Do legal AI vendors train their models on client data?
Index data last verified
There is no single answer, and that is the finding. Of the 463 legal AI vendors recorded on the Client Data in Training signal by the AI Legal Index, 98 prohibit training on customer content in the published agreement itself, 120 state it in a policy or trust page without a matching contract term, 18 train only where a customer affirmatively enables it, 5 train unless the customer turns it off, and 82 reserve the right to train in a published policy or agreement. The largest group, 91 vendors, publish no located term or policy addressing the question either way. Silence is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product, and it is also the one posture a firm cannot hold a vendor to.
This is the first question a general counsel asks and the one most often answered in a sales call rather than in a contract. The AI Legal Index records it on every vendor as the Client Data in Training signal, from published terms and policies, with a source and a verification date on each record. What decides the value is not whether the vendor says it respects confidentiality, it is where the commitment sits and whether a client can hold the firm to it.
Never, in the contract
Never, in the contractThe published agreement itself prohibits training on customer content. Not a policy page, the terms. This is the posture a firm can enforce, and it is the honest answer to which tools keep client data out of model training by default.
Never, in policy only
Never, in policy onlyA public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement. A real commitment, revisable unilaterally.
4CRisk.aiRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
ActionstepIntake & Client Development
AdvocacyLitigation & eDiscovery
AlexiLegal Research
AloiContract Review & Drafting
Alt LegalIP & Patents
AltumatimLitigation & eDiscovery
AnwaltGPTGeneral Legal Assistants
Anytime AIPlaintiff & Claims AI
AvvokaContract Review & Drafting
BigHandLegal Ops & Spend
BindContract Review & Drafting
BoostDraftContract Review & Drafting
BriefCatchLitigation & eDiscovery
BrieflyIntake & Client Development
BriefpointLitigation & eDiscovery
Candle AIGeneral Legal Assistants
CaseBlinkIntake & Client Development
CaseMineLegal Research
CentariContract Review & Drafting
ClaimMasterIP & Patents
ClarilisContract Review & Drafting
ClearbriefLitigation & eDiscovery
CobbleStone SoftwareContract Review & Drafting
CoCounsel LegalGeneral Legal Assistants
Codes HealthPlaintiff & Claims AI
ContractHeroContract Review & Drafting
CORTOGeneral Legal Assistants
CosmoLexIntake & Client Development
CounselProLitigation & eDiscovery
CyprisIP & Patents
DataGrailRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
DazychainLegal Ops & Spend
DescrybeLegal Research
DiliTrustLegal Ops & Spend
DiscernisLitigation & eDiscovery
DISCOLitigation & eDiscovery
DocJurisContract Review & Drafting
DraftPilotContract Review & Drafting
DraftwiseContract Review & Drafting
EvePlaintiff & Claims AI
ExterroLitigation & eDiscovery
FilereadLitigation & eDiscovery
FlankGeneral Legal Assistants
HaastRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
HelloCounselIntake & Client Development
iManageGeneral Legal Assistants
InletLegal Ops & Spend
InnovationQ+IP & Patents
InPracticePlaintiff & Claims AI
IntakeOSIntake & Client Development
IntappLegal Ops & Spend
IvoContract Review & Drafting
Kleos Expert AIGeneral Legal Assistants
Law RulerIntake & Client Development
LawliftContract Review & Drafting
LawToolBoxLegal Ops & Spend
LBOXLegal Research
Learned HandGeneral Legal Assistants
LeegalityContract Review & Drafting
Legal DecoderLegal Ops & Spend
LegalyzePlaintiff & Claims AI
LegauContract Review & Drafting
LegistifyLegal Ops & Spend
LegitoLegal Ops & Spend
Lex MachinaLegal Research
LexbeLitigation & eDiscovery
Lextel AILegal Research
LitifyPlaintiff & Claims AI
Litmas AILitigation & eDiscovery
LuliusLegal Research
LuminaryGeneral Legal Assistants
MalbekContract Review & Drafting
MarveriContract Review & Drafting
MateyLitigation & eDiscovery
Meet GabbiIntake & Client Development
MidpageLegal Research
Minesoft PatBaseIP & Patents
Neota LogicLegal Ops & Spend
NetDocumentsGeneral Legal Assistants
netLexContract Review & Drafting
NexlIntake & Client Development
NextpointLitigation & eDiscovery
Normo.aiLegal Research
NoxtuaGeneral Legal Assistants
OddrLegal Ops & Spend
OntraLegal Ops & Spend
OpenText eDiscoveryLitigation & eDiscovery
OrbitalGeneral Legal Assistants
ParachuteGeneral Legal Assistants
PaximalIP & Patents
Philips SpeechLiveGeneral Legal Assistants
PlexusLegal Ops & Spend
PointOneLegal Ops & Spend
PrecedentPlaintiff & Claims AI
PrevailLitigation & eDiscovery
Prime Legal AIGeneral Legal Assistants
Privado AIRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
ProvakilLegal Ops & Spend
QanooniGeneral Legal Assistants
qatentIP & Patents
QueriousGeneral Legal Assistants
QuestelIP & Patents
QuiliaIntake & Client Development
QuraLegal Research
Reflekt LegalIntake & Client Development
RelativityLitigation & eDiscovery
RubyLawIntake & Client Development
SandstoneLegal Ops & Spend
Sapient-IALegal Research
SmokeballIntake & Client Development
Solve IntelligenceIP & Patents
Sonar LegalContract Review & Drafting
Streamline AILegal Ops & Spend
TrialKitLitigation & eDiscovery
TrustibleRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Turbo LawLitigation & eDiscovery
VitalLaw Expert AILegal Research
Vulcan TechnologiesRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
ZuvaContract Review & Drafting
Opt in
Opt inTraining occurs only where the customer has affirmatively enabled it, which also leaves client data out of training by default.
Docusign Agreement Manager, Docusign CLM, Jhana.ai, Legartis and Lexi record an opt out posture, meaning training occurs unless the customer turns it off. On 64 vendors the recorded value is Permitted, in the contract, meaning the published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content with no opt out located: &AI, Aderant, Aerofiler, BlackBoiler, Blue J, Bounsel, BusyLamp, CARET Legal, CaseGen, Clio, Conga CLM, ContractKen, ContractSafe, ContractWorks, Contractzy, Darrow, Depositions by Filevine, eBrevia, Epiq AI, fynk, Gaius-Lex, Gavel, Genie AI, Gist, Hadrius, Hebbia, Icertis, JusticeText, Leah, LegalOn, LegalSifter, Legisway, Lexagle, Lexzur, LinkSquares, Luminance, Neos, NexLaw, Novo, Olava, OnitX CLM, OnitX ELM, Pactly, PostSig, Precisely, RazorSign, Red Marker, Rescript, Responsiv, Rev, Robin AI, Securiti, SimpleLegal, Sirion, SixFifty, SmartAdvocate, SmartDepo, Spellbook, Summize, Thomson Reuters Document Intelligence, ThoughtRiver, Unity ELM, VXT and Xakia. Blee, CounselLink+, Dragon Legal, Inhouse, IntelAgree, Laurel, Law Practice AI, LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer, LegalZoom, Lexroom, Luthor, MarqVision, PERSUIT, Saifr, Scorpion, Syntracts, Turivius and Wisedocs record Permitted, in policy only. Any de identification or aggregation qualifier a vendor attaches is recorded in the summary on its profile, because a qualified reservation is still a reservation.
And then the largest group: 91 of 463 vendors publish no located term or policy addressing the question either way. A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product. For a buyer the practical consequence of silence is simple. There is nothing to enforce, so the answer arrives in a sales call and leaves no artifact behind.
Why the contract versus policy distinction decides this
A contractual prohibition sits in the terms a client can hold the firm to, so breaching it has a remedy. A policy statement is a public commitment the vendor can revise unilaterally. A marketing page that says your data is secure while the terms reserve a license is a third thing again, and the gap between the three is where this risk actually lives. That is why the index records seven distinct values on this signal rather than a yes or a no, and why the tiers above are ordered by enforceability rather than by the warmth of the language.
The adjacent question, how long the product keeps what a lawyer typed, is recorded as Prompt and Output Retention on every vendor, and the full definition of every value on the training signal is on the signals reference.
Every record behind this page carries a source basis and a verification date, and a vendor that publishes a term tomorrow is redated the day it does. Standards and limits are on the methodology page. The accuracy side of the same diligence question is answered on which AI legal research tools publish their hallucination or accuracy rates. The wider privilege question, including ethical wall enforcement and whether a vendor commits to telling a firm about a subpoena, is answered on what happens to privilege when a law firm uses a third party AI tool, the professional responsibility duties around all of it are on what the bar rules require before a lawyer uses AI on client matters, and the complete vendor set is in the directory.