Sistava

Document Drafting From Your Precedents

AI for Law Firms

First drafts from your own bank, not a generic template

Firms have precedent banks that are underused because finding the right one and adapting it takes almost as long as starting fresh.,Your assistant drafts from your precedents: the closest match, populated with the matter details, with the clauses that need a decision flagged rather than silently chosen.,A qualified person reviews and settles every document. What is removed is the mechanical half that consumes junior time.

Benefits

How It Works

  1. Step 1:
  2. Step 2:
  3. Step 3:
  4. Step 4:
  5. Step 5:

At a Glance

Your bank
Not a generic template
Populated
Mechanical parts, consistently
Flagged
Judgement points raised
Always
Settled by a qualified person

The Precedent Bank Nobody Can Navigate

Most firms have accumulated a substantial precedent bank and get limited value from it, because finding the right document means knowing it exists and remembering which matter it came from. So fee earners rebuild from the last similar thing they personally worked on, which propagates whatever was in that one, including its errors. Indexing the bank properly is unglamorous and converts an asset the firm already owns into something usable, independently of anything else here.

Transcription Is Where Drafting Errors Live

The mistakes that reach clients in legal documents are rarely errors of legal judgement. They are the wrong party name carried through from the precedent, a defined term used inconsistently, a cross-reference pointing at the wrong clause after a renumber, a date from the previous matter. All of it is mechanical, all of it is exactly what tired human attention does badly at the end of a long day, and all of it is what a consistent process handles reliably. Removing that class of error is arguably worth more than the time saved.

Flagging Beats Choosing

The dangerous behaviour in automated drafting is quietly resolving a point that required judgement, because a document that looks complete does not invite scrutiny of the decision buried inside it. Where a precedent offers alternatives, or the matter departs from the standard case, raising the point explicitly costs the reviewer a moment and prevents a considered choice being made by default. A draft that is visibly unfinished in the right places is safer than one that is smoothly finished in the wrong ones.

FAQ

Is this reliable enough for legal documents?

It produces a first draft from your own precedents, and it is not a substitute for a qualified person settling the document. Used that way it is a genuine time saving. Used as a replacement for review it is a professional risk, and no one should sell it to you otherwise.

Will it invent clauses or citations?

Working from your precedent bank rather than generating from scratch is precisely what reduces that risk, and it is the reason the workflow is built that way. Fabricated citations have already caused sanctions in several jurisdictions, so every authority still needs checking. Verification is the reviewer job and cannot be delegated.

What if our precedents are out of date?

Then the drafts inherit that, and the indexing step tends to make it visible, which is uncomfortable and useful. A precedent bank nobody has reviewed in five years is a risk that already existed.

Does it handle jurisdiction differences?

It drafts to the jurisdiction you specify from precedents you supply for it. It does not know whether a clause is enforceable somewhere new, and it will say so rather than implying local validity it cannot assess.