# How Ropes & Gray is developing AI for legal diligence

> OpenAI describes a diligence tool and lawyer review.

By BIGCHANGE.AI Editorial

Published: 2026-10-30T07:42:38.271Z
Updated: 2026-10-30T07:42:38.271Z
Canonical: https://bigchange.ai/blog/ropes-gray-openai-legal-diligence-workflow

![Conceptual charcoal illustration of an open reference playbook beside a separate contract sheet with orange margin edit marks.](https://bigchange.ai/api/media/file/copilot-legal-playbook-concept-v1.png)
AI-generated conceptual illustration by BIG CHANGE; no actual Word interface, Copilot output or validated legal result is depicted.

Ropes & Gray is developing an AI tool with OpenAI for transactional diligence. An October 29 [case study](https://openai.com/index/ropes-gray-ai-diligence/) describes its workflow and lawyer review.

## The big change

- Grouping related documents gives lawyers a structure to inspect.
- Comparisons with completed reports informed revisions; no quantitative performance results are reported.
- US ethics guidance ties verification to the tool and task.

## From data room to lawyer review

OpenAI says initial development focuses on material commercial contracts. The tool inventories a data room, groups documents by theme and issue, and produces summaries and a report in the firm’s format. Lawyers can check groupings and summaries against source documents before delivery. Grouping related material helps reviewers consider a relationship across documents rather than relying on an isolated extract.

The firm’s [September announcement](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/09/ropes-gray-is-developing-ai-powered-diligence-tool-with-openai-comprehensive-deal-intelligence) set an hours-rather-than-weeks ambition. OpenAI says lawyers compared drafts with completed reports and refined the rubric; it reports no quantitative results.

A draft organizes information for review, but lawyers must assess the work and exercise judgment. BIG CHANGE did not test the tool or independently verify its outputs.

## Professional duties

The American Bar Association’s [Formal Opinion 512](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) discusses competence, confidentiality and supervision when lawyers use generative AI. It says independent verification depends on the tool and task. For example, the opinion says a lawyer might test summaries against a manually reviewed subset rather than read every contract, if that prior test gives a reasonable basis for reliance. The appropriate review depends on the circumstances. The opinion interprets US Model Rules; it does not establish compliance for this tool, and applicable rules vary by jurisdiction.

## Sources

- [OpenAI case study](https://openai.com/index/ropes-gray-ai-diligence/) — Workflow and test comparisons.
- [Ropes & Gray announcement](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/09/ropes-gray-is-developing-ai-powered-diligence-tool-with-openai-comprehensive-deal-intelligence) — Partnership and speed ambition.
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) — US Model Rules advisory context, not tool-specific compliance.