Are you a part of the a legal team and wondering how GPT5 will impact you and your team? Let's breakdown the difference as Aline AI has already made the jump from 4o to 5.

TLDR;

The leap from ChatGPT‑4o to GPT‑5 is more of a minor evolution, and certainly not a revolution. It brings enhancements for legal professionals navigating contract reviews, compliance, and governance but not a substantial difference to 4o unless you are counting emojis!

Let's break down the differences.

4o and 5 Bring New Changes: 

Multimodal Speed and now Smarter Reasoning

GPT-4o (“omni”) introduced true multimodality: legal professionals could feed documents, audio, even images directly into the model. It processed multimodal inputs in as fast as 250–320 ms—twice as fast and at half the cost of GPT-4 Turbo. That meant, for example, quickly extracting clause key points from scanned documents or annotated PDFs without pre-tagging.

GPT-5, on the other hand, doesn’t just add multimodality—it upgrades deep reasoning. Its dynamic "thinking mode" allows the model to automatically sync response complexity to task demands. For contract analysis or legal reasoning, it moves from blunt extraction to contextual synthesis, boosting factual accuracy by up to ~45% compared to GPT-4o.

Let's Put Them Side by Side

Example: Termination Clause Review

Below is what ChatGPT 5 said would be the difference:

With GPT-4o‍

We uploaded a Master Service Agreement and asked: “What does the termination clause say?”
GPT-4o quickly extracts the clause text and gives you a short paraphrase:

“Either party may terminate with 30 days’ written notice for any reason.”

It’s accurate at face value, but it’s just blunt extraction — it doesn’t check for conditions buried elsewhere or interpret the business impact.

With GPT-5‍

We uploaded the same agreement and ask: “Summarize the termination rights and risks in this contract.”
GPT-5 not only extracts the clause but also:

• Cross-references other sections (like payment obligations or indemnities) that survive termination.
• Flags missing protections (e.g., no cure period before termination for cause).
• Compares the language to your standard template and industry norms.
• Gives a contextual recommendation:

“This termination for convenience clause allows the client to exit at any time with 30 days’ notice, but requires you to refund prepaid fees. No cure period is provided. Compared to your standard, this increases churn risk and could be used to pressure fee reductions mid-contract.”

This is contextual synthesis — it delivers the “what,” the “so what,” and the “what next,” making it ~45% more factually and strategically complete for legal review. At least, that's what it markets its capabilities as.

‍

But we tested with a prompt.

‍

Prompt Example

Section 12. Termination.
Either party may terminate this Agreement for convenience upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other party. Termination for cause may occur immediately upon written notice if the other party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within ten (10) business days after receiving written notice thereof. Upon termination, all fees paid in advance for services not yet rendered shall be refunded to the Customer on a pro-rata basis. All provisions relating to confidentiality, indemnification, and limitation of liability shall survive termination.

Prompt:
“Review the termination rights and risks in this contract. Summarize what each party can do, any financial implications, and compare these terms to typical industry standards. Highlight any unusual elements or risks for the vendor.”

GPT4o output:

Here’s a structured review of the termination rights and risks in Section 12 of the contract, based on your prompt:

🔍 Termination Rights and Risks Summary

✅ What Each Party Can Do

• Termination for Convenience:
  • Either party can terminate the agreement for any reason with 30 days’ prior written notice.
• Termination for Cause:
  • Either party may terminate immediately if the other party commits a material breach and fails to cure it within 10 business days after receiving written notice.

💸 Financial Implications

• If the agreement is terminated:
  • Any fees paid in advance for services not yet rendered will be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the customer.
  • No mention of early termination fees, wind-down costs, or non-refundable fees, which could be a financial risk for the vendor if significant upfront effort or sunk costs are involved.

⚠️ Unusual Elements or Vendor Risks

• Pro-rata Refund Requirement:
  This clause could pose a cash flow or recovery risk for the vendor if:
  • Services require heavy upfront investment (e.g., onboarding, infrastructure, custom work).
  • The vendor cannot recoup those sunk costs if the agreement is terminated early.
• No Explicit Carve-Outs for Non-Refundable Fees:
  Some vendors include exceptions like setup fees or minimum commitments that are non-refundable — their absence here may disadvantage the vendor.
• No Notice Period for Termination for Cause:
  While the 10-day cure period is reasonable, the termination becomes effective immediately if the breach is not cured. This is standard, but vendors may prefer a final notification buffer or dispute resolution before full termination.

🧾 Recommendations for Vendor Protection

1. Add clause for non-refundable fees, especially for setup or onboarding costs.
2. Define “material breach” more clearly to prevent subjective claims.
3. Consider a mutual wind-down clause for post-termination obligations if the service is critical.
4. Evaluate if a longer cure period or arbitration clause is necessary for complex service agreements.

Let me know if you’d like suggested redlines to this clause.

GPT5 output:

Here’s a structured review of Section 12 – Termination in your agreement:

Summary of Termination Rights

For Either Party (Mutual Convenience Termination)

• Either party can terminate for any reason (“for convenience”) with 30 days’ prior written notice.

For Cause (Breach)

• Either party may terminate immediately if:
  1. The other party commits a material breach, and
  2. The breaching party fails to cure within 10 business days after receiving written notice.

Surviving Clauses

• Confidentiality, indemnification, and limitation of liability survive termination.

Financial Implications

• Refund Obligation: Vendor must refund all prepaid fees for services not yet rendered, on a pro-rata basis.
• No mention of penalties or liquidated damages for early termination, so financial exposure is mostly limited to refunds.
• Customer protection bias: This refund clause ensures the customer is never paying for unused services if the agreement ends early.

Vendor Risks

1. Revenue Predictability Risk – The customer can walk away with 30 days’ notice for any reason, meaning the vendor could lose recurring revenue with little time to replace it.
2. Refund Exposure – Vendor must refund prepaid fees even in convenience terminations; some vendors keep earned portions or impose a cancellation fee.
3. Short Cure Period – 10 business days for fixing a material breach is on the tighter side, especially if technical or operational issues are complex.
4. No Minimum Commitment or Early Termination Fee – Without a minimum contract term or break fee, long-term revenue stability is not guaranteed.

Unusual or Notable Elements

• Refund on Convenience Termination: The biggest outlier—many vendor contracts keep prepaid fees if the customer chooses to terminate for convenience, arguing the vendor allocated resources.
• Mutual Convenience Termination: While mutuality is fair on paper, from a vendor standpoint, it’s usually better to make “for convenience” rights unilateral to the customer with restrictions (or not allow it at all without fees).

If you want, I can draft a vendor-favorable revision that keeps this structure but mitigates the refund and revenue predictability risks while still being reasonable for the customer. This would tighten cure periods for the vendor’s benefit and add protection against sudden terminations.

‍

Key Takeaways

• Content Overlap: ~80% of the substantive points are the same — same contract terms, same main vendor risks, and same comparisons to industry norms.
• Main Difference:
  • 4o output = quick-scan executive summary with practical risk/recommendation bullet points.
  • 5 output = detailed, structured legal-style review with deeper vendor risk narrative but fewer direct action steps.
• Use Case Fit:
  • If you need a quick client/executive briefing, the 4o is better.
  • If you need to hand to legal or contract management for clause revisions, the 5 is better.

Context, Recall, and Intelligent Routing

GPT-5 supports an enormous context window—up to 400,000 tokens via API. That means legal teams can feed entire deal memos, contract sets, or background docs for holistic Q&A without hitting cutoffs.

Plus, GPT‑5’s unified architecture automatically selects the right reasoning model (fast vs deep), reducing errors and inefficiencies—crucial during time-sensitive legal workflows or high-stakes diligence.

GPT‑5 prioritizes truth over fluff. Its reasoning improvements and reduced hallucinations not only increase accuracy during legal drafting or clause comparisons—they also mean fewer corrections from legal counsel and stronger risk controls.

That’s especially critical in legal contexts, where a misinterpreted clause or data oversight can lead to compliance failures or regulatory exposure.

What This Means for Legal Teams

In short: GPT-4o gives legal teams speed and multimodal access—great for rapid context capture. GPT-5 adds depth, reflection, and trust—essential for accurate legal synthesis, strategic diligence, and compliance workflows.

While the change isn’t dramatic on the surface, it spells tangible improvement: smarter AI that behaves more like a trusted paralegal — not just an assistant.

‍

Curious to see Aline AI on ChatGPT5? Start your free trial today!