AI Legal Index
Index · The model supply chain question

Which legal AI vendors disclose which AI models they use?

Index data last verified

Fewer than a buyer would assume, and the gap between naming a model and disclosing a supply chain is where most of the market sits. The AI Legal Index grades every vendor on Model Supply Chain Disclosure, which asks four things together: which models sit underneath the product, whose they are, where inference runs, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when any of that changes. Of 463 legal AI vendors recorded, 12 answer all four, 236 name models or providers without completing the set, 165 gesture at the underlying technology without identifying anything a buyer could verify, and 49 publish nothing about the model supply chain a customer inherits. The complete disclosure tier is CaseBlink, Docusign Agreement Manager, GC AI, Intapp, IPRally, Irys, Libra, Lulius, Neota Logic, Noxtua, RubyLaw and Vesence. A vendor saying it is powered by leading large language models has named nothing. A vendor saying which model, from which provider, running in which region, with notice on change, has told a firm what it is actually buying.

A model supply chain is the set of dependencies a customer inherits without choosing them: the model itself, the company that owns it, the infrastructure it runs on, and the terms attached to each. In most industries that is a procurement detail. In legal work it is a confidentiality question, because a firm cannot tell a client which companies see privileged material if the vendor has not said. The index grades this on Model Supply Chain Disclosure and records the law side of the same question as a separate signal. Both records are on every vendor profile with a source basis and a date.

Key takeaways
  • 12 of 463 vendors publish a complete model supply chain: models named, providers identified, inference location stated, and change notice committed.
  • 49 publish nothing at all about what sits underneath the product.
  • 17 of 463 name their primary law sources together with the license basis for each, so most buyers cannot say where the law in the answer came from.
  • 2 publish both halves. That number is the one worth watching, because the two questions are usually answered by different teams and almost never answered together.

The vendors that name the whole stack

AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.

An A on this axis is not a judgment about the models chosen. It records that a buyer can read, without a sales call, which models are in use, whose they are, where they run and what happens when that changes.

C
CaseBlinkIntake & Client Development
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
D
Docusign Agreement ManagerContract Review & Drafting
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
G
GC AIGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
I
IntappLegal Ops & Spend
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
I
IPRallyIP & Patents
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
I
IrysGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
L
LibraGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
L
LuliusLegal Research
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
N
Neota LogicLegal Ops & Spend
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
N
NoxtuaGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
R
RubyLawIntake & Client Development
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
V
VesenceGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.

Named in part, short of the full set

BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

These 236 vendors name models or providers and stop short of the complete picture. The most common missing piece is the change commitment, which matters more than it reads: a model swap is a routine engineering decision, and a disclosure with no notice attached is accurate on the day it is written and unverifiable every day after.

The whole field, on one axis

Grade What it records Vendors
A Models, providers, location and change notice 12
B Models or providers named, set incomplete 236
C Technology described, nothing identifiable 165
D Nothing published on the supply chain 49
Total Vendors carrying a graded row 463

248 of 463 vendors name something identifiable. The remaining 214 leave a buyer with a product description and no dependency list. Gated is not absent and is graded as its own tier: material a firm can pull from a trust portal without a sales conversation counts, material released only after a call does not.

The other half of the same question

Where did the law in this product come from?

Sources named and licensed

Naming the model is half of what sits underneath a legal answer. The other half is the law itself, and the index records it separately as Primary Law Corpus Provenance. Of 463 vendors, 17 name their primary law sources together with the license or public domain basis for each and an update cadence, 161 identify sources without stating the rights basis, 52 describe coverage by jurisdiction with no identification of the corpus underneath, and 232 publish nothing that identifies where the law in the product came from. Two separate risks sit on that one question. Coverage is the first: an answer drawn from a corpus that lags by months is confidently wrong in a way the reader cannot detect. Title is the second: legal publishing has already produced litigation over whether one company may build a research product on another company's editorial content, and a buyer who cannot say where the case law came from cannot price the risk that the corpus is enjoined.

Blue J logoBlue JLegal Research
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
BriefCatch logoBriefCatchLitigation & eDiscovery
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.
BRYTER logoBRYTERLegal Ops & Spend
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Derwent Patent Monitor logoDerwent Patent MonitorIP & Patents
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.
Derwent Patent Search logoDerwent Patent SearchIP & Patents
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Docket Alarm logoDocket AlarmLegal Research
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.
InnovationQ+ logoInnovationQ+IP & Patents
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Jusbrasil logoJusbrasilLegal Research
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Libra logoLibraGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
Manupatra logoManupatraLegal Research
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.
Noxtua logoNoxtuaGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
Ordalie logoOrdalieGeneral Legal Assistants
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Otto Schmidt Answers logoOtto Schmidt AnswersLegal Research
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
PatentSight+ logoPatentSight+IP & Patents
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.
Silex logoSilexLegal Research
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Thirdfort logoThirdfortIntake & Client Development
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.
Vincent AI logoVincent AILegal Research
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

Below that, 161 identify sources without stating the rights basis, 52 describe coverage by jurisdiction only, and 232 of 463 publish nothing located. 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.

Which vendors publish both halves?

2 of 463 vendors publish both halves: a complete model supply chain and a named, licensed primary law corpus. They are Libra and Noxtua. 10 disclose the full supply chain while leaving the corpus unidentified, which tells a firm who reads the question and not what was read to answer it. 15 name and license the corpus without completing the supply chain, which is the reverse trade. Neither half substitutes for the other, and the reason this join is hard to find anywhere else is that no single vendor can publish it. It only exists across a market.

Libra logoLibraGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.
Noxtua logoNoxtuaGeneral Legal Assistants
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.

What the index cannot tell you

Whether an undisclosed stack is a good one. A vendor that publishes nothing about its models may be running a careful, well governed architecture, and the index records the silence rather than inferring anything behind it. The grade is a disclosure grade. It says what a buyer can find out without asking, which is the thing that matters when the person asking is a client and the answer is due this week.

These records also reach only as far as public material, and an absence is dated. It means not located in public sources on the date shown, and it is redated the day the vendor publishes. A vendor that walks a firm through its whole architecture in a procurement call and writes none of it down grades on what it wrote down, because a call leaves no artifact and an artifact is what gets forwarded to a client.

Method and adjacent reads

Every record behind this page carries a source basis and a verification date. Standards and limits are on the methodology page. The deployment half of the same architecture question is on which legal AI vendors offer on premise or private cloud deployment, the attestation half is on which legal AI vendors publish SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, what those models are permitted to learn from is on do legal AI vendors train their models on client data, what they get right when they answer is on which AI legal research tools publish their hallucination or accuracy rates, and the complete vendor set is in the directory.

Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 19, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746