Actionstep vs LEAP: how they compare in 2026
Actionstep, from New Zealand, and LEAP, from Australia, both sell cloud practice management with an AI layer to law firms. Actionstep sits in the top two bands on ten of fifteen axes and LEAP on eight of fifteen, identical on twelve. Actionstep's lead is a published contract. Its terms let a firm choose the AWS region for its data and set deletion at thirty days after termination. They also put nearly all loss on the firm, with claims capped at twelve months of fees. LEAP's subscription agreement could not be located, so its liability position is not established. Actionstep also announces a completed SOC 2 Type 2 examination; LEAP's security page names no certification. LEAP's counterweight is the reach of its AI. LawY answers research questions from a knowledge base for each jurisdiction, and a user can send an answer to a practicing lawyer in their own state to verify. Both state their training bars on web pages, not in terms, and LEAP's covers only third party foundation models.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the engine of a core capability layered on a product that would still function without them. Actionstep Intelligence and Trace passive time capture sit on a practice management platform that has run matters, documents, billing and trust accounting for years; the vendor's own AI page makes every AI feature opt-in, which is the vendor stating the product stands without them. Home page, AI page and terms read 6 September 2026.
The models are the engine of a core capability layered on a product that would still function without them. LawY answers legal questions, Matter AI reads a matter's emails and documents, Generator drafts from matter data and AI time recording logs activity; remove them and case management, document automation from jurisdiction-specific templates, accounting, billing, payments and the client portal remain, which is the practice management product LEAP sold for years before the July 2024 AI launch. The vendor's own framing is that the AI supports and complements lawyers rather than replacing their work. Home page, LawY integration page and July 2024 launch coverage read 6 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Accuracy is disclaimed without measurement and the primary-authority limbs do not apply. Terms section 6.6 disclaims any warranty of the accuracy, reliability or completeness of content or data, and the AI features capture time and surface matter information rather than citing law; no accuracy figure, test set or evaluation for Trace or Actionstep Intelligence is published on the surfaces read. The Actionstep Intelligence product page was not opened. Terms and AI page read 6 September 2026.
Grounding is claimed to a knowledge base the reader cannot open, and no accuracy figure is published. LawY is described as answering from a jurisdiction-specific legal knowledge base, and the vendor's answer to accuracy risk is procedural rather than measured: an option to have an answer verified by a practising lawyer in the user's state, which is a review mechanism graded on the autonomy axis rather than a disclosure of how often unverified answers are wrong. No test set, benchmark or evaluation is published. A 2024 Australian court matter in which fabricated authorities were generated inside a practice management platform's AI tool is recorded on the fabricated-citation signal, which is held pending operator review. Home page, LawY page and launch coverage read 6 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
A written commitment that the firm controls what the AI does, with a visible audit surface, short of the full control structure. The AI page states that every AI feature is opt-in, that the firm chooses what AI does inside the firm, sees what it has done and can audit it; Trace captures time passively for a person to review before billing. What is not published is any threshold at which the system acts alone or a stated route back after a wrong capture beyond the firm's own review; the Actionstep Intelligence page was not opened. AI page and home page read 6 September 2026.
A written commitment that the models work alongside a reviewing lawyer with an unusual review surface, short of the full control structure. LawY's answers can be sent, at the user's election, to a qualified practising lawyer in the user's jurisdiction for verification before reliance, which is a human-in-the-loop route the vendor built rather than assumed; Matter AI and Generator produce answers and drafts for a lawyer to work from, and the vendor states its AI is not there to replace lawyers. What is not published is any threshold at which the system acts alone, notably for AI time recording that logs billable activity automatically, or a stated route back after an unverified answer proves wrong. Home page, LawY page and launch coverage read 6 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Scale claims stand in for named deployments on the surfaces read. The vendor states more than 5,000 firms and publishes a midsize law firm priorities report as a survey finding, not a deployment outcome; the customer stories page exists in the navigation and was not opened, and is the rebuttal route. Home page and navigation read 6 September 2026.
Scale claims and third-party reviews stand in for named deployments on the surfaces read. The vendor states more than 61,000 lawyers on the platform globally, which is a customer count rather than an outcome, and the July 2024 launch coverage describes a lawyer using Matter AI to compare two parties' financials in a divorce without naming the firm; no case study or named customer with a figure was located. The customer stories surface was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Home page and launch coverage read 6 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Substantive published commitments on confidentiality, training use and professional duties, short of the full picture. No training: the AI page states that firm data is not used to train AI models and that client, matter and billing data are not shared with third-party AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm, and the terms are silent on training with a data licence confined to providing the service. Segregation at the level a firm requires: roles and permissions per user under terms section 2 and the security page. Professional duties in writing: the addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority recognises that data may include client confidential information subject to professional duties, commits to protect it consistently with those duties, waives any lien on data and gives twenty-eight days' notice of any change to hosting arrangements, though for SRA-regulated firms only. Retention: deletion thirty days after termination under section 8.5. Short of A because the training commitment is policy rather than contract and privilege as such is not named. Terms, AI page and security page read 6 September 2026.
Substantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture. The US security page states that client matter data is not used to train third-party AI foundation models without the firm's explicit consent, that AI features are designed for data minimisation consistent with GDPR Article 25 and law firm professional obligations, and that third-party AI vendors are contractually bound to the same data protection standards as other sub-processors, with encryption in transit and at rest. Two qualifiers travel with the training statement: it covers third-party foundation models, not LEAP's own models, and it yields to consent. Not located: any statement on matter-level segregation, any treatment of privilege or work product, any retention or deletion commitment, and the subscription agreement itself, which was not opened. Security page and home page read 6 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A real position on advice versus tooling, framed for a professional user, short of a competence dimension. Terms section 6.2 states that use of the service does not constitute legal, accounting, financial or other professional advice, section 6.5 that the firm must have the professional expertise to assess suitability and may not rely on Actionstep for compliance decisions, and sections 6.3 and 6.4 that AML and trust accounting obligations stay with the firm; the AI page frames AI as opt-in and auditable. Jurisdiction is addressed by contracting entity and governing law. No bar guidance on AI use is named. Terms and AI page read 6 September 2026.
A real position on how the product sits with a lawyer's duties, framed for lawyers and aware of jurisdiction. The vendor states that its AI solutions are not there to replace lawyers but to support and complement their expertise, LawY's verification option routes answers to a practising lawyer in the user's own state, and the LawY page states that availability depends on jurisdiction and area of law, which is a stated limit. The buyer is a law firm. No explicit disclaimer that outputs are not legal advice was located on the surfaces read, and no bar guidance is named. Home page, LawY page and launch coverage read 6 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
User-facing controls without a governance framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The AI page's commitments, opt-in features, visibility of AI actions and auditability, are controls a firm exercises rather than a description of how Actionstep governs its own models; no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing or statement about uneven output is published on the surfaces read. AI page and terms read 6 September 2026.
A governance statement without a framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The security page states that AI-related security and privacy risks are assessed as part of the standard risk management process and that AI features are designed for data minimisation; no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing description or statement about uneven output across jurisdictions or practice areas is published on the surfaces read. The trust centre was not opened. Security page read 6 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Substantive published policy covering most of the ground. Retention and deletion: terms section 8.5 permits deletion thirty days after termination with a backup available on request within twenty days, and the New Zealand addendum retains data seven years for tax purposes. Access control: multi-factor authentication, single sign-on and role-based permissions on the security page. Hosting: Amazon Web Services in a customer-elected region under section 9.2 and 9.4. Sub-processors: the privacy policy names service providers such as Intercom and the Google integration scope, and section 5.4 addresses third-party application access; no consolidated list with AI providers was located. Incident practice: not located on the surfaces read; the SRA addendum commits to an annual audit of security measures for those firms. Terms, security page and privacy policy excerpts read 6 September 2026.
Substantive published policy covering most of the ground. The US security page states TLS 1.2 in transit and AES-256 at rest, continuous infrastructure and application monitoring with anomaly detection and centralised logging, documented incident procedures from identification through recovery with client notification obligations met, high-availability architecture across multiple AWS availability zones with defined recovery time and point objectives, encrypted and regularly tested backups with annual disaster recovery and business continuity tests, and third-party AI vendors bound as sub-processors. Not located: a retention period, a deletion commitment, and the sub-processor list itself, which the page implies and the trust centre may carry. Security page read 6 September 2026; trust centre not opened.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The allocation of loss is published and a buyer can read it, and it places nearly all of it on the buyer. Terms section 7 excludes all liability for loss from use of or reliance on the service, limits any claim for Actionstep's negligence or breach to the access fees paid in the previous twelve months, and makes termination the sole remedy for dissatisfaction; section 6.6 provides the service as-is with all warranties disclaimed, sections 6.3 to 6.5 exclude liability for regulatory penalties with the firm indemnifying Actionstep, and section 5.3 excludes liability for data loss. There is no vendor indemnity and no insurance; the SRA addendum alone gives an intellectual property non-infringement assurance and reasonable care and skill for those firms. Terms read in full 6 September 2026.
No liability position was located on any surface that could be read, and the surface that would carry one could not be reached. The US security page describes controls and incident procedures without an indemnity, cap, warranty or insurance position; the LawY page states that verification by a practising lawyer is available and the vendor has stated publicly that LawY is a research tool and not legal advice, neither of which allocates loss. The LEAP subscription agreement did not surface in search on 6 September 2026 for the researcher or the supervisor, and the only LEAP licence agreement that did belongs to an unrelated company of the same name and is not credited. This grade records what is locatable on the date and not a finding that no agreement exists; the subscription agreement is the rebuttal route and would replace this grade on a read. US security page, home page, LawY page and privacy policy excerpts checked 6 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Real integrations with depth described for some. The privacy policy describes the Google integration's scope, accessing and saving documents in Drive, saving email records and sending from Gmail, and displaying, creating and updating calendar appointments, and the vendor names Microsoft 365, QuickBooks Online, Xero and DocuSign; a public API with documented developer terms and rate limits exists. The integrations page was not opened and what a firm must configure is not recorded. Privacy policy excerpt, terms, developer terms and FAQ read 6 September 2026.
Real integrations with depth described for some. The vendor names Microsoft 365, Xero, QuickBooks, InfoTrack, WealthCounsel, LawConnect, Power BI and DecisionVault, and its Lawmatics integration announcement describes what moves: client information entered once in Lawmatics flows into LEAP without re-entry, with both subscriptions required. LawY is described as a seamless integration within LEAP with an in-product button. No integration documentation was opened and what a firm must configure is not recorded. Home page, integrations excerpt, Lawmatics release and LawY page read 6 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Regions and processing location are published and the tenancy model is not. Terms section 9.2 hosts the service on Amazon Web Services regions determined by the customer's data sovereignty requirements, section 9.4 lets the customer elect any AWS region Actionstep supports and commits to keep data on servers in that region while noting that user queries may carry some data outside it, and the SRA addendum fixes storage in the United Kingdom or European Union with twenty-eight days' notice of change. Nothing states whether customers share infrastructure, and the supported region list is not published on the surfaces read. Terms read 6 September 2026.
Cloud delivery is stated with partial residency detail. The security page states hosting on Amazon Web Services across multiple availability zones with backups and disaster recovery, and the product is sold in separately configured jurisdictions for Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and the United States. Nothing read states the AWS region for a given jurisdiction's customers, whether customers share infrastructure, or where LawY's third-party models process data. Security page and LawY page read 6 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Certification is real and stated, short of a report reachable without asking. The vendor announces completion of a SOC 2 Type 2 examination with a badge dated February 2026 and states AWS hosting, multi-factor authentication, single sign-on and role-based permissions on its security page; the SRA addendum commits to an annual audit of security measures for those firms. No auditor, coverage period or report route was located on the surfaces read, and the announcement page was not opened. Terms footer, security page and announcement title read 6 September 2026.
Controls are described and a trust centre exists, but no certification with scope was located on the surfaces read. The security page describes encryption, monitoring, incident procedures and backup testing, states that LEAP actively supports client due diligence, and points to a LEAP Trust Center for compliance detail; the page text read did not name SOC 2, ISO 27001 or any auditor or coverage period, and the trust centre was not opened. This grade is rebuttable on the trust centre. Security page read 6 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The vendor refers to third-party AI providers without identifying them. The AI page states that firm data is not shared with third-party AI providers in a way that exposes it beyond the firm, which acknowledges providers exist, and the terms say nothing about models; no model, provider, inference location or change-notification commitment is named on the surfaces read. The Actionstep Intelligence page and Trace page were not opened and are the rebuttal route. AI page and terms read 6 September 2026.
The vendor refers to third-party AI vendors without identifying them. The security page states that third-party AI foundation models are used and that the vendors are bound as sub-processors, and the LawY page describes a jurisdiction-specific knowledge base, but no model, provider, hosting location for inference or change-notification commitment is named on the surfaces read. The trust centre and any sub-processor list are the rebuttal route. Security page and LawY page read 6 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The unit and structure are stated without the figure on the surfaces read. The support centre states a base access fee covering up to three licences with per-user charges beyond that, and the terms bill subscription licences at the start of each subscription period with pro-rata additions, no refunds for prepaid periods and no credit for unused licences. A pricing page exists in the navigation and was not opened on 6 September 2026; a published figure there would lift this to A. Terms and support FAQ read 6 September 2026.
The charging model is published and the figure is not. The vendor states that case management, document automation, accounting, billing and AI come in one integrated system for one price, that LawY and its research AI are included in the subscription at no extra cost, and that the subscription model scales with the firm; no per-user figure, tier or term appears on the vendor surfaces read, and a third-party review figure is not credited. Home page and LawY page read 6 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Segment, practice and jurisdiction coverage are described with substance and the limits are unusually explicit. The vendor publishes pages for fourteen practice areas, six roles and midsize firms, contracts through entities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand with jurisdiction-specific privacy policies and addenda, and states in its terms what the product does not do: it is not warranted for anti-money laundering compliance or for any jurisdiction's trust accounting rules, and firms must verify those themselves. Navigation and terms read 6 September 2026.
Segment, practice and jurisdiction coverage are described with substance and some limits are stated. The buyer is small and mid-sized law firms; forms and matter types are described as covering all common areas of law with specialisms in estate planning, elder law and probate through WealthCounsel; the product is sold in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and the United States with jurisdiction-specific forms. LawY's availability is stated to depend on jurisdiction and area of law, which is a limit the vendor names. Home page, LawY page and partner page read 6 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Public material states that customer content is not used to train, and no matching term was located in the published agreement. The AI page states that Actionstep does not use the firm's data to train AI models and that client, matter and billing data are not shared with third-party AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. The terms of use were read in full: section 5.2 licenses data to Actionstep only to provide the service, and no clause names training either way.
A separately negotiated agreement prevails over the terms under section 10.2 and would be the place a contractual term could sit. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Public material states that customer content is not used for training, and no matching term was located in a published agreement. The US security page states that client matter data is not used to train third-party AI foundation models without the firm's explicit consent. Two qualifiers are the vendor's own: the statement covers third-party foundation models and says nothing about LEAP's own models, and it yields to consent.
The subscription agreement was looked for and did not surface in search on 6 September 2026 for either the researcher or the supervisor; the only LEAP license agreement in search belongs to an unrelated company of the same name and is not cited. That agreement is the rebuttal route in either direction. Surfaces checked: US security page, home page, LawY page, privacy policy excerpts, 6 September 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific period is published and the customer cannot change it. Terms section 8.5 entitles Actionstep to delete all copies of data thirty days after termination, with a backup available on request within twenty days; the New Zealand addendum retains data for at least seven years during the agreement for tax purposes. Nothing states a shorter or configurable window for AI inputs and outputs during the term, and the AI page speaks of visibility and audit rather than retention. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material addresses how long prompts to LawY or Matter AI, or their outputs, are retained. The security page addresses backups, encryption and incident handling without a retention period; the subscription agreement, privacy policy and trust center were not opened on 6 September 2026 and are the rebuttal route.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model and documents it at the level of a description. The security page describes role definition and per-user permissions with custom data collections restricted to selected users, and terms section 2 gives the subscriber control of each user's access level; nothing describes how the AI features respect those permissions when they act on matter data. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material describes how matters are segregated within a firm or how Matter AI's retrieval respects matter-level access. The product is matter-centred by design and the security page describes access controls in general terms only; product documentation and the trust center were not opened on 6 September 2026 and are the rebuttal route.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Disclosure is addressed and notice is not reached. Terms section 4.1 preserves confidentiality of the other party's information except where required by law, with no commitment to tell the customer when its data is demanded; the SRA addendum separately authorizes disclosure to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on request without prior consent. The jurisdiction-specific privacy policies incorporated by section 4.2 were not opened and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material addresses whether the customer is told when its data is demanded by a third party. The US security page states that documented incident procedures meet client notification obligations, which concerns security incidents rather than legal process, and the LawY page and home page say nothing on the subject. The subscription agreement, where a compelled-disclosure clause would sit, did not surface in search on 6 September 2026 for either the researcher or the supervisor; the only LEAP license agreement in search belongs to an unrelated company of the same name and is not cited.
That agreement is the rebuttal route in either direction. Surfaces checked: US security page, home page, LawY page, privacy policy excerpts, 6 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies a legal corpus behind the AI features, and the product is not built on one: Trace captures time from a user's activity and Actionstep Intelligence works from matter data, citing no law. AI page, home page and terms checked 6 September 2026.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction without identifying the underlying corpus. LawY answers from what the vendor calls a jurisdiction-specific legal knowledge base, available for particular jurisdictions and areas of law, and the platform's forms library is maintained by LEAP's legal experts using trusted resources; nothing states what primary sources the knowledge base holds, under what license, or how often it is refreshed. LawY page, partner page and home page read 6 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or cite primary law. Recorded as the honest value for a product without a citator function. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material addresses whether authorities LawY cites are checked for subsequent history. The vendor's control on citation risk is human verification of an answer by a practicing lawyer at the user's election, which is a review step rather than a citator or treatment signal. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material describes what the AI features do when they cannot ground an output. The AI page describes visibility and auditability of what the AI has done, which is a record rather than an abstention path, and no confidence signal is described. The Actionstep Intelligence page was not opened. AI page and terms checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material describes what LawY or Matter AI does when it cannot ground an answer. The vendor offers verification by a practicing lawyer as the safeguard on an answer already given, and states that LawY is available only for certain jurisdictions and areas of law, which is a scope limit rather than an abstention behavior. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Actionstep, Actionstep Intelligence or Trace was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the company and product names together with a general search for court findings; results returned sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots and trackers, none of which names this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; a practice management tool whose AI captures time and surfaces matter data carries a remote exposure on this signal.
A court record exists and the vendor has responded. In Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found at paragraph 1 that a solicitor had tendered non-existent authorities prepared using an AI tool incorporated in the legal practice management software he subscribed to and had not verified them; the finding addressed the filer, who was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, which varied his practicing certificate on 19 August 2025, and the product was not named.
In Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, decided 31 January 2025 while addressing a different filer's use of a general-purpose chatbot, the court at paragraph 32 recited Dayal as a list generated using an AI tool within the LEAP practice management software, which identified the product as the source without making a finding about its output. The vendor's response, given to the press and reported by Legal IT Insider on 15 October 2024: a LEAP spokesperson stated that the solicitor submitted the cases for verification at 9 pm, received corrected cases within four hours, and did not use them, and that LawY is an AI research tool and not legal advice.
Verification of an answer by a practicing lawyer is the product's stated design. No first-party page carrying the statement was located. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and the Obiter Australian listing were searched 6 September 2026.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Generic reference. Actionstep's terms engage a named regulator on outsourcing, not on lawyers' use of AI. Terms section 11 is an addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority: it recognizes the professional duties attaching to client data, waives any lien, fixes data location in the United Kingdom or European Union, gives twenty-eight days' notice of changes, commits to annual audit of security measures and to cooperation with the SRA.
That clause is credited where it belongs, on the privilege and residency rows. No ethics opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is named or engaged anywhere on the estate, and no equivalent addendum exists for the United States, Australia or New Zealand. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026; value set at the pull 6 close out under R102, one clause does not score twice.
No located public material names an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework. The security page refers to law firm professional obligations as a design consideration for data minimization and the LawY verification option is built around practicing lawyers in the user's state, but no guidance from any jurisdiction is named. Security page, LawY page and home page checked 6 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The buyer is a law firm and the product issues the client's invoice, so it sits inside the fee relationship; what it publishes on AI and the bill is time capture rather than disclosure. Trace passively captures billable time and Actionstep Intelligence is marketed as finding efficiency, and the vendor's own survey report frames AI as driving client demands for lower fees; nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded or disclosed on the client's bill when the work takes less time. Home page, AI page and report title checked 6 September 2026.
The buyer is a law firm and the product issues the client's invoice, so it sits inside the fee relationship; what it publishes on AI and the bill is a savings and capture claim rather than a disclosure record. AI-assisted time recording is described as logging billable activity automatically from matter events, and the AI features are marketed as reducing time on research and drafting; nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded or disclosed on the client's bill when six hours become one, or whether LawY-verified answers carry a cost that is passed through. Home page and third-party feature description checked 6 September 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Service providers are named in the privacy policy without a model provider list. The privacy policy names Intercom and the scope of the Google integration, terms section 5.4 addresses data access by third-party applications a firm enables, and the AI page states that third-party AI providers exist and do not receive data in a way that exposes it beyond the firm, without naming them. The jurisdiction-specific privacy policies and any data processing agreement were not read in full and are the rebuttal route to a higher value. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
The vendor states that a sub-processor regime exists and that AI vendors sit inside it, and offers to support client due diligence, but no sub-processor list or model provider list was located on the surfaces read; the security page directs readers to a trust center for compliance detail, which was not opened on 6 September 2026. The value reflects that the material is available through the vendor rather than published where it could be read, and the trust center is the rebuttal route to a higher value.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of a disclosure record are available and no export is described. The AI page states that a firm can see what the AI has done and audit it, which is a record of AI actions inside the platform; nothing states that a per-document record of the model used, sources and human verification can be exported for a court, and the product produces no court-facing work product. AI page checked 6 September 2026.
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification of AI-assisted work. LawY's human verification produces a lawyer-checked answer, which is a form of verification record, but nothing states that a per-document record of the model used, sources retrieved and human verification can be exported for a court, and the 2024 Australian matter recorded on the fabricated-citation signal turned on the absence of verification by the filer. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Actionstep if
- You want the contract to say where your data sits. Actionstep's terms let a firm elect any AWS region it supports and commit to keeping data there, and for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority they fix storage in the United Kingdom or European Union with 28 days' notice of any change.
- Your procurement team wants an audit and a liability position it can read. Actionstep announces a completed SOC 2 Type 2 examination with a badge dated February 2026, and its terms, published in full, set out the whole allocation of loss, including a cap at the fees paid in the previous twelve months.
- You want AI kept optional and auditable. Actionstep states that every AI feature is opt in, that a firm chooses what the AI does and can see and audit what it has done, and that firm data is not used to train AI models or exposed to AI providers beyond the firm.
Choose LEAP if
- You want legal research inside your practice system. LEAP's LawY answers questions from a knowledge base for each jurisdiction, and a user can send an answer to a practicing lawyer in their own state for verification, included in the subscription at no extra cost.
- You want to ask questions across a matter's whole file. LEAP's Matter AI reads the emails, documents and data in a matter, including scanned and handwritten material, and LEAP Generator drafts documents, letters and forms from matter details.
- You practice estate planning or work across several countries. LEAP describes forms for all common areas of law with estate planning, elder law and probate through WealthCounsel, sells in six countries with forms for each jurisdiction, and integrates with InfoTrack, Lawmatics, Xero and Microsoft 365.
In summary
Actionstep
Actionstep, from Actionstep Limited of New Zealand, is a cloud practice management platform for midsize law firms covering matters, documents, email, intake, conflict checks, time, billing, trust accounting and full legal accounting, with workflow automation across fourteen practice areas. Its AI layer, Actionstep Intelligence, launched in August 2026 alongside Trace, which captures time passively. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on ten of fifteen capability axes. Its terms let a firm elect the AWS region that holds its data, it announces a completed SOC 2 Type 2 examination, and it states that every AI feature is opt in. It serves more than 5,000 firms. As of 6 September 2026 the index located no named model provider, no accuracy figure and no published price.
LEAP
LEAP, from LEAP Legal Software, founded in Australia with its US business in Jersey City, New Jersey, is a cloud practice management platform for small and midsize law firms that combines case management, document automation with forms for each jurisdiction, legal and trust accounting, billing, a client portal and AI at one subscription price. Its AI includes LawY for legal research, Matter AI for questions across a matter's file, and tools for drafting and time recording. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on eight of fifteen capability axes. It sells in six countries and states more than 61,000 lawyers on the platform. As of 6 September 2026 the index located no subscription agreement, named certification, model provider or price.
Questions buyers ask
Actionstep vs LEAP: which is better for a midsize law firm?
The grid places them two axes apart: Actionstep sits in the top two bands on ten of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and LEAP on eight of fifteen, identical on twelve. Actionstep publishes its terms, a SOC 2 Type 2 examination and its fee structure. LEAP builds more AI into one subscription, including legal research and questions across a matter's file. Firms that want contract terms in hand before a demo have more to read from Actionstep.
Do Actionstep and LEAP train AI on client data?
Both say no on web pages rather than in their terms. Actionstep's AI page states that it does not use a firm's data to train AI models, and its terms license data only to provide the service. LEAP's security page states that client matter data is not used to train third party AI foundation models without the firm's explicit consent, which leaves LEAP's own models unaddressed. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where do Actionstep and LEAP store firm data?
Actionstep's terms let a firm elect any AWS region it supports and commit to keeping data there, though queries may carry some data outside it, and firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority get storage in the United Kingdom or European Union. LEAP hosts on AWS across multiple availability zones and sells separately configured versions by country, but names no region for a given country's customers. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How are Actionstep and LEAP priced?
Neither publishes a figure on the pages read. Actionstep states a base access fee covering up to three licenses with a charge for each user beyond that, billed up front each period with no refund for prepaid time. LEAP sells one subscription covering case management, accounting, billing and its AI, with LawY and its lawyer verification option included at no extra cost. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Actionstep and LEAP both leave unpublished?
Which models run their AI and how those models are governed. Neither names a model or AI provider, and neither describes a governance framework, testing before release or an accountable owner. Neither publishes an accuracy figure. Neither says how AI assisted work is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill, although both capture billable time with AI, and neither names bar guidance on lawyers' use of AI. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. Both training commitments sit on web pages rather than in terms, and LEAP's covers third party foundation models, not its own, and yields to a firm's consent. LEAP's subscription agreement did not surface in search, so its low liability grade records what could be located, not a finding that no agreement exists. Actionstep's pricing page and LEAP's trust center were not opened, and either could lift a grade. Actionstep and LEAP were both verified on 6 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.