● Use case — Legal department
The AI agent for in-house lawyers: research, contracts and litigation without exposing your data
Case-law research, contract review and drafting, litigation follow-up, answers to the business: your AI agent absorbs the repetitive work of the legal department. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your contracts, files and strategies never leave the company. The lawyer keeps the decision.
Hosted in France
Company data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Legal assistant · hosted in France
Review this supplier services contract: is the limitation of liability clause in line with our standards, and what should we renegotiate?
Liability clause: cap set at 1× the annual fee — below your internal standard (floor at 2×). Exclusions too broad (loss of business, data).
To renegotiate: raise the cap and reinstate liability for any breach of data security (GDPR).
⛓ Sourced · internal clause library + your standard contracts
To renegotiate: raise the cap and reinstate liability for any breach of data security (GDPR).
⛓ Sourced · internal clause library + your standard contracts
And our exposure if the supplier fails? Should we prepare for litigation?
Exposure: operational and financial risk in the event of an interruption; the current cap limits your recourse. Strategy: a documented formal notice, a reversibility clause, a provision for the risk.
I am preparing a risk note and a draft letter from your templates, for approval.
✎ Action · note + letter ready for review — the lawyer approves
I am preparing a risk note and a draft letter from your templates, for approval.
✎ Action · note + letter ready for review — the lawyer approves
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data 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 officer decidesThe agent assists, never rules
✦ In brief
In a legal department, a Blue Lemon Agent agent speeds up legal research, contract review and first drafts, litigation follow-up and answers to the business. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France (with a SecNumCloud-qualified sovereign option): your contracts, files and strategies are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The lawyer keeps the decision and the responsibility. Live within a few weeks.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
7
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision taken without human approval
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
The context
Why AI matters to legal departments — and why they hesitate
In-house lawyers are caught between more demanding business teams, an explosion in contract volume and a growing compliance workload. Consumer AI answers the urgency… at the price of an unacceptable risk to strategic data.
! The issue
The business expects faster answers, while contracts, regulatory monitoring and litigation follow-up pile up. Yet many AI solutions amount to entrusting contracts, sensitive files or a litigation strategy to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to a legal department if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the lawyer: the responsiveness gained is never paid for in lost confidentiality.
The decisive point
Confidentiality first: strategic data & sovereignty
Contracts, litigation files, sensitive transactions, HR data: here is how the architecture of our agents protects your data, file by file.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the company: no contract or file leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your data, 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: the American hyperscalers have no access to it, even when hosted in Europe.
One isolated resource per company
No pooling of sensitive data: an environment strictly dedicated to your company.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
An agent strictly in support; no automated decision; 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.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- 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 the most sensitive data (mergers and acquisitions, litigation, HR data), SecNumCloud and HDS options are available 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.
Legal assistant · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your contracts.
· One contract renews automatically in 19 days and terminating it requires three months' notice. The window closed on 12 May.
· Seven live contracts carry no limitation of liability clause, whereas your twelve most recent contracts all do.
· An €84,000 order was placed with no signed contract. The supplier's standard terms were accepted with a click.
· A contract cites a standard in its technical annex, and that annex is not on file. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 closed window
⛓ Source · contract portfolio, deadline schedule, purchase orders, signed files
· One contract renews automatically in 19 days and terminating it requires three months' notice. The window closed on 12 May.
· Seven live contracts carry no limitation of liability clause, whereas your twelve most recent contracts all do.
· An €84,000 order was placed with no signed contract. The supplier's standard terms were accepted with a click.
· A contract cites a standard in its technical annex, and that annex is not on file. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 closed window
⛓ Source · contract portfolio, deadline schedule, purchase orders, signed files
The renewal in 19 days — can it still be avoided?
Not according to the clause, and I give you the clause rather than my opinion.
What the contract says, article 11.2: "This contract renews automatically for one year, unless terminated by recorded delivery letter sent at least three months before its expiry."
The dates: expiry 27/08/2026, so termination possible until 27/05/2026. Today is 08/08. The window has been closed for 73 days.
What reading the clause establishes, and what it leaves open: the dates are firm. But an automatic renewal clause does not always operate as written — a breach by the other party, information that was due and not given, a particular regime depending on the type of contract. Settling that is a legal opinion, reserved to the professions that hold the title: this is not caution, it is the law that organises that profession.
What I have assembled so that opinion takes an hour and not three: the contract, article 11.2, the computed dates, the full six-month history of exchanges with this supplier, and the three late deliveries it records, with their dates and the document that establishes each. That is exactly what an adviser asks for first — they have it before asking.
And what I propose going forward: the 4 other auto-renewing contracts, with their termination windows. Two open in October, and the termination letter is already drafted for both — you will decide whether to send them, but the window will not close without you. auto-renewal_window-closed.pdfArt. 11.2 quoted · 73 days · 4 contracts tracked
⛓ Source · contract of 27/08/2021 art. 11.2, deadline schedule, 4 comparable contracts
What the contract says, article 11.2: "This contract renews automatically for one year, unless terminated by recorded delivery letter sent at least three months before its expiry."
The dates: expiry 27/08/2026, so termination possible until 27/05/2026. Today is 08/08. The window has been closed for 73 days.
What reading the clause establishes, and what it leaves open: the dates are firm. But an automatic renewal clause does not always operate as written — a breach by the other party, information that was due and not given, a particular regime depending on the type of contract. Settling that is a legal opinion, reserved to the professions that hold the title: this is not caution, it is the law that organises that profession.
What I have assembled so that opinion takes an hour and not three: the contract, article 11.2, the computed dates, the full six-month history of exchanges with this supplier, and the three late deliveries it records, with their dates and the document that establishes each. That is exactly what an adviser asks for first — they have it before asking.
And what I propose going forward: the 4 other auto-renewing contracts, with their termination windows. Two open in October, and the termination letter is already drafted for both — you will decide whether to send them, but the window will not close without you. auto-renewal_window-closed.pdfArt. 11.2 quoted · 73 days · 4 contracts tracked
⛓ Source · contract of 27/08/2021 art. 11.2, deadline schedule, 4 comparable contracts
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I read, continuously, what you have opened to me: your contracts and their annexes, the schedule I derive from them, your purchase orders, and the standard terms accepted.
Routing follows the irreversible: a termination window goes to the contract owner and to management, four months ahead — not three, because at three months there is no decision margin left; an order with no contract to purchasing, immediately; a missing clause to the in-house or external lawyer, grouped, once a quarter; a missing annex to the contract owner.
With a chase: 48 h on a window closing in under 30 days, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by type of clause and by contract, never by signatory.
What this morning has already earned you: 4 flags on your contracts, including an €84,000 order committed on standard terms accepted with a click and 7 live contracts with no limitation of liability at all, while your twelve most recent ones carry one. From tomorrow: the 4 other automatic renewals tracked, with two windows opening as early as October and an alert four months before term — that is, while there is still a decision to make, not once there is none. The access is yours: contracts, annexes and purchase orders opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word — your commitments and your negotiations do not leave your walls, and nothing feeds anyone's model. The opinion stays with your in-house or external lawyer, and I hand it back in minutes: the contract, the clause word for word, the dates calculated, six months of exchanges with the other party — the file they would have asked for first is already made, and they bill an analysis instead of a document hunt. What the net catches, and how often it tightens: every term four months ahead, every order without a contract the same day, every missing clause grouped once a quarter — the window that has been shut for 73 days is the last one you find out about after the fact. The next step is ready: the 7 contracts with no limitation of liability, ranked by the amount committed, with the wording your twelve recent contracts already use.
✎ Framework · no legal advice — the agent quotes and dates, it does not conclude
Routing follows the irreversible: a termination window goes to the contract owner and to management, four months ahead — not three, because at three months there is no decision margin left; an order with no contract to purchasing, immediately; a missing clause to the in-house or external lawyer, grouped, once a quarter; a missing annex to the contract owner.
With a chase: 48 h on a window closing in under 30 days, 7 days on the rest. Then a quarterly summary: by type of clause and by contract, never by signatory.
What this morning has already earned you: 4 flags on your contracts, including an €84,000 order committed on standard terms accepted with a click and 7 live contracts with no limitation of liability at all, while your twelve most recent ones carry one. From tomorrow: the 4 other automatic renewals tracked, with two windows opening as early as October and an alert four months before term — that is, while there is still a decision to make, not once there is none. The access is yours: contracts, annexes and purchase orders opened by role, logged, withdrawn with a word — your commitments and your negotiations do not leave your walls, and nothing feeds anyone's model. The opinion stays with your in-house or external lawyer, and I hand it back in minutes: the contract, the clause word for word, the dates calculated, six months of exchanges with the other party — the file they would have asked for first is already made, and they bill an analysis instead of a document hunt. What the net catches, and how often it tightens: every term four months ahead, every order without a contract the same day, every missing clause grouped once a quarter — the window that has been shut for 73 days is the last one you find out about after the fact. The next step is ready: the 7 contracts with no limitation of liability, ranked by the amount committed, with the wording your twelve recent contracts already use.
✎ Framework · no legal advice — the agent quotes and dates, it does not conclude
Find me every confidentiality clause that survives the contract.
31 contracts out of 214, and I give you the text of each.
What I searched for: confidentiality clauses carrying a duration beyond the contract's end. 31 carry one, 68 have a clause with no explicit survival, 115 have none.
What I provide for the 31: the contract, the article, the exact text of the clause, and the survival period it provides — from two to ten years depending on the contract.
What I flag without qualifying it: 4 of the 31 carry survival "without limitation of duration". I do not say whether that is valid or enforceable — I say the drafting differs from the other 27, and that it deserves to be seen by someone whose profession it is.
What I do rank, because a ranking can be checked: the 31 by survival period, by what the clause protects by name — know-how, personal data, pricing, source code — and by the contract's annual value. The four "without limitation of duration" account on their own for 38% of the revenue concerned, and it is that figure which decides the order an adviser will look at them in.
What no ranking will say: whether a clause is good. A ten-year survival is excellent in one contract and absurd in another, and that depends on what the contract protects.
How long it took: twelve seconds. What it saves you is not reading 214 contracts — it is knowing the question has a quantified answer before putting it to an adviser. 31-clauses_survival.pdf214 contracts · 31 with survival · 4 atypical
⛓ Source · 214 portfolio contracts, confidentiality clauses
What I searched for: confidentiality clauses carrying a duration beyond the contract's end. 31 carry one, 68 have a clause with no explicit survival, 115 have none.
What I provide for the 31: the contract, the article, the exact text of the clause, and the survival period it provides — from two to ten years depending on the contract.
What I flag without qualifying it: 4 of the 31 carry survival "without limitation of duration". I do not say whether that is valid or enforceable — I say the drafting differs from the other 27, and that it deserves to be seen by someone whose profession it is.
What I do rank, because a ranking can be checked: the 31 by survival period, by what the clause protects by name — know-how, personal data, pricing, source code — and by the contract's annual value. The four "without limitation of duration" account on their own for 38% of the revenue concerned, and it is that figure which decides the order an adviser will look at them in.
What no ranking will say: whether a clause is good. A ten-year survival is excellent in one contract and absurd in another, and that depends on what the contract protects.
How long it took: twelve seconds. What it saves you is not reading 214 contracts — it is knowing the question has a quantified answer before putting it to an adviser. 31-clauses_survival.pdf214 contracts · 31 with survival · 4 atypical
⛓ Source · 214 portfolio contracts, confidentiality clauses
And if I ask you what the law says on a subject?
I will not tell you, and it is the most important limit on this page.
What I could do: quote you an article, a time limit, a principle. It would look right and often would be.
Why I do not: three reasons, and each is sufficient. A statute changes, and a reference learned two years ago may have been renumbered or repealed. A statute applies subject to conditions, and the article answering your question depends on your situation, not on your question. And a legal answer given by a tool commits the company without anyone deciding it — you would apply it, and nobody could say where it came from.
What I do instead, and it is useful: I find what your own contracts say on the subject, what your adviser has written if it is on file, and what you did in comparable situations.
Across the 47 questions of this kind received this quarter: 34 had an answer in your own documents. The other 13 went to an adviser, with the file already assembled. 47-questions_34-in-your-documents.pdf34 of 47 · 13 to an adviser, file assembled
✎ Framework · no rule of law quoted from memory — your documents only
What I could do: quote you an article, a time limit, a principle. It would look right and often would be.
Why I do not: three reasons, and each is sufficient. A statute changes, and a reference learned two years ago may have been renumbered or repealed. A statute applies subject to conditions, and the article answering your question depends on your situation, not on your question. And a legal answer given by a tool commits the company without anyone deciding it — you would apply it, and nobody could say where it came from.
What I do instead, and it is useful: I find what your own contracts say on the subject, what your adviser has written if it is on file, and what you did in comparable situations.
Across the 47 questions of this kind received this quarter: 34 had an answer in your own documents. The other 13 went to an adviser, with the file already assembled. 47-questions_34-in-your-documents.pdf34 of 47 · 13 to an adviser, file assembled
✎ Framework · no rule of law quoted from memory — your documents only
A supplier sends me their version of the contract. Compare it with ours.
Eleven differences, three that change the substance and eight that do not.
What I do: an article-by-article comparison, separating drafting changes from substantive ones. That separation is what counts: a raw list of eleven differences costs an hour spent working out which matter.
The three substantive: the liability cap moves from "the contract value" to "six months' billing"; the termination period for breach moves from 30 to 60 days; and an exclusivity clause appears, absent from your version.
The other eight: rewordings, renumbering, two corrected internal cross-references, one definition moved to the front.
What I do not say: which version is better. A cap of six months' billing may be more or less favourable, depending on the contract value and its term — here I compute both: €84,000 against €42,000.
What I flag in addition: the exclusivity clause was not mentioned in the covering email, which speaks of "a few formatting adjustments". 11-differences_3-substantive.pdf3 substantive · 8 drafting · 1 unannounced
⛓ Source · your version of 12/06, supplier version of 05/08, covering email
What I do: an article-by-article comparison, separating drafting changes from substantive ones. That separation is what counts: a raw list of eleven differences costs an hour spent working out which matter.
The three substantive: the liability cap moves from "the contract value" to "six months' billing"; the termination period for breach moves from 30 to 60 days; and an exclusivity clause appears, absent from your version.
The other eight: rewordings, renumbering, two corrected internal cross-references, one definition moved to the front.
What I do not say: which version is better. A cap of six months' billing may be more or less favourable, depending on the contract value and its term — here I compute both: €84,000 against €42,000.
What I flag in addition: the exclusivity clause was not mentioned in the covering email, which speaks of "a few formatting adjustments". 11-differences_3-substantive.pdf3 substantive · 8 drafting · 1 unannounced
⛓ Source · your version of 12/06, supplier version of 05/08, covering email
The seven contracts with no liability cap — is that risky?
I cannot tell you, and I can give you the four figures on which it is told.
What I record: 7 live contracts carry no limitation clause. Your twelve most recent contracts all do, which indicates a change of practice.
What I looked at: when those seven were signed. Six date from before 2022, one from last March.
The seventh is the only one raising a question: signed in March 2026, after the change of practice, on a template that is not yours — it is the supplier's framework contract that was signed.
What I assembled for each of the seven, since exposure is not legible in the clause: the annual value, the service actually delivered, the line of your insurance policy covering it, and the other party's last published accounts. Those are the four elements that were missing — they are gathered, dated and sourced.
The judgement itself belongs to your adviser, and it is made on those four figures rather than on an intuition.
What I propose: the seven, ranked by annual value and by renewal date — because renewal is when a clause is added without a difficult negotiation. Three renew before December, and the amendment is drafted for all three. 7-contracts_no-cap.pdf6 pre-2022 · 1 from March · 3 renewing before December
⛓ Source · 7 contracts, 12 recent contracts, renewal dates
What I record: 7 live contracts carry no limitation clause. Your twelve most recent contracts all do, which indicates a change of practice.
What I looked at: when those seven were signed. Six date from before 2022, one from last March.
The seventh is the only one raising a question: signed in March 2026, after the change of practice, on a template that is not yours — it is the supplier's framework contract that was signed.
What I assembled for each of the seven, since exposure is not legible in the clause: the annual value, the service actually delivered, the line of your insurance policy covering it, and the other party's last published accounts. Those are the four elements that were missing — they are gathered, dated and sourced.
The judgement itself belongs to your adviser, and it is made on those four figures rather than on an intuition.
What I propose: the seven, ranked by annual value and by renewal date — because renewal is when a clause is added without a difficult negotiation. Three renew before December, and the amendment is drafted for all three. 7-contracts_no-cap.pdf6 pre-2022 · 1 from March · 3 renewing before December
⛓ Source · 7 contracts, 12 recent contracts, renewal dates
The dispute with the profile supplier is going to outside counsel. What can you prepare?
The litigation tracking is kept up, and the file leaves complete — numbered exhibits, computed deadlines, exchanges with counsel gathered in one place.
The case summary: 640 pages — contract, amendments, delivery notes, inspection reports, eighteen months of emails — brought down to a 9-page summary in which every statement carries the exhibit number and its date. A litigation summary with no exhibit numbers gets redone entirely at the law firm, and you pay for it twice.
Document management: 217 exhibits numbered in chronological order, with a schedule, and 11 missing exhibits named individually — three signed delivery notes, six emails cited inside another email but absent from the document store, two technical annexes referenced in the contract. I tell you which and where they should be, which turns a three-day search into three precise requests.
The case deadlines: the formal notice ran from 12/06, and article 14 of the contract provides for a two-month prior conciliation attempt before any filing, due on 12/08 — four days away. The count is the clause's, and I give you the clause.
Coordination with outside counsel: exchanges with the lawyer are gathered in the file, every document request from their side is tracked to its answer, and your side's average response time on this file is 9 days — that is the figure that costs, and it is yours, not theirs.
What stays with the lawyer and with counsel: the analysis, the strategy and the decision to file. I build the file, I hold the deadlines, I name what is missing.
⛓ Source · 640 pages down to 9, 217 numbered exhibits, 11 missing, conciliation deadline 12/08
The case summary: 640 pages — contract, amendments, delivery notes, inspection reports, eighteen months of emails — brought down to a 9-page summary in which every statement carries the exhibit number and its date. A litigation summary with no exhibit numbers gets redone entirely at the law firm, and you pay for it twice.
Document management: 217 exhibits numbered in chronological order, with a schedule, and 11 missing exhibits named individually — three signed delivery notes, six emails cited inside another email but absent from the document store, two technical annexes referenced in the contract. I tell you which and where they should be, which turns a three-day search into three precise requests.
The case deadlines: the formal notice ran from 12/06, and article 14 of the contract provides for a two-month prior conciliation attempt before any filing, due on 12/08 — four days away. The count is the clause's, and I give you the clause.
Coordination with outside counsel: exchanges with the lawyer are gathered in the file, every document request from their side is tracked to its answer, and your side's average response time on this file is 9 days — that is the figure that costs, and it is yours, not theirs.
What stays with the lawyer and with counsel: the analysis, the strategy and the decision to file. I build the file, I hold the deadlines, I name what is missing.
⛓ Source · 640 pages down to 9, 217 numbered exhibits, 11 missing, conciliation deadline 12/08
We have a compliance audit in six weeks. Can you get us ready?
The compliance documentation is structured and the gap is quantified — and I hand it back as a statement of your own records, not as a reading of the texts.
What I gathered, source by source: for the GDPR, your processing register, the 34 processor contracts and their security annexes, the published privacy notices and their dates; for Sapin II, your code of conduct, the internal whistleblowing channel, the risk map and the third-party assessments; for the AI Act, the inventory of systems in service and what each one documents.
The gap, measured on your records: 34 processor contracts, 27 carry a security annex, 7 carry none. Your register describes 41 processing activities; I find 46 across your tools, so 5 active activities are unregistered — and I tell you which, and in which tool I see them. On Sapin II, your risk map dates from 2023 and names two subsidiaries since sold. On the AI Act, 9 systems inventoried, 4 with no usage documentation.
How I hand it back, and this is the point: every line states what your record contains and what it does not, with the date and the location. It does not state whether you are compliant — that qualification belongs to the lawyer or to your counsel, and an agent's answer on that point would protect you from nothing in an audit.
The measurable gain: preparing your last audit took 62 hours spread across four people. This statement is produced continuously and is current every morning; what remains is the review and the judgement calls, which I put at 18 hours. 44 hours returned, more than one working week at 35 hours, rounded down.
⛓ Source · register of 41 activities against 46 observed, 7 contracts without a security annex, 4 systems without usage documentation
What I gathered, source by source: for the GDPR, your processing register, the 34 processor contracts and their security annexes, the published privacy notices and their dates; for Sapin II, your code of conduct, the internal whistleblowing channel, the risk map and the third-party assessments; for the AI Act, the inventory of systems in service and what each one documents.
The gap, measured on your records: 34 processor contracts, 27 carry a security annex, 7 carry none. Your register describes 41 processing activities; I find 46 across your tools, so 5 active activities are unregistered — and I tell you which, and in which tool I see them. On Sapin II, your risk map dates from 2023 and names two subsidiaries since sold. On the AI Act, 9 systems inventoried, 4 with no usage documentation.
How I hand it back, and this is the point: every line states what your record contains and what it does not, with the date and the location. It does not state whether you are compliant — that qualification belongs to the lawyer or to your counsel, and an agent's answer on that point would protect you from nothing in an audit.
The measurable gain: preparing your last audit took 62 hours spread across four people. This statement is produced continuously and is current every morning; what remains is the review and the judgement calls, which I put at 18 hours. 44 hours returned, more than one working week at 35 hours, rounded down.
⛓ Source · register of 41 activities against 46 observed, 7 contracts without a security annex, 4 systems without usage documentation
You do all of that on your own? That is a lot for a single agent.
No: it is a coordination of dedicated legal sub-agents, and the file that reaches you is assembled, not stacked.
The four sub-agents, and what each holds:
· Document research — finds the clause, the exhibit, the precedent in the document store, and returns the exact text with its article and date.
· Contracts — compares two drafts, separates drafting from substance, keeps the renewal schedule.
· Litigation — keeps the files, numbers the exhibits, computes the clause's deadlines, tracks exchanges with counsel.
· Regulatory watch — follows what moves in your sectors and flags what touches a live contract.
What the coordination adds, without which four sub-agents are worth less than one: a single output file, a single exhibit numbering, and the rule that a sub-agent never cites another sub-agent as a source. When the litigation sub-agent needs a clause, it receives the contract and the article, not the contracts sub-agent's summary of it. Otherwise an approximation spreads with nobody able to trace it back, and that is exactly what destroys a file's credibility before a judge.
The figure that does not suit me: of the 19 files built this quarter, 3 required a second pass because two sub-agents had filed the same exhibit under two numbers. What I did with it: numbering is now set by the coordination, once, before the sub-agents work. Across the next 11 files: none.
Who supervises: the lawyer. Advice, decision and signature stay with them, and the file arrives with what is missing named.
✎ Framework · 4 sub-agents, a single numbering, no sub-agent citing another
The four sub-agents, and what each holds:
· Document research — finds the clause, the exhibit, the precedent in the document store, and returns the exact text with its article and date.
· Contracts — compares two drafts, separates drafting from substance, keeps the renewal schedule.
· Litigation — keeps the files, numbers the exhibits, computes the clause's deadlines, tracks exchanges with counsel.
· Regulatory watch — follows what moves in your sectors and flags what touches a live contract.
What the coordination adds, without which four sub-agents are worth less than one: a single output file, a single exhibit numbering, and the rule that a sub-agent never cites another sub-agent as a source. When the litigation sub-agent needs a clause, it receives the contract and the article, not the contracts sub-agent's summary of it. Otherwise an approximation spreads with nobody able to trace it back, and that is exactly what destroys a file's credibility before a judge.
The figure that does not suit me: of the 19 files built this quarter, 3 required a second pass because two sub-agents had filed the same exhibit under two numbers. What I did with it: numbering is now set by the coordination, once, before the sub-agents work. Across the next 11 files: none.
Who supervises: the lawyer. Advice, decision and signature stay with them, and the file arrives with what is missing named.
✎ Framework · 4 sub-agents, a single numbering, no sub-agent citing another
The €84,000 order with no contract — is that serious?
What has been agreed to is the supplier's standard terms — and I give them to you.
What I record: order placed on 04/08, €84,000, no contract on file. The purchase order carries the wording "I accept the standard terms" and a ticked box.
What that means concretely: the supplier's terms apply, not yours. I retrieved and read them: they carry a jurisdiction clause, a liability cap at 10% of the value, and an eight-day claim period.
What I do not say: whether those clauses are enforceable, or whether acceptance by clicking constitutes a commitment in your situation. Those are two questions of law, and they go to an adviser.
What I provide: the purchase order, the standard terms in the version online on the day of the order — I timestamped it — and the three clauses furthest from your usual practice.
And one useful thing: I found 9 other orders placed the same way over twelve months, totalling €210,000. order-84000_no-contract.pdf3 clauses away from your practice · 9 cases in 12 months
⛓ Source · purchase order of 04/08, timestamped standard terms, 9 comparable orders
What I record: order placed on 04/08, €84,000, no contract on file. The purchase order carries the wording "I accept the standard terms" and a ticked box.
What that means concretely: the supplier's terms apply, not yours. I retrieved and read them: they carry a jurisdiction clause, a liability cap at 10% of the value, and an eight-day claim period.
What I do not say: whether those clauses are enforceable, or whether acceptance by clicking constitutes a commitment in your situation. Those are two questions of law, and they go to an adviser.
What I provide: the purchase order, the standard terms in the version online on the day of the order — I timestamped it — and the three clauses furthest from your usual practice.
And one useful thing: I found 9 other orders placed the same way over twelve months, totalling €210,000. order-84000_no-contract.pdf3 clauses away from your practice · 9 cases in 12 months
⛓ Source · purchase order of 04/08, timestamped standard terms, 9 comparable orders
What do you keep out of all this?
What allows a clause to be found again, and nothing resembling an opinion.
What is kept: the contract and its annexes, the clauses recorded with their article, the computed deadlines, version comparisons, and what was sent to an adviser.
What is not kept: no risk analysis, no contract scoring, no appraisal of a clause, and no statistics per signatory.
Why "no risk analysis": a contract marked "risky" by a tool becomes a document the other side can request in a dispute. An appraisal produced by a machine, put before a court, turns against whoever produced it — and it carries no value in defending them.
What the quarterly summary contains: the next twelve months' deadlines, clauses absent by comparison with your recent templates, orders with no contract, and missing annexes. Four factual indicators, no judgement. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 4 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
What is kept: the contract and its annexes, the clauses recorded with their article, the computed deadlines, version comparisons, and what was sent to an adviser.
What is not kept: no risk analysis, no contract scoring, no appraisal of a clause, and no statistics per signatory.
Why "no risk analysis": a contract marked "risky" by a tool becomes a document the other side can request in a dispute. An appraisal produced by a machine, put before a court, turns against whoever produced it — and it carries no value in defending them.
What the quarterly summary contains: the next twelve months' deadlines, clauses absent by comparison with your recent templates, orders with no contract, and missing annexes. Four factual indicators, no judgement. 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
The uses of AI in a legal department
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 8 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 930 € excl. VAT / month
Legal research
Query case law, doctrine and your internal contracts in plain language, with sourced answers.
Contract review & drafting
Spot the sensitive clauses (liability, termination, penalties), compare them to your standards and generate a first version.
Litigation follow-up
Summarise a file, prepare the pre-procedure stage and coordinate exchanges with external counsel.
Legal & regulatory monitoring
Track the developments applicable to your sector and flag what affects your contracts and processes.
Compliance (GDPR, anti-corruption, AI Act)
Structure the compliance documentation and prepare for inspections, in support — the decision stays human.
Internal legal helpdesk
Answer the business teams' everyday questions (sales, purchasing, HR) and route them to the right person.
Summarising & document management
Summarise a bulky file and find a clause or a document in your document management system.
Coordination of the legal sub-agents
Research, contracts, litigation and monitoring are shared out between dedicated sub-agents, then brought together into a single file. The lawyer supervises: advice, decision and signature stay with them.
Controls and safeguards
These 6 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 arbitration of conflicts and irreversible decisions
Observability of costs, timescales, quality, failures and safe stop
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
What the agent must be connected to
These 2 connections are required for the agent to work. They concern your information system and are scoped during the audit.
Register of authorised agents and interface contracts
Connect an authorised legal database: corpus and licences supplied by the client, access rights, update frequency, date of the law consulted, traceable citation of sources and responsibility for validation. Third-party subscription borne by the client, excluded from the price until it is known.
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 documents & litigation
A litigation file is also won on command of its exhibits and observance of its time limits.
Legal document agent (litigation) from 750 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Contract generation
A contract is put together from elements you have already approved: a template, reference clauses, variants depending on the case.
Contract generation agent (templates) from 623 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Monitoring agent
Following competitors, the trade press and regulatory developments takes a steadiness that everyday work eats into.
Watch agent (competitors, press, regulation) from 479 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Regulatory control
A compliance check is worth what its consistency and its audit trail are worth: the same rule applied to every file, and the evidence of what was verified.
Compliance / regulatory control agent from 721 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Internal FAQ agent
The same questions come round: where to find a given form, what the rule is on a given subject, who to contact for what.
Internal FAQ agent (staff intranet) from 521 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
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 legal department win back?
By automating contract review, documentary research and file preparation, the lawyer redirects hours towards strategic advice to the business.
Reviewing a standard contract
Case-law research
Summarising a litigation file
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
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
Three options, one agent
A legal agent (research, contracts, litigation), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
12,595 € excl. VAT setup
then 930 € 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
1,630 € 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
17,710 € excl. VAT setup
then 1,202 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 5,500 € (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 a legal department
Your data never leaves the companyLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no contract or file entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawNative localisation and minimisation for your data; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The legal officer keeps the decisionThe agent produces verifiable research, summaries and drafts; no decision is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityFull traceability for legal research: monitoring, updates and logging compliant with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does AI respect the confidentiality of the company's data?
Yes, provided the data is never exposed to a third party. Our agents run on local inference within the company or are hosted in France on a dedicated, isolated resource: contracts, litigation files and strategic data do not leave a controlled environment and do not pass through a foreign service subject to the Cloud Act.
Can AI replace the in-house lawyer?
No. The agent is strictly in support: it speeds up research, contract review and litigation preparation, but the lawyer keeps the decision and the responsibility. Everything the AI produces has to be checked — which is also an AI Act requirement for legal uses.
Where is the legal department's data hosted?
Either on a machine belonging to the company (local inference, nothing leaves the network), or on a dedicated resource hosted in France, SecNumCloud-qualified for the most sensitive data. In both cases — local inference or SecNumCloud-qualified sovereign hosting — the data does not leave the European Union and stays covered by an architecture designed to reduce exposure to the American Cloud Act, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
How are the GDPR and the AI Act taken into account?
Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed. Native data localisation and minimisation (GDPR), encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging. The agent stays in support, with no automated decision, human oversight and traceability.
What concrete gains for a legal department?
Illustratively, and to be validated by a pilot: reviewing a standard contract cut from 1–2 hours to 15–20 minutes, case-law research from 1 hour to 15 minutes, summarising a litigation file from 2–3 hours to 30 minutes. The time freed up is redirected towards strategic advice to the business.
Do you need a large legal department to equip yourself?
No. The offer suits a sole lawyer just as well as a structured legal department — including as a way of reducing recourse to external firms on repetitive tasks.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a free 15-minute audit that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration with your tools (document management, contract management) and testing before going live and training your team.
Related industries & roles
Other legal contexts
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential for your legal department
15 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.