Reconcile competing edits from two firms
For co-counsel and deal teams combining parallel document revisions.
How do you merge two firms' revisions without silently choosing one side's language?
Start from the version both firms received. Compare each return separately against that version, identify overlapping edits, and send substantive conflicts to the person authorized to decide. Record agreement separately from the combined wording.
Establish the common starting text
Preserve the outgoing file and both incoming copies with the sender, date and version information. Verify the baseline by checking what each reviewer actually received. If one firm edited a later draft, identify the intervening changes before comparing its proposals with the other firm's work.
Build a list keyed to clause heading and a short excerpt of the starting language. Clause numbers alone can become unreliable when a reviewer inserts a new section or moves definitions.
Separate independent edits from collisions
Compare each incoming file to the starting draft. Identify edits that can stand together, edits that replace the same words, and edits to different paragraphs that depend on each other. A new definition in one draft can change an exception in the other even when the markup shows no direct overlap.
For each conflict, record both proposed wordings, the practical difference, decision owner and result. If the business decision is still open, carry it forward visibly in the internal version. Preserve both alternatives until the decision-maker responds.
Rebuild and read the result
Word offers a Combine function for multiple reviewers' revisions. Use a working copy and verify the combined result against each separate comparison. Read defined terms, cross-references, schedules and the clauses affected by them. Generate an outgoing comparison against the last externally exchanged version and confirm its audience before circulation.
Worked example
Illustrative example. Firm A adds service credits to the definition of remedies. Firm B makes credits the exclusive remedy in the service schedule. Accepting both edits could limit a remedy neither team intended to limit. The coordinator records the interaction, asks the authorized decision-maker whether exclusivity is intended and revises both passages together.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This version reconciliation guide participates in the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. The hub describes implementation work for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.