Legal context is the new IP

According to Jan Roggen, VP of Growth at ClauseBase, law firms don’t sell text. They sell judgment grounded in context. And law firms that capture this hidden knowledge, will win the next decade.

The illusion of intelligence 
You open the contract. Click “Review with AI”. A few risks are flagged. A summary appears. The redlines look smart, but something’s off. It missed that this is a renewal. It missed what was agreed to last time. It missed what procurement already approved.
That’s when you realize: This thing has no memory. No judgment. No idea what it doesn’t know. And it behaves like a fancy intern.

The narrative: Lawyers are the problem 
We’ve all heard it. Lawyers are too slow to adopt tech. They’re perfectionists. Resistant to change. Stuck in their ways. In this story, GenAI is the fix: a smarter, faster assistant to automate the boring stuff, suggest fallback clauses, and surface key risks. If only legal teams would get out of the way.

The reality: AI doesn’t know what it doesn’t know 
But here’s the thing: most lawyers aren’t resisting change anymore. A majority of law firms and in-house legal teams are now adopting GenAI tools to review and draft contracts. And they’re making real progress. But they’re also struggling. Not because they lack vision, but because the tools lack context.
Because GenAI doesn’t know:

• where the deal came from

• what matters most to your client

• what’s already been negotiated

• or how the people at the table feel about each other

It lacks phronesis: the practical judgment that lawyers apply instinctively in complex, high-stakes, context-rich situations.

The layers of context lawyers use without thinking
Every experienced lawyer brings four invisible layers to the table:

1. Negotiation context: Where are we in the process? Do we need to close or are we willing to walk? What’s the objective: speed, risk reduction, leverage?
2. Organizational context: What’s our risk appetite? How fast do we need to move? Are we negotiating with Microsoft, or a local vendor?
3. Relational context: What’s the history with this party? What was accepted last time? What got escalated?
4. Emotional context: Who’s in the room? Is there trust? Tension? Power imbalance?

None of this lives in your document. All of it shapes the outcome. And yet: Current GenAI tools review the clause, but not the situation.

The hidden goldmine: context hides in plain sight 
But legal teams already have this knowledge. It’s just scattered. It lives in:

• comments, track changes, Teams messages, emails, and folders named “Round 3 – FINAL v8”

• conversations at the coffee machine

• the heads of people who’ve “been here before”

This lack of contextual awareness in AI tools isn’t a knowledge management problem. It’s a context awareness problem. We’re not asking, “What did we learn from this negotiation?” We’re just asking, “Is the markup clean enough to send?”

The cost of lost context 
As long as we fail to capture this context, we lose:

• judgment history: what got pushed, what got dropped

• escalation patterns: what needed approval, and why

• fallback logic: what was used and when

• tone and temperature: how hard we pushed, how fast we moved

And here’s the quiet truth we’ve normalized: We accept that this judgment walks out the door when people leave. Not just facts. Not templates. But hard-earned, situational fluency. Because we never captured it, we can’t scale it, reuse it, or train GenAI on it.

And until we find better ways to capture it, we’ll need legal drafting tools with the lawyer in control, right where they work: in MS Word, combining GenAI with structured legal knowledge. Tools like ClauseBase are already doing exactly that.

Context is the real IP 
Ask a senior lawyer how they redline, and they won’t quote a playbook. They’ll say things like: “We pushed this last time, and it blew up.” “This clause never survives with Pharma clients.” “I know what Procurement will flag.”

That’s not just experience. That’s IP. It’s unique to your firm. Built over time. Hard to replicate; even with the best tools. But still trapped in people.

What if we treated it like a product?
So, what if fallback logic, escalation history, and decision nuance were versioned, structured, and shared like software? And what if we capture the years of experience in the heads of senior lawyers? This isn’t more documentation. It’s strategic capture, for humans and for AI. GenAI doesn’t need more content. It needs better fuel.

Firms are already doing it  
Firms like Kingsley Napley are building internal “knowledge exchanges” that move beyond precedent libraries; structuring context, capturing judgment, and making it available to AI and humans alike. Others are:

• tagging fallback clauses to internal risk levels

• building “what we usually do” indexes by contract type

• creating decision maps tied to role or client profile

They’re not waiting for vendors. They’re treating context as a competitive advantage.

IP you can’t patent but can finally use 
And the opportunity is real. Legal context is:

• not public and mostly protected by client-attorney privilege

• not easily reverse-engineered

• not something another firm or vendor can replicate

That makes it defensible. That makes it strategic. That makes it IP.

Imagine if fallback logic evolved with every deal. If negotiation memory became a shared asset. If judgment stayed, even when people left.

This isn’t just a smarter way to work. It’s how law firms differentiate. It’s how they prepare for the future and scale judgment. It’s how they win the next decade. Not because their AI is better; but because they’ve captured the context.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn