Harvard/MIT Collaborative Startup Klarity Brings New Blood to Contract Analysis
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based startup offers contract analysis to businesses looking to screen sales agreements.
February 16, 2018 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Zapp2Photo/Shutterstock.com.
Legal industry experts often predict the next generation of lawyers, younger people who have grown up with and around technology, will usher in a new wave of innovation for the practice of law.
That's certainly the intention for Andrew Antos, a Czech Republic native who recently completed his Master of Laws at Harvard Law School. After spending a few years doing technology-centered M&A work at Squire Patton Boggs in Prague as a registered legal trainee, effectively a junior associate, Antos saw some obvious uses for technology in modern legal practice. He decided to pursue the matter by applying to U.S.-based LL.M. programs, landing eventually at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country.
It wasn't really Harvard, however, that Antos was after. “The first thing I did when I got to Harvard was to cross-register at MIT,” he said.
Antos took a “New Enterprises” course at MIT, where he ended up working with computer science major Nischal Nadhamuni on a classlong project applying natural language processing and artificial intelligence to contracts.
That class project became the basis for Klarity, a new contract analysis startup that Antos, Nadhamuni and MIT senior Logan Ford hope to push into the legal sphere. Klarity is a cloud-based tool that reads through contracts and matches them to company contractual standards to help companies determine whether a contract can be signed or needs further review.
Antos explained, “One of the things we find is a really pressing need is the sales side for [business-to-business] companies when they're negotiating custom contracts with different customers.” Often, he said, companies find sales contracts tied in legal review, even while corporate legal teams are simply looking to see if contracts meet simple standardized criteria.
As a result, Klarity's target market bypasses Big Law and aims straight at corporate legal departments. “It's typically mid- to large corporations, mostly in the enterprise software and tech space. We're optimizing their sales and legal operations,” he said.
Parsing and analyzing contract data is quickly become a fairly crowded field within legal technology—companies like LegalSifter, LawGeex, Kira Systems, Microsystems, eBrevia and Luminance, not to mention long-standing legal technology vendors like LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters, have all taken various approaches to contract analysis in products released over the last few years.
Klarity hopes to differentiate itself through specific industry focus. The tool looks primarily at sales-side agreements, like nondisclosure agreements, which Antos believes gives the company the ability to refine and expedite processing. “When you focus on the industry vertical, you can go very much in depth; you can streamline,” Antos noted.
The product also integrates into Microsoft Office, where attorneys still do the vast majority of their work. “All the competing products in the space have their own [user interfaces] that compete for your time and your screen real estate, whereas we're just in the background,” he said.
Antos has high hopes for Klarity's technology into the future. The company is already experimenting with using its technology to help blockchain-based smart contract companies convert contract data into functional formats. The company also sees some potential down the line to act as an arbiter between company policy standards, easing the burden on attorneys to do intense contract negotiation for every agreement.
“The more data you have about what's acceptable to different companies on both sides, you can start offering services where you can generate contracts for companies because you can cross-match their policies,” Antos said.
“Ultimately we see ourselves becoming a clearinghouse for legal operations. There's so much time spent on even negotiating the most simple things,” Antos added.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250