01
Clause research
Find candidate clauses and read the supporting passages in their own context.
Legal
Legal document research with inspectable sources
Marella answers questions across your matter files, precedents and playbooks, with the passages behind an answer attached so a lawyer can check the source. Run it over the documents that cause trouble: the bad scans, the questions your files do not answer, the clauses that contradict each other.
Marella · Legal
PrivateWhich of our precedents cover delayed practical completion?
Three precedents apply. The closest matches your amended JCT position on liquidated damages at clause 2.29,
¶ Precedent bank · 2.29Synthetic example · not customer data or professional advice
PrivilegeInformation barriersSRAUK GDPR
The problems your teams face
01
Large document sets
The wording that settles a question can sit anywhere across the agreements, schedules, correspondence and later amendments.
02
Precedent drift
Teams need to know which version an answer came from, which matter it belonged to and whether anyone approved it.
03
Professional judgement
A qualified reviewer still has to read the sources, however good the summary in front of them is.
How Marella fits
02
Matter chronology
Build a source-linked sequence from an approved document set.
03
Playbook comparison
Compare document wording against your review framework and leave the call to the reviewer.
04
Where responsibility stays
Marella does not provide legal advice or replace a qualified lawyer. It supports research and analysis for human review.
What your evaluation should ask
Take one legal workflow you already run, and test three things: do the source links hold up, does it say so when your documents do not cover the question, and will your reviewer sign off on the controls.
Frequently asked questions
How can AI improve legal department efficiency?
For an in-house legal team, most of the gain is in retrieval rather than drafting. Questions that currently mean reading across agreements, schedules, correspondence and amendments come back with the supporting passages attached, so the reviewer starts from the evidence instead of hunting for it. The review itself still happens.
How are matters kept separate when a system searches across the firm's documents?
Access has to be enforced at the point passages are retrieved, because an answer can carry content it never cites, and filtering the results afterwards is too late to help. Test it directly: take a document away from a user, then ask a question only that document can answer.
Is this a substitute for a legal research tool?
No. Marella holds no case-law document set and no precedent bank. It answers over the documents your organisation already holds. For research into authority outside your own files, a publisher-backed legal research product is the right purchase.
See Marella on legal documents
We run the demo on documents like yours, so your reviewers can check the citations and the controls themselves.