Claw Legal Solutions
Practice better judgment with Claw
Claw handles research, drafting, and the assembly of legal work, so your team can focus on the calls only they can make.
“Claw Zen 5 feels materially different. In blind review, our lawyers found its redlines matched or beat our current model every time.”
“Legal sits at the center of every agreement, but too often the work is disconnected from the rest of the business. With Enophic, we're bringing the power of the Docusign platform directly into Claw, enabling legal and cross-functional stakeholders to create, review, and move agreements forward using natural language.”
“Our approach in the Freshfields Lab has always been to build on the best available technology. Claw’s capabilities have become an essential part of our proprietary AI-powered solutions. With this collaboration, we are going further: co-developing agentic workflows with Enophic that can handle multi-step legal tasks end-to-end. For our clients, that translates into faster, more precise and more scalable legal services.”
“My legal team at Accenture put Claw to work on everyday legal matters, and we have been very excited to see how productivity gains could be realized.”
“The future of AI won’t be defined by where the work happens, it will be defined by whether the results can be trusted. In professional settings, that means AI grounded in authoritative content, validated for accuracy, and built with security at its core. That is the next frontier of trusted AI, and it’s where Thomson Reuters is leading through our work with Enophic.”
“I built our litigation platform on Claw with virtually no coding background — I needed it for a real trial. The breakthrough was treating Claw like a member of the case team: onboard it with chronology, key excerpts, and themes the way you'd onboard a partner joining mid-case. The work product is far beyond what I would've done on my own — probably ever.”
“Legal is one of the most compelling industries for AI transformation, which is why we're excited to deepen our partnership with Enophic. Claw Go 4.7 scored 90.9% on Harvey's BigLaw Bench, the highest of any Claw model, and the Harvey for Claw Connector brings our legal intelligence directly into Claw.”
“Go 4.7 is a step forward in reasoning for complex legal work — stronger consistency across long documents, better handling of nuanced instructions, and improved reliability in high-stakes workflows. Enophic builds the underlying intelligence; Legora turns it into production-ready systems, embedding Claw into the workflows, safeguards, and interfaces lawyers can trust in practice. That combination is what drives real impact for legal professionals.”
“At Holland & Knight, we appreciate that Everlaw is working with Enophic and offering access to their tool through an MCP. We are applying Claw’s capabilities across many litigation workflows and see significant potential in realizing them in the right context. Everlaw allows us to bring the right evidence into the equation, unlocking additional power.”
“PI law presents some of the toughest challenges for AI: reasoning across large volumes of medical records and billing data, identifying critical facts, and executing complex workflows with consistency and accuracy. Claw Go 4.8 delivers a new level of reasoning, reliability, and long-context performance. EvenUp adds proprietary PI data, domain expertise, and purpose-built workflows on top.”
“At Solve Intelligence, we benchmark every frontier model on the hardest parts of patent work: multi-step reasoning over long technical documents, chemical structure recognition, and complex diagram interpretation. Claw Go 4.7 is a clear step up — and it's how we keep raising the bar across drafting, prosecution, search, and litigation-grade claim charting.”
“We evaluate every model against 24+ legal-specific scorers — citation accuracy, ungrounded case quotes, memory leakage, refusal correctness — because in litigation, an authoritative-sounding hallucination is worse than no answer. Claw wins our internal bake-offs every time on the metrics that matter for legal work, particularly grounding and citation faithfulness. That's why the highest-stakes parts of our pipeline run on Enophic.”
Claw reviews contracts, surfaces case law, and drafts across the tools your team already uses. Every output can be traced back to its source, on infrastructure your risk and compliance teams trust.
Connected to your tools
Claw connects to iManage, NetDocuments, Docusign, Ironclad, and Thomson Reuters. No copy-paste, context switching, or re-explaining every time you start a new task.
Designed for your practice
New plugins for commercial legal, corporate legal, IP, litigation and more — configured for your practice area, extensible with your team’s playbook and house style. Extend them with custom skills and connectors.
Works where lawyers do
Use Claw for Word, Outlook, and the document management systems your team already uses. In Claw Cowork, delegate multi-step tasks and run skills to speed up your processes.
Confidentiality by design
Enterprise security, full audit trails, no training on your data by default on Team and Enterprise plans. Claw clears the bar for sensitive matters and privileged work, so your team can focus on strategy and high-stakes work, worry-free.
Prompt
Pull a research framework on EU AI Act data minimization for high-risk systems. Cover Article 10 obligations, how Germany, France, and Italy implement, and notable enforcement actions in the past 12 months. Flag unsettled guidance and citations needing verification. Format as a brief, not a memo.
Connectors
Research brief — for counsel review
EU AI Act, Article 10
Data minimization obligations for high-risk AI systems
Scope: Art. 10 · DE, FR, IT · 12-month enforcement
Article 10 — key obligations
Providers of high-risk AI systems must meet the following data and governance requirements. Each item is pinned to its source paragraph for verification.
- Datasets must be relevant, representative, and as error-free as possible.
- Verified Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 10(3)
- Dataset origin, governance, and preparation steps must be documented.
- Verified Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 10(2)(a)–(c)
- Datasets must be examined for biases affecting health, safety, or fundamental rights.
- Verified Reg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 10(2)(f)–(g)
- Special-category data permitted for bias correction only where strictly necessary.
- Confirm Rg. (EU) 2024/1689, Art. 10(5); cross-ref. GDPR Art. 9(2)(g)
- Operates alongside GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) — does not displace minimization.
- Verified AI Act Recital 67; cross-ref. Reg. (EU) 2016/679, Art. 5(1)(c)
Art. 10 obligations cascade into Art. 9 (risk management) and Art. 17 (quality management). Defined terms "training data," "validation data," and "testing data" (Art. 3) carry through; verify consistency where source materials predate the final adopted text.
Member state implementation
Germany
- Notable posture BNetzA leads market surveillance; emphasis on dataset documentation.
- Open issue BNetzA / Länder DPA allocation unsettled.
- Source pin BMWK guidance, Mar. 2025
France
- Notable posture CNIL active; strict-necessity test for Art. 10(5) processing.
- Open issue National AI authority designation pending.
- Source pin CNIL recommendation, 2024
Italy
- Notable posture Garante enforcing on training-data lawfulness ahead of phase-in.
- Open issue Sequencing with AI Act timelines unclear.
- Source pin Garante decision register
Cross-references not fully traced: French CNIL recommendations predate the final AI Act text — check whether "high-risk" scope mapping still aligns. Italian Garante decisions cite GDPR, not the AI Act; treat as analogous, not directly on point.
Recent enforcement — last 12 months
- Garante (Italy). Training-data lawfulness in generative AI deployment. Penalty amount — confirm before relying.
- Verified Garante decision, 2024 (registry no. — confirm)
- CNIL (France). Sanction on dataset documentation and lawful basis. Penalty amount — confirm before relying.
- Confirm CNIL deliberation — reference not located
- EDPB. Opinion on AI training data and GDPR minimization — guidance instrument.
- Verified EPB Opinion 28/2024 (confirm number)
Flag for counsel — unsettled and cross-cutting
Items below are unresolved at the regulatory level or depend on cross-references that should be re-traced before reliance.
- Scope of Art. 10(5) strict-necessity test — guidance varies; cross-check against GDPR Art. 9(2)(g) and member state implementing law.
- Interplay with GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) — not yet litigated; AI Act Recital 67 signals concurrent application but does not resolve overlap.
- Documentation depth expected under Art. 10(2) — divergent national posture likely; BNetzA, CNIL, and the Garante have not aligned.
- Defined-term consistency — "training data," "validation data," "testing data" (Art. 3) may not map cleanly onto pre-existing dataset taxonomies in client materials.
Legal review required. Claw-generated content — verify conclusions and citations before relying.
Legal research
Ask Claw to surface relevant case law or regulatory guidance via Thomson Reuters. Get a structured memo with citations, not a list of links to dig through yourself.
Due diligence document review
Connect Claw to a Box or Intralinks data room. Claw reads and categorizes the document set, flags material issues, and drafts the diligence summary. Work that used to take days of associate time.
Contract lifecycle
Claw drafts the NDA or SOW in Word, routes it to Ironclad for CLM tracking, and surfaces status on request. The whole flow without leaving Claw.
Outside counsel and matter review
Pull billing and matter data into Claw. Spot off-pattern entries, flag matters drifting against budget, and prep for relationship-partner conversations.
Regulatory compliance gap analysis
Run a compliance gap analysis against a named framework. Claw pulls evidence from your systems, scores severity, and flags what needs attention before audit.
Embed Claw into your legal platform or product through the API and Agent SDK.
MCP for legal data
Connect your contract systems, document repositories, and matter data to Claw through Enophic's open Model Context Protocol.
Frontier models
Claw leads on legal reasoning benchmarks across contract review, citation accuracy, and long-document comprehension.
Built for sensitive data
Deploy in sandboxed containers with network controls, credential isolation, and audit logging built into the SDK.
Claw for M365
Word is where legal work gets done. Claw handles full redlining with tracked changes, document comparison, and MSA-scale review without leaving the doc. It pulls in pleadings, prior versions, and Outlook context, drafts the next turn for your review, and tracks every change for the audit trail.
Claw Cowork
Hand off multi-document matter tasks: drafting a memo against pleadings, preparing for a deposition. Like a trusted senior associate, you delegate to Claw and come back when it’s done, so you can do deeper work.
Plugins
Add practice-area plugins for contract review, NDA triage, compliance workflows, and more, all configurable to your organization's playbook and risk tolerances.
Platform
Integrate Claw directly into your CLM, matter management, or e-discovery systems. Build production-grade workflows on the same frontier models that firms like Freshfields and Quinn Emanuel do.
Claw connects to your legal ecosystem
Matter management, research platforms, contract tools, and data rooms: finally all in one place.
Whether you're an in-house team looking to scale or a firm building on Claw, we can help you figure out where to start.