice windows, reporting duties, and service commitments remain buried in signed documents.
What you get
A working system with the steps, tools, checkpoints, and expected return made explicit.
- Setup
- 120 minutes
- Back each week
- 4 hours
- Difficulty
- assisted
Expected return
The working case
A planning estimate, not a guaranteed result. Measure the first four weeks against your own baseline.
192
hours returned per year
At 4 hours/week across 48 working weeks.
1
week to earn back setup
Compare the setup estimate with the weekly time returned.
Operating contract
Input
The source material, constraints, and examples a human would need to do this work well.
Checkpoint
A person reviews judgment calls, sensitive content, unfamiliar tools, and irreversible actions.
Success signal
Track time returned, corrections required, and exceptions. Keep it only if the measured result compounds.
Before you start
- ·A named legal operations lead
- ·An approved source-of-truth and review template
The steps
- 01
Name legal operations lead as the accountable owner and define the decision this workflow is allowed to support.
- 02
Collect executed agreements and approved contract metadata; preserve source links, timestamps, and access controls before any synthesis.
- 03
Produce a clause-cited obligation register using the approved template. Treat every extraction as a draft for counsel; never provide legal advice.
Copy this prompt
Create a clause-cited obligation register from the supplied evidence. Separate facts, assumptions, and missing inputs. Cite every material claim. Treat every extraction as a draft for counsel; never provide legal advice. Evidence: [approved inputs]
- 04
legal operations lead reviews the draft, records the decision or next action, and corrects the source system before distribution.
What it runs on
- Google Drive
Google Drive is used as an approved source or review surface in this workflow.
- Airtable
Airtable is used as an approved source or review surface in this workflow.
Where this goes wrong
- Do not let the model act beyond treat every extraction as a draft for counsel; never provide legal advice.
- Keep sensitive fields out of unapproved tools and retain a human-readable evidence trail.
Definition of done
Run it for four weeks. Then make it earn its place.
- □ Baseline the manual time before launch.
- □ Keep a human approval step for consequential output.
- □ Record corrections and exceptions, not just successes.
- □ Expand, revise, or retire it after the first review.
Build the system around it
Related workflows
If this one stops working, tell us. Three reports in a month and it leaves the library until a person has looked at it again.