The matter, the client and the paper in one place

Legal work fragments across email, attachments, a document manager and an e-sign vendor, and the real state of the matter lives in someone's head. Paqt puts the conversation, the instrument, the negotiation and the signature in a single room — and gives you an assistant that works inside your own precedent.

Where legal time actually disappears

Very little of it is judgement. Most of it is moving a document between tools and reconstructing what was agreed.

  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: The current version is whichever attachment someone opened last
  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: Negotiations happen in prose, then get transcribed into the document by hand
  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: Approval is an email that says "fine by me" with no link to what was approved
  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: Reconstructing who agreed to what means reading six months of threads
  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: Precedent lives in a folder nobody searches because search does not work
  • Email, attachments and an e-sign tab: Signature means exporting to a third tool and losing the thread
  • One room per matter: One live instrument with every version addressable and diffable
  • One room per matter: Redlines land on the clause, applied by whoever proposed them
  • One room per matter: Approvals attach to the exact version and signer, permanently
  • One room per matter: The history reconstructs itself — timestamped and tamper-evident
  • One room per matter: Your precedent becomes a clause library the assistant drafts from
  • One room per matter: Signing happens in the room, against the version that was agreed

Built for the work you actually repeat

The assistant is most useful where volume meets precedent: the documents your firm produces hundreds of times with small variations.

  • Engagement letters and retainers — Drafted from your own precedent with scope, fees and schedules filled from the client conversation — then checked against what you actually quoted.
  • Commercial agreements — Assemble from a clause library your firm controls, so every draft starts from language a partner has already blessed.
  • Review and risk triage — Inbound paper comes back summarized by exposure: what deviates from your standard, what the deviation costs, and what to ask for instead.
  • Obligations and dates — Terms, renewal windows, notice periods and conditions are extracted from the executed document so nothing depends on a diarised reminder.
  • Multi-party matters — Co-counsel, clients and counterparties work in the same room with per-party visibility, so nobody is reading a forwarded copy.
  • Evidence and discovery — Export a court-ready package of the conversation, every version, the negotiation log and the signature audit in one file.

An assistant that drafts from your precedent

A general-purpose model guesses at your house style. Paqt's assistant works from the clause library and templates your firm maintains, and escalates the moment a matter needs judgement rather than language.

  • Grounded in your library — Drafting pulls from clauses your firm has approved. The assistant proposes language from precedent instead of inventing it.
  • Bound by a mandate — You define which deviations are acceptable on standard paper. Anything beyond that stops and comes to a lawyer.
  • Executes, not just suggests — It opens the negotiation, applies the redline, requests the approval and sends for signature — the whole sequence, not the first step.
  • Supervision that scales — Review items arrive as decisions with a one-paragraph brief, so a partner can clear a queue instead of reading transcripts.

The controls a legal practice cannot trade away

Adopting AI inside a practice is a question about evidence and privilege before it is a question about drafting speed.

  • Evidence: Every document version addressable and diffable
  • Evidence: Timestamped, tamper-evident agreement history
  • Evidence: Signer identity captured against the signed version
  • Evidence: Court-ready export of the full record
  • Control: Per-party visibility inside a shared room
  • Control: Approval gates on anything outside a mandate
  • Control: Organization-wide kill switch for all agents
  • Control: Scoped credentials for any external agent
  • Ownership: Your clause library and templates stay yours
  • Ownership: Shadow mode to evaluate before you rely on it
  • Ownership: Agent actions attributed in the room timeline
  • Ownership: Export your matter record whenever you want

What legal teams press us on

  • Is Paqt giving legal advice? No. Paqt is software, not a law firm, and the assistant does not practise law. It drafts from precedent you supply, surfaces deviations against standards you define, and escalates judgement calls to a qualified human. The lawyer remains the lawyer.
  • Can the assistant send something to a client without review? Only if you configure it that way. Shadow mode drafts everything for approval and nothing reaches the counterparty. Supervised mode acts within a mandate and escalates anything outside it. The level is yours to set per playbook.
  • What happens to our precedent? It stays your clause library. The assistant drafts from it, and you can export it. Templates and clauses you author are yours — the marketplace listings you choose to publish are the only ones that leave your workspace.
  • How does this sit with our document management system? Paqt is the room where the agreement is negotiated and executed, and the complete record exports as a single package you can file wherever your practice already keeps matters.