TrustRadius Insights for Litera Kira are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, third party data sources.
Pros
User-Friendly Interface: Several users have praised Kira for its user-friendly interface, describing it as easy to use and intuitive. They appreciate how the interface allows for a smooth and efficient workflow, making their tasks more streamlined and productive.
Accurate Text Analysis: Reviewers have been impressed by Kira's powerful NLP and AI capabilities, which enable automatic detection of provisions in contracts and other documents. Users highlight the software's accuracy and speed in analyzing and extracting text. This feature has proven to be invaluable for legal professionals conducting thorough reviews.
Efficient Project Management: Many users commend Kira's project management features, finding them helpful in assigning tasks to multiple resources and managing projects effectively. The software streamlines project workflows, allowing teams to collaborate seamlessly while maintaining organization.
The Practice Innovations department handles setup and manages all ongoing Kira projects. We currently use Kira to speed up high-volume contract reviews for clients and to organize our outside counsel policies.
Pros
UI/UX - tagging and naming feels much easier than you'd expect machine learning to feel
Accuracy - Kira's built-in models perform well out of the box
Assistance - Kira's support team gets back to me same day if I have a question
Cons
Missing functionality - rules; regex; that's the next step in our workflow we'd like to automate
Quick Study - I'd prefer a quick study window that I could personalize more. Alphabetical foldering means I usually have to search for my clauses because it's too hard to find them when scrolling. There are too many clauses in Quick Study that we've never used and can't edit. Why not have a separate built-in clause bank?
Renaming documents - people upload them with crazy names. I'd rather be able to change the name than have to determine whether it's worth the cost to re-upload the same document with a helpful name.
Likelihood to Recommend
Kira is great for extracting text from a document. It doesn't have legal judgment. It doesn't understand whether a clause should be in a contract, but it can tell you if it's there or not.
It is almost exclusively used as a due diligence tool at my firm. The main users are trainees, junior associates and our ALT teams in Belfast and Australia. As far as I'm aware, it is mainly used for M&A transactions.
Pros
Automated review of documents which are in a similar form.
Use of smart fields/filters.
Customisation.
Cons
Integration with other providers.
Desktop launch.
Likelihood to Recommend
Kira is a great due diligence tool and can be well utilised on both large and small transactions. It also has good application if you are looking to compare multiple documents against a model form document or market standard templates. Kira is less useful if you are looking to review emails (e.g. as part of a disclosure exercise); or if your review involves non-Latin based script languages.
Kira is used across our international business by any practice group that needs to undertake document review and due diligence. We use Kira to improve the quality and efficiency of our document review process.
Pros
Good for quickly getting to the relevant part of the document in the English language, the smartfields are accurate.
Handles large scale review well with an excellent UI and helpful project management features.
Cloud-based platform handles multiple simultaneous reviewers efficiently and easily.
Ability to self-train smart fields is a definite advantage.
Cons
Inability to relabel smart fields to suit the review process means it is hard to align it to particular projects (e.g. it would be useful to relabel the "Assignment" smart field as "Is the contract assignable?")
Not enough non-English smart fields.
Needs the ability to resell user-trained smart fields in a marketplace.
Output is not customizable enough.
Built-in analysis tools are useful but a little basic.
Likelihood to Recommend
Kira is particularly useful in large scale review exercises with multiple reviewers across different departments. Its benefits scale with volume.
We are a Brazilian law firm. As such, Kira is not able to be used in the majority of our work out-of-the-box. In addition to training Kira to handle Portuguese documents, we are already using Kira in M&A Transactions and to read and extract certain information from legal certificates (in both cases limited use only).
Pros
Reading M&A Contracts
User-friendly interface
Simple training process
Cons
Develop other languages out-of-the-box
Customize options to extract information
More interactions with VDR providers with need to download documents
Likelihood to Recommend
Being a non-English-speaking user, although Kira is a very useful tool and has great potential, having to invest many hours in training before being able to effectively use the software in real-life application is by far the greatest drawback. If that initial barrier is surpassed, Kira is very useful for any contract-based law practice.
It is not very useful for Brazilian litigation standards.
Complete an initial review of standard contracts for certain important terms of the contract, and to extract those terms into a visually appealing document.
Pros
It does what you tell it to do. By that I mean you have to train it to find relevant passages in a contract. Once you do that, it does it well, but that process requires a lot of time to train and many examples.
It does it over and over again: Once trained, it can repeat the process ad infinitum.
It can learn: When you review a document and realize it either highlighted something it shouldn't have or didn't highlight something it should have found, you can alert Kira to that correction and it learns from that information.
Cons
Finding that many contracts aren't that 'standard' and if not standard, it is impossible to find enough examples to train with
Many contracts have handwritten data, especially the key terms that it cannot read.
Sometimes the contracts have attachments with important terms, we find that harder to train.
Likelihood to Recommend
Great: Standardized machine legible contract reading and extraction. Not so great: non-standardized terminology or illegible or handwritten documents.
VU
Verified User
Partner in Professional Services (1001-5000 employees)
Our firm has used Kira so far mostly for training it to read contracts in Portuguese. We have achieved good accuracy in some clauses so far and have used the software in a few due diligences for M&A transactions. Kira was used only in controlled scenarios and by people that are part of our project on implementation.
Pros
Good out of the box clauses in english with great accuracy.
Good costumer services, always with fast and efficient responses.
Easy to use, not requiring much training for using.
Cons
Kira doesn't have out of the box clauses in other languages.
High prices, especially considering the market in Latin America.
Capacity of reading other types of documents, such as certificates.
Likelihood to Recommend
Well suited for law firms focused on M&A in North America, Canada, or the UK. For firms outside English speaking countries, I believe Kira can be too expensive to be used, once it requires that the firm itself teaches Kira how to read in their language. In our experience, once Kira is ready to go it can be an extremely important and useful asset. However, it takes a lot of time to get it ready to go. And it can make Kira very expensive in countries where English is not the primary language.
We use it broadly across the whole organisation, however some teams use more than others (Commercial and Real Estate). We use it for business as usual document reviews, as well as some larger projects focussed around diligence exercises and/or contract reviews. It solves the problem of inefficient doc review tools / manual processes being carried out by junior members of the firm. Speeds teams up a lot on that first level of review.
Pros
UX - very easy to use and train people on.
OCR and doc search is well organised and functional.
Comparison feature really good.
Project management features make review teams easier to manage.
Built in provisions really useful for standard documents.
Cons
Training new provisions can sometimes be a bit unwieldy.
Search across all documents sometimes too over inclusive (in documents it is great).
Inability to rename folders and files in the platform.
Likelihood to Recommend
Well suited - standard reviews of similar document sets. BAU work where similar documents are repeatedly reviewed. Any large scale review really, just as long as it is managed properly and the limitations are explained. Less appropriate - Looking for nuanced or complex information that patterns are less likely to be found in. Like doing a general provision for 'Restrictions.'
By a number of departments, but not all. To speed up due diligence carried out by lawyers and to improve accuracy and project management.
Pros
Intuitive system: easy for users to pick up.
Constantly improving product with regular publication of new pre-trained fields.
Excellent training videos and online help available, plus a knowledgeable help desk.
Strong account management with account managers who really do know the product and their customers.
Cons
Extension of the tool so that it is not just extraction of clauses, for example, some products can re-draft contracts once areas for change have been identified.
Direct link with iManage.
Ability to change name of document once uploaded, which is not currently possible.
Ability to change the name of pre-trained fields to better match client requirements.
Extension of the tool so that if a certain clause is found a pre-written shorter summary is inputted.
Likelihood to Recommend
Best used for more standardized documents. It can sometimes struggle to read poorly drafted documents because of a lack of pattern in them.
It is being used by attorneys in our transactional practices on select projects. It helps organize incoming workflow and enables us to manage tasks by spreading the work across multiple resources. Additionally, it streamlines the process of document review by automatically detecting provisions. It reduces the time typically used to do the same tasks manually.
Pros
Automatic detection of provisions
Ability to assign tasks to multiple resources
Easy to use interface
Cons
Significantly lacking different levels of permissions for user accounts
Significantly lacking alerting and notification mechanism
It is not competitively priced in comparison to other platforms that offer the same technology
Likelihood to Recommend
Kira Systems is suited for projects that: Require quick turnaround When the typical size is 50 to 500 documents Where the typical scope is focused on generic provisions
ENSafrica uses Kira Systems for our contract and document review projects in order to improve efficiency, speed, and accuracy. Kira is also used to reduce risk and costs in regard to our contract and document review. Kira is open for usage to our entire organization. Kira is mostly used by our Corporate Commercial departments regarding, inter alia, due diligence investigations.
Pros
Kira quickly identifies, analyzes, compares, and extracts text in contracts and other documents.
Kira has project management features.
Kira has hyperlink features.
Kira has exporting features.
Cons
Not having the ability to analyze handwritten or less legible content.
Kira should bestow clauses that cover jurisdictions globally.
The structure of Kira could improve. For example Worksheets could follow Document List.
Likelihood to Recommend
Kira systems is well suited for the review of contracts and documents relating to due diligence, compliance, labor law matters, lease abstraction, finance and project management, amongst others. Kira is also well suited for comparisons of contracts and documents, a tool our Firm has also utilized. Furthermore, Kira is well suited for exports and project management. Kira is less appropriate for languages such as Mandarin or Arabic. Kira is also less appropriate when dealing with contracts or documents containing less legible content. Though our Firm has not requested training (quick study), the element of training Kira and the pursuit of documents in order to train Kira can also be seen as a hurdle.