The risk clauses found
The provisions most likely to generate a dispute, identified and explained.
A review of an existing or proposed contract for dispute risk, flagging the clauses that generate disputes and how each would be litigated or arbitrated. Not drafting, not negotiation.
A contract can be commercially sound and still be a dispute waiting to happen. The firm reviews a contract for that single purpose: to find the clauses that generate disputes and to explain how each would play out if it ever came to a fight. This is a risk read that feeds a disputes assessment. The firm does not draft the contract, negotiate it, or advise on its commercial terms.
The firm reads the contract the way the eventual dispute will read it, clause by clause, looking only for dispute risk. It explains, for each high-risk clause, what the fight would look like and who would have the better of it. It stays strictly at risk review; it does not redraft, negotiate, or opine on whether the deal is a good one, which are transactional questions the firm does not take.
The provisions most likely to generate a dispute, identified and explained.
How a high-risk clause would be litigated or arbitrated, and who would prevail.
The drafting and negotiation stay with your transactional lawyer.
A client about to sign a contract asks for its dispute risk to be read. The firm flags the termination and dispute-resolution clauses as the most likely flashpoints, explains how each would be fought, and delivers a written risk note the client takes to its transactional lawyer before signing.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
Termination, exclusivity, payment, scope, and dispute-resolution clauses are the usual flashpoints, along with anything ambiguous or internally contradictory; a risk review identifies which of these the specific contract exposes.
Yes; the review is confined to dispute risk - which clauses would generate a fight and how it would go - and does not extend to drafting, negotiating, or advising on the commercial terms.
That is exactly what the review answers for the high-risk clauses: how each would likely be interpreted and applied, and which side the reading favours.