Why We Wanted to Create a Legal Tool for Architects
Architecture is a profession built on taste, responsibility, and trust. Contracts, however, are rarely designed with architects in mind.
Why Architecture Contracts Create Disproportionate Risk
We wanted to create this legal tool because we repeatedly saw architects take on legal responsibility that is disproportionate to their role— not because they were careless, but because the contract process rarely makes responsibilities and limitations clear in a way architects can easily see and reason about.
Most architects, especially those early in their careers, are not trained to negotiate contracts. Contracts are often drafted by owners or their counsel, labeled as “standard,” and sent with the expectation that the project will move forward quickly. When architects do hold the pen, they may also be unsure which provisions truly matter and are worth insisting on.
Why Traditional Legal Review Fails Architects
Traditional legal review is not designed to solve this problem particularly well. It is slow relative to project timelines, expensive relative to many design fees, and often written for lawyers rather than for architects who need practical answers. As a result, many architects either sign contracts they don’t fully understand or focus on surface-level changes while deeper risk remains.
The Contract Risks Architects Face Every Day
Over time, the same issues appear again and again: indemnification clauses that extend far beyond negligence, uncapped liability that exceeds insurance coverage, no protection against consequential damages, and vague language that allows scope to expand during construction administration without additional compensation. These are not unusual or edge cases; they are common provisions in everyday projects.
These provisions can materially affect insurability and risk exposure, particularly when they exceed the coverage typically available under professional liability insurance.
What Architects Actually Need From Contract Review
This is not a knowledge problem. Architects generally understand that these clauses matter. The problem is that contract review was never designed for their workflow. What architects actually need is fast, practical clarity about what they are responsible for – and what they are not – across the agreement, explained in plain language and grounded in common industry standards – all without slowing the project down.
This is where a focused legal powered makes sense. Architect contracts follow repeatable structures. That makes this a problem of visibility rather than judgment. When applied carefully, AI has the potential to help surface and explain those patterns – but only if it is constrained, transparent, and used to support clarity rather than replace professional decision-making.
Our tool is not a replacement for lawyers, and it does not attempt to practice law. It is designed as a first-pass tool built specifically for architects: highlighting material risk, translating legal language into actionable insight, and helping architects enter conversations with owners from a more informed position.
Our goal is simple. Architects should not have to accept unreasonable legal exposure just to keep projects moving. By making contract risk more visible and easier to address early, we hope to help architects protect themselves, negotiate with greater confidence, and spend less time worrying about contracts and more time doing the work they were trained to do.
That is why we built a legal tool for architects.