The “best” AI legal document drafting tool is the one that matches where you draft (Word, web app, or CLM), can stay within your confidentiality rules, and can produce reviewable output (trackable edits, linked sources when needed, and auditability). Use Word-integrated tools for clause work, research-grounded workflows when citations matter, and CLM tools for high-volume contracting, then lawyer-review every output.
Try CustomGPT with the 7-day free trial to build a controlled drafting assistant.
TL;DR
The “best” AI legal drafting tool depends on your specific workflow: use Word-integrated add-ins for clause edits, research-grounded engines for citation-heavy tasks, or CLM platforms for high-volume contracting. Essential features include strict confidentiality controls, audit logs, and the ability to produce verifiable, reviewable output rather than black-box drafts.
Select one workflow, run a controlled bake-off with three real documents, and test which tool produces the most policy-aligned results.
What Counts as an “AI Legal Drafting Tool”?
In this article, an “AI legal drafting tool” means software that helps you draft, revise, redline, or standardize legal documents (contracts, clauses, policies, briefs, letters). Tools vary widely in:
- Drafting surface: Word add-in vs browser vs CLM workflow
- Controls: templates, clause libraries, playbooks, jurisdiction constraints
- Evidence: whether the tool can provide linked sources/citations for claims
- Governance: retention, training use, admin controls, audit logs
Quick Chooser: Which Category Fits Your Workflow?
Use this matrix to match your drafting needs with the right tool category.
| Your Primary Workflow | Best-Fit Category | Why It Fits | What to Test First |
| Drafting/redlining in Word | Word-Integrated Drafting | Lowest switching cost; clause-level edits | Track-changes friendliness + “show what changed” |
| Drafting that requires authority support | Research-Grounded Drafting | Better for source-backed statements | Linked sources + reproducible cite-checking |
| High-volume NDAs/MSAs and negotiation flow | CLM / Contract Workflow Tools | Playbooks + process controls | Playbook adherence + deviation detection |
| General rewrites/summaries (low-risk) | General Assistants (Guarded) | Formatting and synthesis | Data boundaries + “no inventing” constraints |
Word-Integrated AI Tools for Drafting Inside Microsoft Word
These tools are best when your team already drafts in Word and needs faster clause drafting, redlines, and controlled rewrites.
Spellbook
Spellbook describes itself as using “tailored legal AI” to streamline drafting and review “directly in Word.”
Thomson Reuters CoCounsel Drafting
CoCounsel Drafting (Thomson Reuters) states you can access it “directly… in Microsoft Word” and describes the workflow as combining AI with “trusted Practical Law content.”
Lexis Create+
Lexis Create+ (LexisNexis) describes a drafting experience “in Microsoft 365,” fueled by firm content, LexisNexis sources, and Protégé, and notes Word/Outlook workflow support.
Drafting Controls to Require (Word-First):
- “Rewrite with constraints” (jurisdiction, term, party role, tone)
- Clause library / playbook alignment
- Output that is diffable (clear deltas, not a full rewrite)
- A “refuse/uncertain” mode when inputs don’t support an answer
Research-Grounded Drafting Workflows
Use this pattern for memos, policies, arguments, or regulated statements where you need to show what the draft is based on.
Minimum bar for “citations”:
- Links back to exact source passages, not just a bibliography
- Ability to restrict drafting to an approved library
- Output traceability (who prompted what; what sources were used)
CLM and High-Volume Contracting Workflows
If your work is dominated by NDAs/MSAs/vendor paper, you often need AI inside a controlled contracting process (intake → review → approvals → signature → repository).
Ironclad
Ironclad markets contract review capabilities within its CLM environment and references an AI assistant (“Jurist”) for contract review.
General Assistants
General assistants can help with formatting, summarization, rephrasing, and first-pass outlines, but you need an explicit policy for confidential data and verification.
Microsoft’s guidance for Copilot notes it respects existing permissions and states Copilot doesn’t train on your company’s data.
How to Choose an AI Legal Drafting Tool
Follow these steps to evaluate tools against your security requirements.
- Start with document types: contracts/clauses vs pleadings/briefs vs policies.
- Choose your drafting surface: Word-first vs web app vs CLM-first.
- Define your evidence requirement: Do you need linked authorities (citations) for outputs?
- Set a confidentiality rule-set: what can go into prompts; what cannot (PII, strategy, privileged matter facts).
- Demand admin controls: roles/permissions, workspace separation, and audit logs.
- Test drafting controls: templates, playbooks, clause libraries, and constraint-following.
- Run a bake-off: 3 real documents, measure time saved, error rate, and review time.
Confidentiality and Ethics
ABA Formal Opinion 512 emphasizes lawyers’ duties around competence, confidentiality, supervision, and verification when using generative AI tools.
Practical vendor due-diligence questions:
- Is customer data used to train models (first-party or third-party)?
- What is the default retention period for prompts, uploads, and outputs?
- Are data encrypted in transit/at rest, and can you scope access per matter/team?
- Do you get audit logs (who accessed what; what was generated)?
- Can you run in a private environment (if required), or restrict to approved sources?
How CustomGPT Fits into Firm-Controlled Drafting Workflows
If your goal is to draft from your firm’s own precedents and playbooks (instead of generic patterns), one viable approach is a RAG-style agent configured to answer from your approved library.
Implementation controls (docs):
- Require source attribution where appropriate: Activate Citations for Your AI Agent
- Standardize risk posture and drafting style: Persona Controls (How It Acts)
- Align retention with policy: Set Your Conversation Retention Period
Example: Drafting an NDA With AI Safely
Follow these steps to safely draft an NDA with human oversight.
- Start from an approved template (firm NDA or vetted standard).
- Ask AI to draft only the deltas (parties, term, jurisdiction, special carve-outs).
- Force structure: “Return sections; keep defined terms consistent; don’t invent concepts.”
- Compare clause-by-clause against your playbook (scope, exclusions, residuals, remedies).
- Request redlines + rationales, not a full rewrite.
- Lawyer review: confirm enforceability constraints and business alignment; finalize.
Common Mistakes and Edge Cases
Watch out for these pitfalls that compromise accuracy and confidentiality.
- Treating “citations” as optional when the document makes factual/legal assertions.
- Letting AI invent definitions, dates, or “standard” remedies not in your template.
- Uploading privileged matter facts into tools without a retention/training policy.
- Failing to test outputs against your own playbook (the tool may be fluent but wrong).
Conclusion
The best AI drafting tool is the one that matches your drafting surface, enforces constraint-following, and supports your confidentiality and verification requirements. The stakes are practical: the wrong choice increases review time and risk, even if drafting feels faster.
Pick one workflow (e.g., NDAs), run a small bake-off with controlled documents, and adopt only what produces reviewable, policy-aligned output with the 7-day free trial.
FAQ
Do I Need a Tool That Drafts “With Citations,” or Is That Overkill?
If your drafts include assertions that must be supported (policies, arguments, regulated statements), citations are not overkill, they’re your verification trail. “Citations” should mean linked passages to the exact sources used. If the tool can’t provide that, treat outputs as suggestions only and verify independently before relying on them.
Can I Use AI Drafting Tools With Confidential Client Information?
Only if your firm’s policy allows it and the vendor’s terms and technical controls match your confidentiality obligations. Minimum checks: retention period, whether prompts/uploads train models, encryption, access controls, and audit logs. If you can’t answer those, treat the tool as a vendor risk and avoid sharing sensitive matter facts.
How Does CustomGPT Change Drafting Compared to a General Chatbot?
A general chatbot may draft based on broad patterns; a CustomGPT-style agent can be configured to draft from your approved internal sources and enforce persona rules. The practical difference is controllability: you can require citations, constrain tone/risk posture, and align retention with policy using the platform’s controls and settings.
Can CustomGPT Be Set to Refuse When the Source Library Doesn’t Support a Clause?
Yes, configure the agent to cite sources and to respond with “I don’t know” or refuse when no supporting passage exists. This shifts the workflow from “confident drafting” to “drafting only when grounded,” which is usually safer for standardized clauses and playbook-driven edits.