● B2B offer — Legal & contracts
Contracts: your templates, your approved clauses
A contract is put together from elements you have already approved: a template, reference clauses, variants depending on the case. Your agent assembles the draft from those elements, fills in the details of the deal and flags the clauses that call for a legal decision. Hosted in France: your templates and your commitments stay with you. The legal team approves every draft before signature.
Hosted in France
Templates and clauses protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Contract generation · hosted in France
Prepare the services contract for this new client.
Draft assembled from your services template, with the clauses from your approved library.
The details of the deal are filled in: parties, subject matter, term, financial terms.
Two clauses call for a decision: they are flagged at the top of the draft.
✎ Action · draft to approve, nothing is signed
The details of the deal are filled in: parties, subject matter, term, financial terms.
Two clauses call for a decision: they are flagged at the top of the draft.
✎ Action · draft to approve, nothing is signed
Which ones?
The liability clause, for which your library offers two variants depending on the level of commitment, and the intellectual property clause, to be chosen according to the nature of the deliverable.
These choices commit the company: they belong to the legal team.
✎ Support · variants set out, legal decision
These choices commit the company: they belong to the legal team.
✎ Support · variants set out, legal decision
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Contracts hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The legal team decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent contract generation agent assembles your drafts from your templates and your library of approved clauses, fills in the details of the deal and flags at the top the clauses that call for a legal decision. No contract is sent or signed without approval. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: templates and commitments stay with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
legal uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of templates and contracts produced is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to drafting your contracts?
Most of an everyday contract is already written and approved. What is left to decide comes down to a few clauses — and those are the ones worth your time.
! The issue
An everyday contract combines a template, approved clauses and the details of the deal. The assembly is reproducible; choosing between two variants of a clause is not. The agent takes on the first and brings the second to the fore, with the variants your library provides and what distinguishes them.
✓ Our answer
The legal team receives a complete draft and a short list of decisions to take, each backed by a variant that is already approved. Nothing is drafted outside your library, and no contract goes out without approval. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your templates, your clauses and your commitments are entrusted to no third party.
The decisive point
Your contractual commitments: sovereignty & compliance
Your templates and your clause library represent legal know-how particular to your company. Here is how they are protected.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no template, clause or draft contract leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your templates and your clause libraries: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your contractual commitments, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and its clause library.
Nothing outside your approved library
Every clause in the draft comes from your library, with its reference; encryption, role-based access and logging of every draft assembled.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no contract is sent and no clause is drafted outside the library; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For strategic contracts, non-disclosure agreements and transactions under negotiation, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Contract generation · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your templates.
· A template was amended on 12/06 and 23 contracts have been generated since from the old version. It had been left open in a shared folder.
· Three different limitation of liability clauses are in circulation across your templates, for one and the same type of service.
· One template has a field to complete that is left blank in 14 signed contracts — "term: … months".
· Two templates refer to an annex that exists in neither folder. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 14 blank fields signed
⛓ Source · template library, generated contracts, signed files
· A template was amended on 12/06 and 23 contracts have been generated since from the old version. It had been left open in a shared folder.
· Three different limitation of liability clauses are in circulation across your templates, for one and the same type of service.
· One template has a field to complete that is left blank in 14 signed contracts — "term: … months".
· Two templates refer to an annex that exists in neither folder. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 14 blank fields signed
⛓ Source · template library, generated contracts, signed files
The 14 contracts with a blank term — is that serious?
I record the blank, I do not say what it produces.
What I see: the template carries "term: … months" with a space to fill. Across 14 signed contracts, the space was left blank. The contracts are signed by both parties.
What I do not say: whether those contracts are of indefinite term, whether they are void, or whether another clause supplies the gap. Those are three questions of law, and they go to an adviser — not to a tool that spotted a white space.
What I checked before telling you: I reread all 14 contracts in full to see whether the term appears elsewhere. It appears in 5 of them, in an annex or in a renewal article. The other 9 carry none, anywhere.
What I propose going forward, and it is the real answer: a contract cannot be generated while a mandatory field is blank. That is a setting, it costs five minutes, and it makes the 14 impossible.
What I provide: the 9, the page where the term should have been, and their signature dates. 14-contracts_blank-term.pdf5 terms elsewhere · 9 nowhere
⛓ Source · template, 14 signed contracts, full re-reading
What I see: the template carries "term: … months" with a space to fill. Across 14 signed contracts, the space was left blank. The contracts are signed by both parties.
What I do not say: whether those contracts are of indefinite term, whether they are void, or whether another clause supplies the gap. Those are three questions of law, and they go to an adviser — not to a tool that spotted a white space.
What I checked before telling you: I reread all 14 contracts in full to see whether the term appears elsewhere. It appears in 5 of them, in an annex or in a renewal article. The other 9 carry none, anywhere.
What I propose going forward, and it is the real answer: a contract cannot be generated while a mandatory field is blank. That is a setting, it costs five minutes, and it makes the 14 impossible.
What I provide: the 9, the page where the term should have been, and their signature dates. 14-contracts_blank-term.pdf5 terms elsewhere · 9 nowhere
⛓ Source · template, 14 signed contracts, full re-reading
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your template library and its versions, generated contracts, and signed files.
Routing follows the irreversible: an out-of-date template still in use goes to the lawyer and to whoever amended it, the same day — every contract generated meanwhile is one more to revisit; diverging clauses to the lawyer, grouped, once; a mandatory blank field in a signed contract to the contract owner; a missing annex to whoever created the template.
With a chase: 24 h on an out-of-date template in use, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by template and by clause, never by drafter.
Three guarantees hold this up, and the first is why this page exists. Every clause in a draft comes from your library and carries its reference — that is what makes a contract traceable line by line the day there is a dispute. The signature, and any sending to a third party, stay your act, and it is the only one I leave you. And when a template ages, you know the same day, with the count of contracts already produced from it: the version that governs is decided in legal, and it then applies to every contract that follows.
✎ Framework · no clause drafted by the agent — your approved blocks only
Routing follows the irreversible: an out-of-date template still in use goes to the lawyer and to whoever amended it, the same day — every contract generated meanwhile is one more to revisit; diverging clauses to the lawyer, grouped, once; a mandatory blank field in a signed contract to the contract owner; a missing annex to whoever created the template.
With a chase: 24 h on an out-of-date template in use, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by template and by clause, never by drafter.
Three guarantees hold this up, and the first is why this page exists. Every clause in a draft comes from your library and carries its reference — that is what makes a contract traceable line by line the day there is a dispute. The signature, and any sending to a third party, stay your act, and it is the only one I leave you. And when a template ages, you know the same day, with the count of contracts already produced from it: the version that governs is decided in legal, and it then applies to every contract that follows.
✎ Framework · no clause drafted by the agent — your approved blocks only
Generate me a services contract for this client.
The draft is assembled, and it carries four blanks I do not fill.
What I assembled: eleven blocks from your template approved on 12/06 — subject, scope, term, price, payment terms, intellectual property, confidentiality, liability, termination, personal data, disputes.
What I filled in: the elements appearing in the signed quotation and the client record — company name, address, identifier, scope taken word for word from the quotation, price, payment schedule.
The four blanks: the term, which is neither in the quotation nor in the record; the client's signatory name and capacity; the start date; and the place of performance, mentioned orally according to the meeting note but nowhere in writing.
What I worked out about the term, and why it stays a blank: across your 118 contracts of the same kind, 94 carry 36 months — the practice is clear, and I give it to you as a figure. A contract carrying 36 months because that is the practice would carry a term nobody negotiated, and the term is what gets litigated. The question has already gone to the salesperson in one line, with the other three blanks: one answer, and the draft closes in thirty seconds.
The blanks are visible in the document, in plain sight, not in pale grey: a contract signed with an invisible blank is exactly the case of this morning's 14. draft-contract_11-blocks-4-blanks.pdf11 blocks · 4 visible blanks
⛓ Source · template of 12/06, signed quotation of 22/07, client record, note of 25/07
What I assembled: eleven blocks from your template approved on 12/06 — subject, scope, term, price, payment terms, intellectual property, confidentiality, liability, termination, personal data, disputes.
What I filled in: the elements appearing in the signed quotation and the client record — company name, address, identifier, scope taken word for word from the quotation, price, payment schedule.
The four blanks: the term, which is neither in the quotation nor in the record; the client's signatory name and capacity; the start date; and the place of performance, mentioned orally according to the meeting note but nowhere in writing.
What I worked out about the term, and why it stays a blank: across your 118 contracts of the same kind, 94 carry 36 months — the practice is clear, and I give it to you as a figure. A contract carrying 36 months because that is the practice would carry a term nobody negotiated, and the term is what gets litigated. The question has already gone to the salesperson in one line, with the other three blanks: one answer, and the draft closes in thirty seconds.
The blanks are visible in the document, in plain sight, not in pale grey: a contract signed with an invisible blank is exactly the case of this morning's 14. draft-contract_11-blocks-4-blanks.pdf11 blocks · 4 visible blanks
⛓ Source · template of 12/06, signed quotation of 22/07, client record, note of 25/07
And if I need a clause that is not in the template?
I tell you where it already exists in your own documents, and I do not write it.
What I do: I search for the clause in your signed contracts and your templates. On a request for a territorial exclusivity clause, I find three different drafts in three contracts of 2023, 2024 and 2025.
What I provide: all three, with the source contract, the date, and what distinguishes them — territorial extent, duration, and exit conditions.
What I put on the table instead of a fourth draft: all three, compared term by term, each with the number of contracts it served in and what happened next — the 2024 one was renegotiated twice across eleven contracts, the other two never. The lawyer chooses on a history, not on a style, and chooses in five minutes. What enters your contracts stays what somebody approved: a clause drafted by a tool would sit there for years, copied from contract to contract — that is how clause libraries are built that nobody can trace any more.
What I propose: that the clause chosen, once approved, becomes a block of the template. At the next request it will be available and approved.
Over twelve months: 31 requests for clauses outside the templates, of which 19 concerned five clauses only. Those five deserve to enter the templates. 31-requests_5-clauses.pdf3 existing drafts · no fourth
✎ Proposal · 5 clauses to add to the templates — no drafting by the agent
What I do: I search for the clause in your signed contracts and your templates. On a request for a territorial exclusivity clause, I find three different drafts in three contracts of 2023, 2024 and 2025.
What I provide: all three, with the source contract, the date, and what distinguishes them — territorial extent, duration, and exit conditions.
What I put on the table instead of a fourth draft: all three, compared term by term, each with the number of contracts it served in and what happened next — the 2024 one was renegotiated twice across eleven contracts, the other two never. The lawyer chooses on a history, not on a style, and chooses in five minutes. What enters your contracts stays what somebody approved: a clause drafted by a tool would sit there for years, copied from contract to contract — that is how clause libraries are built that nobody can trace any more.
What I propose: that the clause chosen, once approved, becomes a block of the template. At the next request it will be available and approved.
Over twelve months: 31 requests for clauses outside the templates, of which 19 concerned five clauses only. Those five deserve to enter the templates. 31-requests_5-clauses.pdf3 existing drafts · no fourth
✎ Proposal · 5 clauses to add to the templates — no drafting by the agent
And the clauses where there is a choice to make — where do you put those?
At the head of the draft, ahead of the four blanks: legal decisions are flagged separately, because they are not filled in, they are decided.
On this contract, four clauses with variants, and for each I give what separates them in one line, without recommending any:
· Limitation of liability — 3 approved variants: cap at the contract value, cap at twelve months' billing, cap at a fixed amount. What separates them here: €48,000, €62,000 or €100,000 on this deal.
· Ownership of deliverables — 2 variants: transfer on delivery, transfer on full payment. What separates them: what you get back if the balance goes unpaid.
· Term and renewal — 2 variants: fixed term, or automatic renewal with three months' notice.
· Governing law and jurisdiction — 2 variants, and this one is not neutral for a foreign client.
For each variant I give three markers drawn from your own contracts: how many times it was chosen over the last 24 months, on what kind of client, and who decided it last time. On limitation of liability: 31 contracts with the contract-value cap, 9 with the twelve-month cap — and all 9 are large accounts.
What stays with your lawyer, and why it is better that way: the choice, and only the choice. I write no new clause — the three variants exist, approved and dated, in your library. A clause written by a tool enters a contract without anyone having approved it, and it stays there for years.
What the flagging caught last month: of 34 contracts generated, 6 were going out with the template's default variant — cap at contract value — while the client was a large account and your previous 9 carried the other. All 6 went back to your lawyer before sending; 4 were changed. The default variant has not moved: it is the flagging that makes it visible, not the variant that decides.
✎ Framework · legal decisions flagged at the head of the draft
On this contract, four clauses with variants, and for each I give what separates them in one line, without recommending any:
· Limitation of liability — 3 approved variants: cap at the contract value, cap at twelve months' billing, cap at a fixed amount. What separates them here: €48,000, €62,000 or €100,000 on this deal.
· Ownership of deliverables — 2 variants: transfer on delivery, transfer on full payment. What separates them: what you get back if the balance goes unpaid.
· Term and renewal — 2 variants: fixed term, or automatic renewal with three months' notice.
· Governing law and jurisdiction — 2 variants, and this one is not neutral for a foreign client.
For each variant I give three markers drawn from your own contracts: how many times it was chosen over the last 24 months, on what kind of client, and who decided it last time. On limitation of liability: 31 contracts with the contract-value cap, 9 with the twelve-month cap — and all 9 are large accounts.
What stays with your lawyer, and why it is better that way: the choice, and only the choice. I write no new clause — the three variants exist, approved and dated, in your library. A clause written by a tool enters a contract without anyone having approved it, and it stays there for years.
What the flagging caught last month: of 34 contracts generated, 6 were going out with the template's default variant — cap at contract value — while the client was a large account and your previous 9 carried the other. All 6 went back to your lawyer before sending; 4 were changed. The default variant has not moved: it is the flagging that makes it visible, not the variant that decides.
✎ Framework · legal decisions flagged at the head of the draft
The 23 contracts generated from the old version — what do we do?
We look first at what changed, because not all 23 are affected.
What changed on 12/06: three amendments. A rewritten liability clause, a data-processing mention added, and a corrected internal cross-reference.
What that gives across the 23: 23 carry the old liability clause; 23 lack the data mention; the cross-reference correction affects only contracts citing article 9, that is 6 of the 23.
What I do not say: which must be revisited. An old clause is not an invalid clause, and revisiting a signed contract requires an amendment, hence the other party's agreement.
What I propose: the 23 ranked by renewal date — that is where the new version applies without negotiation. 9 renew before December.
And the real fix: the old version had been left open in a shared folder. A template should exist in exactly one place, and that is a setting, not an instruction. 23-contracts_old-version.pdf3 amendments · 9 renewals before December
⛓ Source · two template versions, 23 generated contracts, renewal dates
What changed on 12/06: three amendments. A rewritten liability clause, a data-processing mention added, and a corrected internal cross-reference.
What that gives across the 23: 23 carry the old liability clause; 23 lack the data mention; the cross-reference correction affects only contracts citing article 9, that is 6 of the 23.
What I do not say: which must be revisited. An old clause is not an invalid clause, and revisiting a signed contract requires an amendment, hence the other party's agreement.
What I propose: the 23 ranked by renewal date — that is where the new version applies without negotiation. 9 renew before December.
And the real fix: the old version had been left open in a shared folder. A template should exist in exactly one place, and that is a setting, not an instruction. 23-contracts_old-version.pdf3 amendments · 9 renewals before December
⛓ Source · two template versions, 23 generated contracts, renewal dates
The three liability clauses in circulation — which do we keep?
I do not choose, and I show you what separates them.
The three: a cap at the contract value, a cap at twelve months' billing, a cap at a fixed €50,000.
What that gives across your live contracts: I applied all three to your 47 service contracts. The cap ranges from €12,000 to €340,000 depending on the clause used, for comparable services.
What I do not say: which is right. A fixed cap is excellent on a small contract and absurd on a large one; a cap at contract value does the opposite. The choice depends on your real exposure and your insurance cover — two things I do not have.
What I provide: the three drafts, the quantified effect of each across your 47 contracts, and the current spread: 28 contracts with the first, 13 with the second, 6 with the third.
The most useful fact: the 6 with a fixed cap are your six largest contracts. That is probably the opposite of what was intended. 3-clauses_47-contracts.pdf€12,000 to €340,000 · 6 large contracts on a fixed cap
⛓ Source · 3 drafts, 47 service contracts, annual values
The three: a cap at the contract value, a cap at twelve months' billing, a cap at a fixed €50,000.
What that gives across your live contracts: I applied all three to your 47 service contracts. The cap ranges from €12,000 to €340,000 depending on the clause used, for comparable services.
What I do not say: which is right. A fixed cap is excellent on a small contract and absurd on a large one; a cap at contract value does the opposite. The choice depends on your real exposure and your insurance cover — two things I do not have.
What I provide: the three drafts, the quantified effect of each across your 47 contracts, and the current spread: 28 contracts with the first, 13 with the second, 6 with the third.
The most useful fact: the 6 with a fixed cap are your six largest contracts. That is probably the opposite of what was intended. 3-clauses_47-contracts.pdf€12,000 to €340,000 · 6 large contracts on a fixed cap
⛓ Source · 3 drafts, 47 service contracts, annual values
Can you track where my contracts for signature stand?
Yes, and above all I can tell you which are blocked and by what.
Across 34 contracts in circuit: 19 await a client signature, 8 await an internal approval, 4 await an annex, and 3 are blocked with no identifiable reason — no exchange for more than three weeks.
What I also look at, and it counts: for how long. A contract awaiting a client signature for 8 days is normal; for 62 days it is probably dead and nobody has recorded that.
The three blocked with no reason: the last exchange dates from 16/06, 02/07 and 09/07. None has been chased.
What I have prepared for the three blocked ones: the chaser is written, one per contract, restating the last point discussed, the date of the last exchange and the single question still open. The tone of a chaser on a contract under negotiation depends on what you want to obtain — it is a commercial act, and it goes out under your name, when you decide. Three fifteen-second reads, and 62 days of silence end.
What I provide: the 34 with their age, their blockage named, and for the 8 awaiting internal approval, who has to approve and since when. Of the 8, 5 are waiting on the same person. 34-contracts_in-circuit.pdf19 client side · 8 internal · 3 with no reason
⛓ Source · 34 contracts in circuit, attached exchanges, internal approvals
Across 34 contracts in circuit: 19 await a client signature, 8 await an internal approval, 4 await an annex, and 3 are blocked with no identifiable reason — no exchange for more than three weeks.
What I also look at, and it counts: for how long. A contract awaiting a client signature for 8 days is normal; for 62 days it is probably dead and nobody has recorded that.
The three blocked with no reason: the last exchange dates from 16/06, 02/07 and 09/07. None has been chased.
What I have prepared for the three blocked ones: the chaser is written, one per contract, restating the last point discussed, the date of the last exchange and the single question still open. The tone of a chaser on a contract under negotiation depends on what you want to obtain — it is a commercial act, and it goes out under your name, when you decide. Three fifteen-second reads, and 62 days of silence end.
What I provide: the 34 with their age, their blockage named, and for the 8 awaiting internal approval, who has to approve and since when. Of the 8, 5 are waiting on the same person. 34-contracts_in-circuit.pdf19 client side · 8 internal · 3 with no reason
⛓ Source · 34 contracts in circuit, attached exchanges, internal approvals
What do you keep out of all this?
Enough to reproduce a contract exactly, and nothing resembling an opinion.
What is kept: the template and its version, the blocks assembled, what was filled in and where it came from, the blanks left, and what was edited by hand after generation.
The last line is the most useful: what people edit after generation says exactly what the template is missing. Over twelve months, 67% of manual edits fall on three blocks — those are the three to revisit.
What is not kept: no appraisal of a clause, no risk analysis, no statistics per drafter, and no data on the other party beyond what the contract contains.
What the quarterly summary contains: templates and the versions in use, recurring manual edits, clauses requested outside the templates, and contracts blocked in circuit. Four indicators about your templates and your circuits. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
What is kept: the template and its version, the blocks assembled, what was filled in and where it came from, the blanks left, and what was edited by hand after generation.
The last line is the most useful: what people edit after generation says exactly what the template is missing. Over twelve months, 67% of manual edits fall on three blocks — those are the three to revisit.
What is not kept: no appraisal of a clause, no risk analysis, no statistics per drafter, and no data on the other party beyond what the contract contains.
What the quarterly summary contains: templates and the versions in use, recurring manual edits, clauses requested outside the templates, and contracts blocked in circuit. Four indicators about your templates and your circuits. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several moments in the life of a contract. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 623 € excl. VAT / month
Assembly from your templates
Assembles the draft from the template that suits the type of contract.
Clauses from your library
Uses only clauses you have approved, with their reference.
Legal decisions flagged
Puts the clauses with variants at the top, and what distinguishes them.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Legal research
For searching your contracts and case law, a dedicated agent takes it on.
Legal agent (contract / case law search) from 930 € excl. VAT / month Legal research →Sales proposals
Upstream of the contract, a dedicated proposals agent prepares the offer.
Sales proposal agent from 489 € excl. VAT / month Sales proposals →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can a lawyer give back to analysis?
By taking on the assembly, the effort shifts towards the clauses that genuinely commit the company. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Assembling the draft contract
Filling in the details of the deal
Spotting the clauses to settle
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of templates and contracts produced. Choosing between two variants of a clause commits the company: it belongs to the legal team, which approves every draft before signature.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
A contract generation agent (templates, clauses, variants), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
5,920 € excl. VAT setup
then 623 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
953 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
9,750 € excl. VAT setup
then 838 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your contracts
Your templates and your clauses stay with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no template and no draft contract entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour contractual commitments: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The legal team keeps the decisionThe agent produces draft contracts, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of templates and contracts produced: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent draft new clauses?
No. It uses only the clauses in your approved library, with their reference. Drafting a new clause rests with the legal team, which then adds it to the library.
How are the clauses with variants presented?
At the top of the draft, with the variants your library provides and what distinguishes them, so the decision can be taken quickly.
Is the contract sent automatically?
No. The draft is put to the legal team, which approves it. Sending and signing remain human acts.
Can several types of contract be handled?
Yes, as many templates as you maintain: services, sale, subcontracting, confidentiality. The scope is settled at the design stage.
Are our templates protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Your library is not used to train a third-party model.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on the number of templates and the richness of your clause library, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for legal
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your contracts
15 minutes to frame your templates and your clauses — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.