Review a Commercial Lease with Claude (and Brief the Client)
Paste a commercial lease into Claude, get a lease abstract and a clause-by-clause risk review with severity-rated flags, generate redline-ready language for the key issues, and produce a plain-English client summary, all in one conversation.
When to use this
Commercial lease review is template-driven and pattern-heavy, which is where Claude gives you a useful structured first pass. In one sitting you can turn a long lease into a lease abstract, a triaged issues list with the clause language quoted, suggested edits, and a client-ready summary, while you supply the market knowledge and the judgment.
Commercial leases are long, repetitive, and full of the same negotiable levers: rent escalations, CAM and operating-expense pass-throughs, maintenance and repair obligations, assignment and subletting, default and cure, renewal options, and holdover. Reading every one carefully on every deal is pattern-heavy work where Claude can give you a structured first pass.
This workflow walks you through pasting a lease into Claude, stating which side you represent, and having it abstract the key terms and review the document clause by clause, flagging risky terms by severity, then drafting redline-ready language and a short summary you can send to your client. You stay in one conversation the whole time so the lease and your role carry through every step.
Claude does not have reliable market data for your asset class, region, or moment in the cycle, so the workflow tells it to label any market statement as an assumption and give its basis; you supply the market view. Treat everything Claude produces as a first-pass review, verified against the lease language, the controlling law in your jurisdiction, and your client's commercial objectives.
The Workflow
Paste the lease and state your side
Start a new Claude conversation and give it the full lease (with exhibits and riders) in <document> tags, plus the one fact that changes everything about the analysis: which party you represent. Stating your side up front makes every downstream flag and edit argue for your client instead of giving a neutral readout. Ask for a lease abstract first; it doubles as a check that Claude read the whole document.
Prompt<document type="commercial lease" use="[office / retail / industrial / mixed-use]" location="[CITY, STATE]"> [PASTE FULL LEASE TEXT, INCLUDING EXHIBITS, RIDERS, AND WORK LETTER] </document> I am a real-estate attorney doing a first-pass review of the lease above. I represent the [TENANT / LANDLORD]. My goal is a prioritized issues list, redline language, and a client summary; this first step is an abstract. Produce a LEASE ABSTRACT as a table with these rows, each with the section reference and the key language quoted: parties; premises and square footage; commencement and expiration; base rent and escalation schedule; additional rent / CAM structure; security deposit and guaranty; permitted use and exclusives; maintenance and repair allocation; assignment and subletting; renewal / extension options; termination rights; holdover; insurance and indemnity; casualty and condemnation; notice addresses. If a term is not addressed, write "not addressed." After the table, list any missing schedules, exhibits, or defined terms you could not find, and any internal cross-references that point to sections that don't exist. Do not analyze risk yet.
What you get: A lease abstract with section references and quoted language for each key term, plus a list of missing exhibits, undefined terms, and broken cross-references. This confirms Claude ingested the whole document before you rely on its analysis, and the abstract itself is a useful file deliverable.
Review clause by clause with severity flags
Now have Claude work through the economically important clauses one at a time and rate each issue by how much it matters. Severity ratings let you triage: you negotiate the high-severity items hard and may let low-severity ones go. Tell Claude to label any market comparison as an assumption so you can apply your own market knowledge.
PromptNow review the lease clause by clause from the perspective of the [TENANT / LANDLORD]. Cover at least these areas, and any others that carry real risk: - Base rent, escalations, and percentage rent - CAM / operating expenses and pass-throughs (caps, exclusions, gross-up, audit rights) - Maintenance, repair, and HVAC responsibility - Assignment and subletting (consent standard, recapture, profit-sharing) - Default and cure (notice, cure periods, cross-default) - Renewal / extension options and how rent is set - Holdover (rate and whether it's a penalty) - Insurance, indemnity, and casualty/condemnation For each issue, give me: (1) the clause reference, (2) the key language quoted exactly, (3) a plain-English description of the term, (4) why it's favorable, neutral, or risky for my client, and (5) a severity rating of High, Medium, or Low. Put the highest-severity issues first. Do not state what is "market" as fact. If you compare a term to typical practice, label it "ASSUMPTION" and state your basis in one line, or write "[MARKET RANGE: attorney to supply]". Flag anything you are unsure of.
What you get: A triaged, severity-ordered issues list keyed to clause numbers with quoted language, each explaining the term in plain English and why it helps or hurts your client. Any market comparison is labeled as an assumption or left as a placeholder for you to fill.
Draft redline-ready language for the key issues
Take the High and Medium issues and ask Claude to draft the replacement or insert language you could drop into a redline. Asking for both the revised text and a one-line rationale gives you something to paste and something to say when the other side pushes back.
PromptTake the High and Medium severity issues you identified. For each one, draft redline-ready language from the [TENANT / LANDLORD] perspective: 1. The clause being revised (reference) and the current language quoted 2. Suggested replacement or inserted language, written to match the lease's existing style and defined terms 3. A one-sentence rationale I could use to justify the change to opposing counsel (no market claims stated as fact) 4. A reasonable fallback position if they reject the primary ask Keep the drafting tight and consistent with the rest of the document. Flag any edit that depends on a business decision only my client can make (e.g., a dollar cap or a date), and any edit that may be affected by [STATE] law, as [VERIFY UNDER STATE LAW].
What you get: For each priority issue: proposed lease language, a negotiation rationale, and a fallback. You must conform every edit to the lease's exact defined terms and verify it against your jurisdiction's law before it goes into a redline.
Write a plain-English client summary
Now turn the legal analysis into something your client can read. A short, non-jargon summary of the deal and its real risks helps the client decide quickly which points to fight for.
PromptNow write a short plain-English summary for my client, who is the [TENANT / LANDLORD] and is not a lawyer. Keep it under one page. Include: - A two-to-three sentence overview of the deal (premises, term, rent) - The 3–5 most important risks or unfavorable terms, in business language (no clause numbers, no jargon), and what each means for them practically - The points I'm recommending we push to renegotiate, and why they matter to the client's bottom line - A clear note that this is a preliminary review and we'll finalize our advice after discussing their priorities Do not include any market comparison I have not supplied. Write it in a professional but approachable tone, as the body of an email from me to the client.
What you get: A concise, client-ready summary in business English covering the deal, the top risks, and your recommended negotiation priorities. Review and edit it before sending; it goes out under your name.
Verify against the lease and local law
Before anything leaves your desk, close the loop. Claude can misread a cross-reference, miss a defined term, or make a market or legal assumption that isn't true in your jurisdiction.
What you get: A final work product you have personally checked: every abstract entry and flagged clause re-read in the actual lease, every redline conformed to the document's defined terms, every ASSUMPTION or market placeholder replaced with your own view or removed, and every legal point confirmed against controlling landlord-tenant and contract law in the relevant state.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
FIRST-PASS LEASE REVIEW: Representing TENANT (fictional lease) Premises: Suite 200, [Retail Center A] • Term: 7 yrs • Base rent: $32.00/SF NNN HIGH SEVERITY 1. CAM (§6.2): "Operating Expenses shall include... the cost of capital improvements..." Expenses are uncapped and include capital improvements with no exclusion. Risk: open-ended cost exposure over a 7-year term. Recommend a cap on controllable CAM at [MARKET RANGE: attorney to supply] and a capital-expense exclusion. 2. Assignment (§12.1): "...consent may be withheld in Landlord's sole and absolute discretion..." plus 100% profit recapture. Risk: no practical exit if the business is sold. Recommend a not-unreasonably-withheld standard; tenant keeps assignment profit. 3. Holdover (§15.4): "...200% of the Base Rent then in effect..." with no cure window. Risk: steep cost if a renewal negotiation runs late. Recommend reduction to [MARKET RANGE: attorney to supply]. MEDIUM SEVERITY 4. Escalations (§4.3): Fixed 4% annual increases. ASSUMPTION: may be above typical for this asset class; basis: general practice, not local data. Attorney to confirm. 5. Repairs (§7.1): Tenant carries full HVAC replacement. Recommend landlord bears replacement; tenant maintains. 6. Cure (§14.2): Monetary cure period is 3 days. Request 10 days after written notice. LOW SEVERITY 7. Signage (§19.1): Landlord pre-approval required; acceptable, but request approval not be unreasonably withheld. [Illustrative sample only: fictional terms, figures are not market data. Verify every reference against the actual lease and your state's law.]
Tips
- •Tell Claude which side you represent before anything else. The same clause reads as a win or a loss depending on whether you're landlord or tenant.
- •Treat market comparisons as yours to make. Market terms vary by asset class, region, and cycle; keep the ASSUMPTION labels and placeholders in the prompt so Claude never presents a guess as data.
- •Keep the lease abstract from Step 1 in the file. It's a useful standalone deliverable for the client or the deal team and a quick reference during negotiation.
- •Keep it to one conversation so the lease text and your role persist. If you start a fresh chat for the redline or summary, Claude loses the document and the context.
- •Paste the entire lease, including exhibits and riders. The operative economic terms are often buried in a work letter, rent rider, or exhibit, and Claude can only flag what it can see.
A note on confidentiality
A lease under negotiation contains your client's deal economics (rent, concessions, tenant-improvement allowances), guarantor identities and sometimes their financial statements, and business plans implied by use and exclusivity clauses. Remove guarantor financial exhibits and personal information you don't need for the review, and check whether a letter of intent or NDA with the other side limits sharing the draft. Run client work on a commercial plan (Team or Enterprise) whose terms exclude your content from model training. On Pro or Max, disable model training in Privacy settings; a commercial plan's contract terms are the stronger answer for client work. Under ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Model Rule 1.6, confirm your confidentiality obligations and obtain informed client consent where the engagement or the sensitivity of the deal calls for it. Every output is a draft for attorney review: verify each clause reference and legal point against the lease and your state's law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Claude replace my own review of a commercial lease?
No. Claude produces a structured first-pass review (an abstract, a triaged issues list, suggested edits, and a client summary), but it can misread cross-references, miss defined terms, or make assumptions about market or law that aren't accurate in your jurisdiction. You must verify every flag and edit against the actual lease and controlling law, and the final work product is your professional responsibility.
Can Claude tell me what's market for a lease term?
Not reliably. It has no current data for your asset class, region, or point in the cycle, and a confident-sounding range can be wrong. The prompts tell Claude to label any market comparison as an assumption with its basis, or to leave a placeholder for you. Your own deal experience and market sources are the authority.
Does it matter whether I tell Claude I represent the landlord or the tenant?
Yes. Most lease terms favor one side, so the same clause gets flagged differently depending on whom you represent. Stating your side at the start makes the whole review (severity ratings, redline language, and client summary) argue for your client rather than giving a neutral readout.
Is it safe to paste a client's lease into Claude?
Use a commercial plan (Team or Enterprise), whose terms exclude your inputs from model training, or at minimum disable model training on Pro or Max. Remove guarantor financials and personal information you don't need. Per ABA Formal Opinion 512 and Model Rule 1.6, confirm your confidentiality obligations and get informed client consent where appropriate.
Prompts used in this workflow
Get New Workflows Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.