Which AI legal tools integrate with iManage and NetDocuments?
11 of the 130 legal AI vendors in the AI Legal Index publish documented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm has to configure. They are August, Chamelio, DeepJudge, Harvey, Lawmatics, LawVu, PatSnap, PERSUIT, Sirion, Smith.ai and UniCourt. A further 60 have real documented integrations short of that depth, meaning named connections without a description of what they actually move. 41 list integrations as logos or as coming, with nothing an implementer could use, and 18 have no practice systems integration located. The axis covers document management including iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle, matter management and e-billing rather than any one system, so the specific connections a vendor names are on its own record.
Integration is the question that decides whether a legal AI product gets used after the pilot, because a tool a lawyer has to move work into is a tool a lawyer stops opening. It is also the question most often answered with a wall of logos. The AI Legal Index grades Practice Systems Integration Depth on whether an implementer could read the published material and know what actually moves, and then it does the thing a logo wall cannot: it puts that grade next to what the same vendor says about the firm’s ethical walls.
Documented depth, not a logo
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.What syncs, in which direction, and what the firm has to configure, all published. The wall posture each of these vendors records sits alongside the grade.
An integration into a document system is a pipe through the wall
This is the question the integration lists do not ask, and it is the one that decides whether a deep integration is an asset or an exposure. A retrieval layer plugged into a document management system inherits access to everything that system holds, including the matters on the other side of an ethical wall. Of the 71 vendors with documented integration depth, 6 document that retrieval enforces the source system access model at query time, per user: Casepoint, CosmoLex, DeepJudge, Harvey, MyCase and Vincent AI. 15 maintain their own permission model and document it, which works and leaves the firm keeping two access models in step. 18 assert segregation with no published detail on how it is enforced. And 32 publish nothing at all about walls or matter level segregation while documenting how deeply they reach into the system that maintains them.
Read the last of those numbers again, because it is the finding. 32 of the 71 vendors with the deepest documented reach into a firm’s systems have published nothing about whether that reach respects the access model those systems enforce. The correlation runs the wrong way: the deeper the integration, the more the wall question matters, and it is not the deep integrators who are answering it.
Documented integration and inherited permissions, together
Inherits document system permissionsRetrieval enforces the source system access model at query time, per user, and the vendor documents it. This is the posture that leaves an existing ethical wall intact, because the wall keeps being enforced by the system that already maintains it.
6 of 71. A further 15 maintain their own documented permission model, which is a workable answer that moves the maintenance burden onto the firm. Full definitions are on the signals reference, and the wider confidentiality question is answered on what happens to privilege when a law firm uses a third party AI tool.
Real integrations, depth not described
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.Named connections that exist and are documented, short of what they actually move. The common gap is a supported systems list with no statement of direction, sync behaviour or configuration burden.
- AnaquaIP & Patents
- AscentAIRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- Billables AILegal Ops & Spend
- Case StatusIntake & Client Development
- CasepointLitigation & eDiscovery
- CheckboxLegal Ops & Spend
- ClearbriefLitigation & eDiscovery
- ClioIntake & Client Development
- CloudLexPlaintiff & Claims AI
- CoCounsel LegalGeneral Legal Assistants
- ConsilioLitigation & eDiscovery
- CosmoLexIntake & Client Development
- DeepIPIP & Patents
- DefinelyContract Review & Drafting
- DescrybeLegal Research
- DISCOLitigation & eDiscovery
- Docket AlarmLegal Research
- DraftwiseContract Review & Drafting
- EudiaGeneral Legal Assistants
- ExterroLitigation & eDiscovery
- FilevinePlaintiff & Claims AI
- GC AIGeneral Legal Assistants
- GideonIntake & Client Development
- HonaIntake & Client Development
- IntakerIntake & Client Development
- IroncladContract Review & Drafting
- IvoContract Review & Drafting
- JosefLegal Ops & Spend
- JuroContract Review & Drafting
- LawDroidIntake & Client Development
- LeahContract Review & Drafting
- LEGALFLYGeneral Legal Assistants
- LegalOnContract Review & Drafting
- LegalyzePlaintiff & Claims AI
- LegoraGeneral Legal Assistants
- LexroomLegal Research
- LinkSquaresContract Review & Drafting
- MitratechLegal Ops & Spend
- MyCaseIntake & Client Development
- NextpointLitigation & eDiscovery
- OnspringRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- OntraLegal Ops & Spend
- QuestelIP & Patents
- RegologyRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- RelativityLitigation & eDiscovery
- SandstoneLegal Ops & Spend
- SecuritiRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- SmartAdvocatePlaintiff & Claims AI
- SpellbookContract Review & Drafting
- SpotDraftContract Review & Drafting
- StenoLitigation & eDiscovery
- Streamline AILegal Ops & Spend
- SupioPlaintiff & Claims AI
- TavrnPlaintiff & Claims AI
- TradespaceIP & Patents
- TranscendRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- VesenceGeneral Legal Assistants
- Vincent AILegal Research
- WordsmithGeneral Legal Assistants
- Workday Contract Lifecycle ManagementContract Review & Drafting
What the index cannot tell you
Whether a given integration works well in a given firm. This axis measures whether the integration is documented to a standard an implementer could act on, not whether it performs, and a vendor with a superb connector that ships without documentation grades on what it published. The grade also covers practice systems as a class rather than any single product, so a vendor strong on Word and matter management and thin on document management can carry the same letter as one built the other way round. The specific systems each vendor names are on its own record.
On the wall side, a value of not addressed means the index did not locate published material on the date shown. It is a statement about disclosure and not a finding that a product reads across walls. Several of these vendors may enforce segregation perfectly and have never written it down. The point of recording it is that a firm cannot verify a control nobody has described, and this is the one control where the failure does not announce itself.
Every record behind this page carries a source basis and a verification date. Standards and limits are on the methodology page. The confidentiality questions this one runs into are answered on what happens to privilege when a law firm uses a third party AI tool and do legal AI vendors train their models on client data, the vendor review evidence is on which legal AI vendors publish SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, where the software runs and where the data sits is on which legal AI vendors offer on premise or private cloud deployment, and the complete vendor set is in the directory.