⚖️
Wavn for Legal

AI your compliance team will actually approve.

Your partners want AI. Your compliance team banned ChatGPT. Wavn is the answer that satisfies both — built so client data never touches a model that shouldn't see it.

Compliance banned ChatGPT for a reason — and you still have contracts to review, research to run, and decisions to defend. You need AI that works inside the rules, not around them.

How Wavn helps legal

Built for the way you decide.

A defensible record of every call

Mark each conclusion as a decision, action, or open question. When a matter is reviewed months later, the reasoning and the sources are right there — an audit trail you didn't have to assemble.

Both sides of every clause

The Perspective Engine surfaces supporting and opposing precedent side by side. Run Rift and one engine argues a clause is acceptable while another argues it's a trap — before you advise the client.

The right engine for legal work

Perplexity pulls sourced research, Claude drafts and reframes, Cohere remembers the matter's history. You never paste confidential text into a consumer chatbot again.

No OpenAI

No OpenAI, no ToS problem

With no OpenAI anywhere in the stack, there's no consumer Terms of Service governing your client's confidential matters. Data isolation is architectural — documentable for your risk committee.

A day in Wavn

An associate weighs a risky clause.

A mid-size firm is reviewing an indemnification clause a client wants to accept. The associate isn't sure it's defensible. Here's how that hour looks in Wavn.

01
She writes the problem in plain language on the canvas — no prompt engineering, just the actual question.
02
Perplexity pulls sourced precedent; Claude reframes the real risk. Both stay on the canvas, cited.
03
She runs Rift — one engine argues the clause is acceptable, one argues it's a trap. She reads both.
04
She marks the decision. When the partner asks in six weeks, the full reasoning and sources are right there.

Illustrative scenario. Wavn is invite-only and pre-launch; no real client data depicted.

Indemnification — Project Atlas
Client wants to accept the broad indemnification clause in §8.2. I don't think it's defensible if the vendor's sub-processor has a breach. Am I overreacting?
Claude · Writing
You're not overreacting — you're spotting the gap. The clause makes your client liable for failures they don't control. The real question is who bears the risk of a sub-processor breach. That's negotiable, and worth negotiating.
Supports
Broad indemnity is common in vendor MSAs; pushing back may delay close by weeks.
Disputes
Uncapped sub-processor liability has driven large losses in recent breach cases.
Decision: Push for a liability cap tied to sub-processor scope before signing.
← See all the fields Wavn is built for