← What we do

A lawyer’s second opinion on what your AI drafted.

Your model wrote it, and it reads beautifully. AI drafts legal documents that fail quietly — we check what it produced against what you actually need, and tell you which parts it got confidently wrong.

Caret reviews AI-generated legal documents — contracts, policies, notices — against your real situation, your counterparty and the law that actually governs them. A lawyer reads the whole thing and returns it marked up, usually the same or next working day. For teams already drafting with AI who want a lawyer’s name on the result.

What a second opinion on an AI draft covers

A read against your real situation

The model wrote a plausible document. We check it against your business, your counterparty and your governing law — the things it had no way of knowing.

The confident errors

Cross-references to clauses that do not exist, obligations that contradict each other two pages apart, and standards quietly imported from the wrong legal system. Fluent prose hides all three unusually well.

What is missing entirely

The most common AI failure is not a wrong clause but an absent one — the protection nobody asked for because nobody knew to ask. Omissions do not announce themselves in a draft that reads smoothly.

A marked-up version you can use

Changes made, not merely suggested, with a short note on why each one mattered. You can send it on the same day it comes back.

How the AI contract review works

Send the draft — and the prompt

Both, if you still have them. What you asked for tells us a great deal about what the model was likely to get wrong.


We read it properly

A lawyer reads the whole thing against your facts. No tooling that re-checks the output of one model with another.


It comes back marked up

With the changes made and a short covering note on anything that needs a decision from you rather than from us.

Reviewing AI-drafted contracts: common questions

What is a second opinion on an AI-drafted contract?

A lawyer reading a document your AI produced, checked against the facts the model did not have: your business, your counterparty, and the law that actually governs the agreement. It looks for jurisdictional errors, invented or misnumbered cross-references, internally contradictory obligations, and — most commonly — protections the draft left out altogether.

Is using AI for legal drafting a bad idea?

No. It is a good first draft and a poor final one. The failure mode is not that it produces obvious nonsense — it is that it produces something fluent and plausible that is wrong in ways a non-lawyer has no way to see.

What does AI get wrong most often in legal documents?

Jurisdiction, above everything. A model will blend concepts from several legal systems into one document that works properly in none of them. After that: invented or misnumbered cross-references, internally contradictory obligations, and omitted protections.

How fast is it?

Usually same or next working day for a document of ordinary length. Tell us if it is more urgent than that and we will say straight away whether we can meet it.

Do you need to know which model wrote it?

It is useful but not necessary. The prompt is more informative than the model name, because it shows us what the draft was trying to be.

Will you rewrite it, or just review it?

Whichever the document needs. Most come back marked up. Occasionally the honest answer is that the draft is not worth repairing and starting again is quicker, and we will say so rather than bill for the repair.

Other things Caret does

We work with startups and SMEs on fixed-scope legal matters, with scope and fee agreed in writing before anything begins.

Send us what the model wrote.

Attach the draft and the prompt if you have it. You will get a scope back the same day, and usually the marked-up document the day after.

Book a first look