Ivo is an AI-powered contract intelligence platform for in-house legal teams, founded in 2021 (originally as Latch) by Min-Kyu Jung and Jacob Duligall, headquartered in San Francisco. The platform automates contract review and redlining via a Microsoft Word add-in, using customizable playbooks and AI-driven recommendations. $55M Series B (Jan 2026, led by Blackbird), 600% revenue growth in 12 months. Fortune 500 customers including Atlassian, F5, Metropolis, Geotab, Sunrider. Previously named Latch, rebranded to Ivo in April 2024 with $4.8M raise. G2 listing exists but limited reviews. Strong Reddit presence with practitioner comparisons to Spellbook, Luminance, DocJuris. 51-200 employees per LinkedIn (up from 11-50).
Company Info
- Founded: 2021
- Team size: 11-50 employees
- Funding: $22.2M
- HQ: United States
- Sector: CLM & Contracting
What We Haven’t Verified
This page was assembled from publicly available information. Feature claims and workflow mappings are based on what the vendor and third-party listings publish — not hands-on testing or practitioner feedback.
Workflows
Based on practitioner evidence, Ivo is used in these workflows:
What practitioners struggle with
Real frustrations from legal professionals — the problems Ivo addresses (or should address). Sourced from practitioner reviews, Reddit threads, and case studies.
Transactional attorney reviews 5-10 contracts per week by reading every line in Word — no AI risk flagging, no clause benchmarking against market standards, no automated issue spotting. Missing a problematic indemnification clause or non-standard termination provision is a malpractice risk that scales with volume
In-house legal team reviews 200+ vendor and customer contracts per quarter with inconsistent quality — junior attorneys miss risks that senior attorneys would catch, there's no standardised review checklist, and the playbook lives in a senior attorney's head rather than a system
Patent prosecution attorney receives an office action and needs to decide whether to fight, amend, or appeal — but has no data on this specific examiner's grant rate, allowance patterns, or appeal success rate, so the strategy decision comes down to gut feel instead of evidence, and a wrong call burns through the client's prosecution budget on a losing strategy
General counsel knows the legal team reviews the same types of agreements hundreds of times a year but has no aggregate data on what clauses get negotiated most, what positions counterparties accept, or where deals stall — every contract review starts from zero institutional knowledge
Where it fits in your workflow
Before Ivo
Business team (sales, procurement, HR) drafts or receives a contract → sends to legal for review → legal opens in Microsoft Word → Ivo add-in activates for AI-assisted review against playbooks.
After Ivo
Ivo flags deviations from playbook → attorney reviews AI suggestions → accepts/rejects redlines → sends back to counterparty → contract executed → Ivo Intelligence captures data for portfolio analytics.
Integrations & hand-offs
Business request → Legal queue (could be via Ironclad/Juro CLM or email) → Ivo in Word (review + redline) → Back to business for counterparty negotiation → Executed contract → CLM or document management system.
Community Data
Loading practitioner-sourced data…