Precedent & clause search
Precedent and clause search makes your own back catalogue usable. A lawyer describes the clause or the position they need, and the agent returns the agreements that contain it, how the wording varied and which matter each came from. Every result links to the original document, so the clause is read in context rather than lifted from a summary.
Step by step
Describe the clause you need
The lawyer describes the position in plain terms, without needing the wording used the last time.
Search matters and contracts
The matter library, executed agreements and policy documents are searched under the lawyer's existing permissions.
Compare the variants found
The wording used across agreements is set side by side, so the drift between versions is visible at a glance.
Show the surrounding context
Each result shows the definitions and cross-references the clause depends on, because a clause read alone is often read wrongly.
Note the counterparty and date
Every variant carries the matter, the counterparty type and the date, so a lawyer can judge how negotiable a position proved to be.
Lawyer opens the source document
Results link to the original agreement and the lawyer reads it there. The agent writes nothing back and sends nothing out.
Exactly what this agent can see, touch and change
The same five controls sit behind every ollo agent. These are this one's settings — visible before you build it, not buried in an admin screen afterwards.
Context
What reaches the modelAssociates drafting against a deadline, and in-house teams whose precedent bank is really a folder of executed PDFs nobody has indexed.
Escalation
When it asks a personThis agent changes nothing outside ollo, so it runs without an approval gate. Its output is still cited and reviewable.
Applications & Rights
Which tools it uses, and what it may do in each
SharePointRead only
Google DriveRead only
DropboxRead only
ConfluenceRead onlyVerification
How you know it’s rightEvery claim links to the document it came from. A statement the agent cannot cite does not make it into the output — which is what makes the result reviewable in minutes rather than re-read end to end.
Who it’s for
Associates drafting against a deadline, and in-house teams whose precedent bank is really a folder of executed PDFs nobody has indexed.
What you’ll need
- Matter library connected
- Permissions mapped by team
- Document naming conventions understood
- Confidentiality restrictions recorded
What you get
- A ranked set of matching clauses
- A comparison of wording variants
- A link to each source agreement
What it doesn’t do
It finds and compares wording. It does not tell you which clause to use, whether a position is enforceable, or how a court would read it.
We build the first one with you
Not a template you configure alone. We sit with your team, build it on real data, and hand over the controls.
Scope
One session with the people who actually do the work. We agree what the agent reads, what it may write, and who approves.
Co-build
Built on your own data, not a sandbox. You watch it being made, so you know why it behaves the way it does.
Handover
You own the controls. Change the context, tighten the rights, move the approval gate — without coming back to us.
Parts of the work currently spread across the categories below. It does not replace any of those products outright.
Frequently asked
Can it search documents that were scanned?
Yes. Executed agreements returned as scans are indexed and searched alongside native files, and the result points at the page. Where the scan quality is poor the extract is marked as uncertain so the lawyer checks the original.
Will an associate see a matter they are not on?
Only if your access rules already allow it. The agent searches with the permissions of the person asking, so a restricted matter simply does not appear in their results.
Does it draft the clause for us?
No. This one finds and compares; drafting and markup are a separate agent with a lawyer approving the output. Keeping retrieval and drafting apart makes it obvious which output has been checked by a person.
How does it handle wording that is now out of date?
Results carry the date and the matter, and the agent shows how the wording has changed over time rather than presenting one version as the house standard. Which position is current is a judgment for the team, and most firms use the comparison to work out where that drift has happened.