Drafting & Summarization for Legal

Drafting and Summarization workflows ask the system to produce first drafts: compliance memos, regulatory filings, briefing notes, clinical summaries, contract abstracts. The work is faster when the model writes the first version, but the accuracy of the draft determines whether the reviewer's edit is targeted (correcting a few claims) or exhaustive (rewriting from scratch).

Citorum produces drafts with every claim traceable to the source span the model drew from. Adjudication scores each section before the draft returns, so the reviewer sees which sections are Verified, which are Review Recommended (worth a sanity check), and which are Do Not Rely (worth rewriting from source). Reviewers report that the targeted-edit pattern is two to four times faster than reviewing an unverified draft, because the labels tell them where to focus attention.

Legal teams operate under a regime that demands provenance for every claim. Citorum runs inside the firm or in-house environment and indexes the matter files, contracts, depositions, regulatory bulletins, and case-law sources the team already maintains. Retrieval is hybrid — vector and full-text search combined with metadata filtering on matter, jurisdiction, privilege class, and access-control attributes — so a paralegal sees only the documents they're cleared to see.

Every answer carries citations to the specific document spans the model drew from, plus a faithfulness label. Verified — Cite Source for answers grounded in the corpus, Review Recommended for ambiguous responses that an attorney should sanity-check, and Do Not Rely — Consult Expert when the corpus didn't actually support the answer or sources contradicted it. The audit log captures the full lineage so an opposing counsel's discovery request, an internal compliance review, or a malpractice inquiry can reconstruct exactly what was retrieved, what was sent to the model, what came back, and who asked.