Contract review intake: information to collect first
Hello, this is Legal Agent.
Contract review is not slow only because the clauses are hard. In practice, a lot of the delay comes from the review request arriving without enough information, so legal has to go back to the business team with questions again and again. A contract shows up in chat with "please look at this today," but the contract alone does not say whether the company is the client or the vendor, whether this is a first deal or an ongoing relationship, or what the budget and non-negotiable terms are. Contract review intake is the process of collecting that background before review starts, so the scope, priority and delivery format are already settled. This article works through how to design intake so review is both faster and more useful in practice.
Intake is more than an inbox
Intake can sound like nothing more than a shared mailbox or a request form, but it actually sets the quality of everything that follows. The same clause reads differently depending on the deal's background: a clause a client wants tightened might be one a vendor cannot accept at all. A first-time deal calls for a careful look at anti-crime clauses, confidentiality and payment terms, while a repeat deal raises a question of consistency with how similar terms were handled before. The purpose of the request also varies: flagging only the legally risky clauses, preparing a comment to send the counterparty, organizing risk for an internal decision, negotiating strategy, or simply checking AI's first pass. Without distinguishing these, legal ends up starting from zero each time, and a well-designed intake process is what cuts down the back-and-forth before review even begins.
Basic information worth confirming up front
At minimum, it helps to know the contract type, the company's own position, the counterparty's name and nature, whether the deal is new or existing, the contract amount, the term, the target signing date, what the business team is most concerned about, whether the contract text came from the counterparty or the company's own template, how much room there is to negotiate, and where internal approval stands. Knowing whether the company is the client or the vendor in the same service agreement changes how subcontracting, inspection, IP and liability read, and a small deal calls for a different depth of review than one that matters strategically to the business.
Documents worth requesting alongside the contract
Review should not stop at the contract text. A quote, a purchase order, a proposal, a specification sheet or SOW, a prior version of the contract, correspondence with the counterparty, negotiation notes and an internal approval memo can all matter. A software development contract's real terms often live in the SOW rather than the main text, and a manufacturing supply contract's quality standards typically sit in an appendix. Treating "just send the contract" as the norm tends to produce a review that stays abstract.
Separate urgency from importance
"This is urgent" comes up often, but the reason varies: a sales team simply wants a fast answer, there is a real signing deadline, or the deal is tied to a bid, a fundraising round or an M&A timeline. Urgency and importance are also separate axes: a large deal touching significant personal data can matter a great deal even without a near-term deadline. Sorting requests by signing deadline, business impact and whether the deal touches personal data, confidential information, IP, exclusivity or liability makes it easier for a small legal team to decide what to look at first.
AI review needs the same intake information
Feeding AI a contract on its own can produce a generic-sounding review, but how much risk the company can actually tolerate, which clauses matter most, and how firmly the company can push back with this particular counterparty are things AI cannot know unless they are entered. Even when using AI, an intake form should still capture the company's position, the contract type, the clauses to watch, the business team's non-negotiable points, and whether an internal memo or counterparty-facing draft is needed. The more complete the input, the closer the output gets to something usable in practice.
A form or spreadsheet is enough to start; nothing elaborate is required. What matters is capturing the requesting team and contact, contract type, company's position, counterparty, new or existing deal, amount, term, target date, reason for urgency, who drafted the contract, negotiation status, points to check, attached materials and the format the output should take, whether that is a comment for the counterparty, an internal risk memo, or tracked changes in Word. Companies with weak intake tend to see requests come in inconsistently by channel, which makes it hard for legal to see the whole picture and forces the business team to explain the same background repeatedly.
LegalAgent can help design an intake form as well as handle the day-to-day review work that follows it.