Roofing
$450,000
Roofing company
Exclusive · perpetual · full operating record
Your contract work and firm know-how can train legal AI, with the right consents.
Legal AI is built on documents, but what's scarce is the work between drafts: the redline, the fallback position, the approval, the note on why a clause changed. A legal department's own contract history holds that, and so does a law firm's know-how. A firm's client files are a different matter, and we treat them that way. We take an anonymized summary of what can be licensed to several buyers at once, and you choose the license.
Small commission on close. Nothing up front.
Usually held in
- Ironclad
- Docusign
- Clio
- MyCase
- Filevine
- Litify
- NetDocuments
- iManage Work
- Aderant Expert
- Elite 3E
- Onit
- SharePoint / OneDrive
What buyers pay for in legal.
Buyers value records that show a decision and what came of it more than they value finished paperwork. These are the parts of your record they look for.
Contract negotiation history
Issues lists, turn-by-turn redlines and the clause positions held or given up, tagged by deal type and how the deal ended. Signed contracts are easy to find; the negotiation that produced them is not.
Draft-to-final pairs
Version histories that show a first draft, the senior lawyer's markup and the final text. The edits, with the reasoning behind them, are what drafting and review tools learn from.
Playbooks, templates and clause libraries
Model forms, fallback positions, checklists and training material with no client facts in them. For a law firm, this is the material most likely to be licensable without client consent.
Legal requests and matter workflow
For a legal department: intake tickets, matter records, approvals and how long each request took. For a firm: intake, task and deadline workflows from matters whose clients consented, with client details removed inside the firm.
Time and billing structure
Time entries with task and activity codes, budgets against actuals, write-downs and rejected invoice lines. Coded or summarized billing data is far easier to license than raw narratives, which often reveal strategy. At a law firm these describe client matters, so they need the client's consent like any client work.
Compliance procedures
A company's own policies, compliance procedures and the questions employees asked about them, with the answers legal gave.
Systems that hold it and what to watch for.
This is where the record usually lives. Where we've written a data guide for a system, its card links to it, with steps to find out how much you have.
- IroncladContracts and e-signature
- DocusignContracts and e-signature
- ClioLegal practice management and billingRead the data guide
- MyCaseLegal practice management and billing
- FilevineLegal practice management and billingRead the data guide
- LitifyLegal practice management and billing
- NetDocumentsDocument management (DMS)Read the data guide
- iManage WorkDocument management (DMS)Read the data guide
- Aderant ExpertLegal practice management and billing
- Elite 3ELegal practice management and billing
- OnitLegal practice management and billingOutside counsel invoices describe your legal matters in their billing narratives and may be privileged, so your legal team decides what can be included.
- SharePoint / OneDriveFiles and documents
Who buys it and what they do with it.
We describe buyers by category and don't publish their names. Each one is qualified and under NDA before seeing your summary, and when they bid you see every offer side by side, with exclusivity, term and payment next to the price.
Contract drafting and review tools
Companies building AI that drafts, reviews and negotiates agreements. Redlines with the reviewer's reasoning, and a playbook's fallback positions, are what signed documents can't show them.
Legal operations and intake AI
Teams automating legal intake, routing and approvals. A real request queue shows them what business teams actually ask legal for, and how long each kind of request takes.
AI labs building professional-work evaluations
Labs testing agents on legal tasks want complete pieces of work: the inputs a lawyer had, what they produced and how a senior lawyer judged it.
Legal spend and billing-review AI
Builders of software that reviews outside-counsel bills and sets budgets. Coded time entries with the reviewer's decision attached are what they learn from.
What a package looks like to a buyer.
Before anyone signs, a buyer sees a summary shaped like this one. It is built from rounded ranges: no name, no website, no people, no addresses.
The numbers in this example are made up. Yours come from your intake and the review call, and you read the summary before any buyer does.
See the full processExample package · Legal
Illustrative- Sector
- In-house legal team at a B2B company
- Region
- Northeast US
- History
- 6+ years, continuous
- Record
- ~4.3K contract requests, ~2.5K signed agreements with redline history, ~150 template versions
- Mix
- ~65% customer contracts, ~35% vendor and procurement
- In scope
- Request queue, redlines, approvals, playbooks and templates
- Left out
- Privileged advice, litigation files, employee matters, counterparty names
What stays out by default.
Some records aren't yours to license, and some shouldn't leave the building. Intake and the review call bring these up early. The main ones for this industry are below.
Privileged advice and open matters
Legal advice, strategy and opinion work product on open matters, or on anything likely to be litigated, stay out. The privilege belongs to the client, and a voluntary disclosure to an outsider can waive it.
Client files without consent
For law firms, documents a client supplied and work product about a client's matter are considered only with that client's documented consent, matter by matter, under ABA Model Rule 1.6 and your state's version of it.
Protective-order, sealed and opposing-party material
Anything designated under a protective order, sealed filings and documents produced by the other side stay out. That rules out most of what sits in an e-discovery platform.
Research and publisher content
Headnotes, annotations and practice-guide text from research services belong to their publishers. A federal appeals court held in 2026 that copying headnotes to train a competing legal research tool was not fair use (Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, 3d Cir.). Your own analysis around them can be in scope.
Sensitive practice areas and health records
Criminal, family, immigration, Social Security and juvenile matters, anything involving minors, and medical records in injury files are excluded by default, even de-identified. Federal courts already limit remote public access to the case files in Social Security and immigration cases (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c)).
Counterparty and market-sensitive material
Drafts covered by a counterparty's NDA or confidentiality clause stay out until those terms are checked, and deal files from before a public announcement stay out entirely.
This is not legal advice. Whether a record can be licensed depends on your contracts, your software terms and how it was collected, and your counsel should review any license before you sign. The rules named on this page are linked under Sources.
Licenses in our network closed by buyers, not by us.
Recent licenses of operating records, closed by buyers in our network. They come from trades and services businesses rather than this industry, so read them as a sense of the market and nothing more.
Construction
$300,000
General contractor
Exclusive · 24-month term · full operating record
Solar
$275,000
Solar company
Exclusive · 18-month term · full operating record
Marketing
$110,000
Agency with global clients
Exclusive · 24-month term · full operating record
Licenses closed by buyers in our network, shown to describe the market. They are not deals thedata.broker brokered and not a forecast of what your record will bring. Every record is priced on its own.
Legal questions worth settling early.
More in Answers, or ask us on a call after your intake.
Only with the client's informed consent, and usually matter by matter. ABA Model Rule 1.6 bars revealing information relating to a representation without informed consent, even information that appears in a public record (ABA Formal Opinion 480). Rule 1.8(b) bars using it to the client's disadvantage without informed consent, and Rule 1.9(c) carries both duties over to former clients. ABA Formal Opinion 512 adds that general language in an engagement letter isn't enough consent to put client information into a self-learning AI tool. A firm can start with know-how that holds no client information and add consented matters later. Your state's rules may be stricter. This is not legal advice.
Yes. In-house lawyers represent the company (ABA Model Rule 1.13), so the company can decide to license its legal department's records, with approval at the right level. The open questions are the company's own: privilege over legal advice, counterparties' confidentiality clauses, market-sensitive deal files and employee matters. This is not legal advice.
No. Removing names isn't the test. The ABA's standard for discussing client matters as hypotheticals is that there must be no reasonable likelihood anyone could identify the client or the situation (Model Rule 1.6, Comment 4), and litigation facts are easy to match to public dockets. Whether de-identified material meets that standard is a judgment for your ethics counsel, not something a redaction tool settles, and it doesn't replace consent: nothing drawn from a client's matters comes to us without it. This is not legal advice.
It could. The privilege belongs to the client, and voluntarily disclosing privileged communications to an outsider generally waives it, sometimes for related communications too. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 limits that only for disclosures made in a court proceeding or to a federal office or agency, which a license isn't. That is why privileged advice and open matters are excluded, and closed-matter material is considered only with the client's consent after that risk has been explained. This is not legal advice.
Possibly. The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (§60) says a lawyer who uses a client's confidential information for the lawyer's own gain outside the practice of law must account to the client for any profits. A consent request should explain the commercial purpose plainly, and your ethics counsel can advise on sharing proceeds. This is not legal advice.
We are paid a small commission out of a deal that closes. If nothing closes, you owe nothing. You keep ownership of your records and keep using them.
Sources
Primary sources for the rules this page names. Summaries above are not legal advice.
- ABA Model Rule 1.6: confidentiality of information (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Model Rule 1.6, Comments: hypotheticals (Comment 4) (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Model Rule 1.8: use of client information, paragraph (b) (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Model Rule 1.9: duties to former clients (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Model Rule 1.13: organization as client (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Formal Opinion 480: public commentary and information in public records (opens in a new tab)
- ABA Formal Opinion 512: generative AI tools (opens in a new tab)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 502: limits on waiver of privilege (opens in a new tab)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2: remote access to Social Security and immigration case files, paragraph (c) (opens in a new tab)
- Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2026): headnotes and fair use (opens in a new tab)
Not quite your business?
See every industry we take on, the business functions buyers ask for, and which records need special handling.