If you review contracts, you almost always end up working in Microsoft Word. And that’s exactly where most friction happens: version chaos, copy-paste, broken formatting, wrong numbering, and the tedious task of inserting standard clauses. Legal AI can help a lot here – as long as it doesn’t live next to the document, but inside the document.

In this article, I’ll walk through three workflows that have proven especially effective in law firms and in-house teams: Benchmark, Proofread, and Chat Actions – each focused on how this works efficiently and transparently with the CASUS Word add-in.

Why “in Word” is the decisive difference

Where time is lost in real life

Most teams don’t lose time on the “thinking” part, but on everything in between. You’ll recognize a few typical situations:

You get the third version of a contract, you need to track changes and, at the same time, check whether new risks have been introduced. Or a tool suggests wording, you copy it into Word, and suddenly the numbering is off, the style becomes inconsistent, or cross-references don’t match anymore. Add comments, internal alignment, and the constant back-and-forth between “analysis” and “execution”.

That creates a pattern: AI generates text, but you still have to do the actual work manually – inserting, placing, formatting, and making everything consistent.

What a Word workflow has to deliver

A truly productive legal-AI workflow in Word needs to cover three things cleanly:

First, placement: Changes must happen in the right spot – not somewhere in a separate chat response.

Second, structure: Numbering, styles, and document logic must not break.

Third, traceability: You need to understand why an issue is flagged and where it comes from – ideally with clear locations so you can verify quickly.

When these three are in place, legal AI stops being “just another tool” and becomes a real accelerator inside the existing workflow.

Workflow 1: Benchmark – Check contracts against your standard

Where benchmarking delivers the most value

Benchmarking is the fastest way to turn “we have standards” into a scalable process. It’s especially strong for contract types that show up frequently and where teams have clear preferences: NDAs, DPAs, MSAs/service agreements, and, depending on team size, SPAs or other transaction documents.

The core benefit: you’re not measuring a document against gut feeling, but against a defined reference standard. That’s hugely helpful when multiple people review, when new team members join, or when you want to document cleanly why a deviation was accepted.

How it works in Word

You select your standard (for example, NDA Playbook) in the “Review” tab under “Benchmark” and run the check. You then see the deviations in a structured way – and can insert missing or differing clauses directly into Word, instead of copying them out of a chat response.

Important: the value isn’t just the list. It’s that you can move from “insight” to “change” immediately – without formatting chaos and without having to reassemble everything from scratch in every new version. And it lands with correct formatting and numbering, either as text or as markup.

What the result should show

A good benchmark output should give you a clear situation picture fast:

How close is the contract to the standard? Which clauses are missing entirely? Where does something deviate – and is it critical or just stylistic? Ideally, it prioritizes issues so you don’t treat 30 points the same, but address what has the biggest impact on risk, negotiation, or quality first.

It also improves internal communication: “We’re 85% aligned with the standard, and the remaining 15% are intentional deviations because of X.” That’s operationally useful and helps with stakeholder management.

Typical mistakes without benchmarking

Without benchmarking, two things happen almost automatically. First, standards become inconsistent: one associate uses an older template clause, another uses a slightly different one, and suddenly you have ten “standards”. Second, onboarding gets harder: new team members don’t know what’s “normal for us” and review either too strictly or too loosely.

Benchmarking acts like an internal quality net. It ensures standards don’t just exist, but are actually applied in day-to-day work – without every person needing to memorize them.

Workflow 2: Proofread – Secure consistency, references, and logic automatically

Why proofreading contracts is more than spelling

Proofreading is often underestimated because people think about grammar. In contracts, the expensive errors are usually different: a definition is used differently in two places, a reference points nowhere, numbering breaks, or two clauses subtly contradict each other.

These issues look small but cost a lot: more questions, less confidence, extra iterations – and in the worst case, interpretation gaps you wanted to avoid.

The most important checks in daily practice

A solid proofread workflow focuses on the typical quality traps:

Definitions must be used consistently. Cross-references must work – even after edits or insertions. Numbering needs to remain clean, especially when sections have been moved around. And contradictions should surface, for example when one clause sets a term that’s handled differently elsewhere.

In long documents, that’s exactly where human attention starts to fade.

How it works in Word

The efficient flow is simple: Proofread finds issues, shows you where they are (with a locator in the document), explains briefly why it’s a problem – and offers a clean correction you can apply directly in the document.

Again, the key is the Word context: if fixes happen in Word, structure and formatting stay intact. You avoid inserting a “good” correction that accidentally creates new inconsistencies.

When Proofread has the highest ROI

Proofread delivers the most ROI in the situations everyone knows: very long contracts, many versions, or tight deadlines right before signing. Near the end, people often just “scroll through” because everyone’s tired and the document feels “basically done”.

A clean proofread step before sending is often the difference between “we’re confident” and “we only noticed after sending that…”. That calm is worth a lot in practice.

Workflow 3: Chat Action – “Insert clause X”

The difference: chat responds vs. chat acts in the document

Many tools can spit out a clause. That’s nice – but it’s not a workflow. The real breakthrough is when chat doesn’t just respond, but acts: it places the clause in the right location, in the right style, with correct numbering.

That changes the dynamic. Instead of collecting text suggestions, you work directly in the document. Chat becomes the assistant that takes execution off your plate while you make the legal decisions.

How it works in Word

The flow is intentionally simple: you enter a prompt like “Insert a confidentiality clause” or “Add governing law” – and ideally add two details: where it should go and what style fits (neutral/stricter/balanced).

The AI then doesn’t just draft text, it inserts it into the document. Structure, numbering, and formatting remain intact because the change is applied Word-native. You review, tweak if needed – and you’re done.

This is especially helpful for recurring building blocks you need across many documents, but usually have to fit in manually every single time.

FAQ: The most common questions about the CASUS Word add-in

“How secure is it?”

For contracts, what matters is data flows, storage, access controls, and clear governance. Use legal AI only in an environment you can justify internally and to clients or stakeholders. With CASUS all your data is secure.

“How much setup does it take?”

Ideally, very little. If it’s available as a Word add-in, installation should take just a few minutes – here you can find the installation guide for the CASUS Word Add-in.

“Does it replace legal review?”

No. Legal AI speeds up analysis, structuring, and execution – but legal judgment stays with humans. Think of AI as a second pair of eyes and a workflow booster, not a replacement for responsibility and expertise. Here is another post on this matter.

“Which teams benefit first?”

The fastest wins come for teams that regularly review similar documents and touch the same patterns again and again: small to mid-sized law firms, in-house teams with high contract volume, or teams with clear playbooks/standards. If you work under time pressure, deal with many versions, or constantly insert standard clauses, the Word-native workflow is especially valuable.