Skip to content
Legora logo

Legora

An AI workspace for law firms and in-house legal teams to research legal questions, draft and review contracts, and extract information from large document sets.

4.0
Visit website (opens in a new tab)

Benchmark results

Not benchmarked

This application has not been benchmarked yet.

Details

Use cases
  • Contract drafting and redlining
  • Legal research
  • Data extraction
Built for
  • In-house legal teams
  • Law firms
Website
legora.com (opens in a new tab)
Founded
2023

Verified reviews

AI summary of reviews

Reviewers say Legora helps them review documents, draft clauses and research faster, leaving time for other work. They like finding key details in large files and editing contracts in Word. Some want better answers and writing, better file and team tools, and lower costs for small firms; one says Agent Mode misses instructions.

4.0 / 56 verified reviews

Overall rating

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor

Robby Reggers (opens in a new tab)

AMST Legal

Lawyer or legal adviser · Team size: 6 to 20 · Used for more than 2 years ·

4.0Good
Problems solved
I run a small commercial contracts & general counsel practice (AMST Legal, Amsterdam and Stockholm), working as external in-house counsel for Tech, SaaS and Professional services clients. Legora helps me the most with four recurring jobs. 1. Drafting first drafts of contract clauses (I generally don't use it for full conytracts), which I then refine. 2. Negotiation rounds: replying to and explaining comments in a counterparty's markup, where the Word add-in (most valuable part of Legora) lets me review, comment and redline inside the document instead of copying text in and out of a chat window. 4. Highlighting the main risks & issues in a contract with a recommendation how to solve these 4. research on a subject that is new to me, turned into a memo or client email with the right structure and tone. The benefit is that I can do these 4 items much quicker, therefore a lower cost per matter for my clients, while the judgment stays with the lawyer.
What could improve
Overall I am happy with it. Three things would make it a much stronger fit for a practice like mine. 1. Ease of use: it is less intuitive than Frontie models like Claude and takes more steps to get to the same result. Document handling is the clearest example: files have to be uploaded and as far as I know there is no way to build/work in folders like in Claude co-work 2. Fit beyond M&A: it seems that (and I hear a lot in the market) that much of the project and workflow functionality is built around due diligence and transactions. I do not do M&A, so for commercial contracting and outside GC work the extra value over a general tool is smaller than it could be, even though I can see the ambition in what is being built. 3. Team access and price: per-seat pricing makes it hard to justify rolling it out to everyone in a small firm, so it stays with one or two users instead of becoming the way the whole team works. Legora is very good inside the document. The gap is everything around the document: folders, matters, team access and price. A small-firm plan, better document (and presentation options) and folder handling, and integration with where our files already live would close most of it.

Verified user

Lawyer or legal adviser · Team size: 21 to 50 · Used for 1 to 2 years ·

4.0Good
Problems solved
Legora helps address several of the most time-consuming challenges in legal practice: reviewing and analysing large volumes of documents, identifying relevant information across multiple sources, conducting legal research, and preparing complex legal documents. Its value lies not simply in automating individual tasks, but in providing a flexible environment where AI can assist with different stages of legal work without imposing rigid, standardized workflows on processes that are inherently complex and often non-linear. In my experience, legal work rarely follows a predictable sequence, and the same task can require very different approaches depending on the jurisdiction, the documents involved, and the commercial context. The ability to work with source documents, tailor instructions to specific matters, and use AI selectively for research, extraction, analysis, and drafting can significantly reduce the time spent on preparatory work. Equally important is the ability to verify AI-generated outputs, trace conclusions back to their sources, and retain control over the legal reasoning. In accurately extracting information, Legora is the best solution out of over 10 solutions I have tested. Ultimately, the benefit for me is not replacing legal judgment with automation, but making legal work more efficient while preserving the accuracy, flexibility, and professional oversight that complex matters require.
What could improve
I think one of the main areas for improvement is the flexibility and reliability of AI agents. In my experience, complex legal processes rarely follow standardized, linear workflows. I would therefore favour highly capable, task-specific agents that lawyers can configure and deploy independently, with greater control over their instructions, sources, and scope of analysis, rather than relying predominantly on predefined end-to-end automation. The Agent Mode, in particular, still requires significant improvement. At present, I do not find it sufficiently reliable for tasks that involve navigating documents and actually implementing all requested changes. Although its ability to process large volumes of documents has improved considerably, this introduces another problem: as the number of documents increases, its ability to follow instructions consistently appears to deteriorate. It sometimes disregards explicit instructions and enters repetitive loops in which it continues to make the same mistakes despite being instructed to correct them. This substantially reduces its usefulness for complex, document-intensive legal work. Another area of concern is the quality of legal drafting. In my experience, Legora's ability to produce sophisticated legal opinions in the precise, nuanced language expected of an experienced practising lawyer has declined over recent months, particularly following changes to the underlying model. For legal professionals, drafting quality is not merely a matter of style: the ability to articulate complex legal reasoning accurately, coherently and with the appropriate legal terminology is essential.

Verified user

Lawyer or legal adviser · Team size: 21 to 50 · Used for 3 to 12 months ·

5.0Excellent
Problems solved
Greatly increased speed of doing first-cut review, drafting, translation, digesting of voluminous documents etc. It also does a decent job of proof-reading & formatti by of documents. This frees up time to do more higher-level critical thinking and freeing up capacity for more tasks.
What could improve
1. Collaborative aspects not well developed, usage is largely still on a personal level. 2. More powerful if Legora can run locally instead of being web-based. If the documents are uploaded for each new chat/task, it is difficult to keep track of what documents have been uploaded and the same document may be uploaded multiple times across different chats.
Add a review