New Delhi [India], August 24: Ask any general counsel what they think of AI in the legal profession, and you’ll get a more cautious answer than you would from almost any other function in the enterprise. Legal teams are trained to distrust anything that can’t be traced, audited, or explained, which is precisely why most AI tools built for law have struggled to move past the demo stage. Lawyers don’t want a system that guesses. They want one that shows its work.
That distinction sits at the center of how Legistify, the Gurugram-based enterprise legal operations platform, approached the AI layer running through its product suite. Rather than adding a chatbot on top of existing contract or litigation modules the path most legal tech vendors have taken the company built Codex, an AI workspace embedded across all four areas of its platform: contracts, litigation, intellectual property, and legal notices.
The difference between a chatbot and a workspace is not semantic. A chatbot answers one question at a time, with no memory of what came before and no way to act on what it finds. Codex, by contrast, is built to support ongoing work: multi-document projects that a legal team can return to, refine, and build on, with each AI-generated draft or analysis kept under version control rather than overwritten by the next query. That single design choice treating AI output as a document to be tracked, not a chat message to be discarded reflects an understanding of how legal work actually happens: iteratively, with a paper trail, under review.
Codex’s stated capabilities lean into this. Legal teams can draft documents, analyze contracts and case files, run legal research, and generate structured insights, all through natural-language queries that can pull from across a team’s entire portfolio rather than a single uploaded file. Legistify describes this as agentic AI a system capable of querying and acting across a body of work, not just responding to isolated prompts.
The trust question, though, goes beyond how the AI behaves. It extends to what happens when the AI’s output touches the actual substance of a contract. This is where Legistify’s AI Playbook and Clause Deviation Workflow come in. Rather than leaving AI-assisted drafting or review as a black box, the platform encodes an organization’s own contracting standards directly into the system. When a clause departs from those standards, the deviation is flagged automatically and routed for approval by the relevant stakeholder. The AI’s role, in other words, is not to make the judgment call it is to surface the moment a human judgment call is needed, and to do so consistently, every time, without depending on someone remembering to check.
That distinction AI as a detection and routing layer rather than a decision-maker is likely to matter more to enterprise legal buyers than any claim about drafting speed. In regulated industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, where compliance failures carry direct financial and regulatory consequences, the appeal of an AI tool has less to do with what it can generate and more to do with what it can be trusted not to miss.
Infrastructure choices reinforce that positioning. Codex runs on AWS Bedrock, giving Legistify access to enterprise-grade security and compliance controls rather than building that layer from scratch a decision that matters to legal and IT buyers evaluating where their contract data actually lives and how it is protected. The platform’s litigation module integrates with more than 10,000 courts across India, and its IP module connects to WIPO for international trademark searches, extending the AI layer’s usefulness beyond drafting and into the operational reality of tracking cases and filings across jurisdictions.
Legistify, founded in 2015 by Akshat Singhal and Pratik Mohapatra, has built this platform for more than a decade, evolving from an early legal-services marketplace into the AI-native enterprise suite it operates today. Its client base spans more than 350 enterprises, including Dell, Decathlon, Dabur, Zomato, Royal Enfield, and Shoppers Stop, and the platform currently holds a 4.9 out of 5 rating on both G2 and Capterra.
None of this settles the broader question of trust in legal AI. Enterprise legal teams remain, rightly, among the most careful adopters of any new technology, and that caution is unlikely to disappear simply because a tool is well designed. But Codex offers a useful data point in a market still working out what “trustworthy AI” means for a profession built on precision: the answer may have less to do with how capable the AI is, and more to do with how visible it makes its own reasoning and how easily a human can still say no.
If you object to the content of this press release, please notify us at pr.error.rectification@gmail.com. We will respond and rectify the situation within 24 hours.
