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. Both publish their terms. Actionstep's 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 General Terms set mutual caps at twelve months of fees, with a super cap of USD 1,000,000 in the US schedule for breaches of the license and intellectual property terms, and leave AI output errors with the firm. Actionstep also announces a completed SOC 2 Type 2 examination. LEAP's lead 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.
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.
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.
Actionstep has spent twenty years as the operational system for midsize firms, running matters, documents, billing, trust accounting and reporting, and its AI layer, Actionstep Intelligence, is built on that record. Today it covers passive time capture through the Trace add on, which tracks work across Outlook, Word, PDFs, Teams and the browser, maps it to the right matter and billing code and drafts a bill ready narrative. It also covers business intelligence that answers plain language questions about profitability, realization and billing trends, and matter summaries and alerts. Agents that carry out workflow tasks within limits administrators set are announced as coming soon. The company frames its AI around running the firm rather than practicing law, and it says every AI feature is opt in, so the platform runs without them.
The models drive a core capability layered on a practice management product that sold for years without them. LEAP's AI covers four jobs: LawY, a third party legal assistant built into LEAP, answers legal questions from a jurisdiction specific knowledge base and can send an answer to a practicing lawyer in the user's state for verification; Matter AI summarizes a matter in seconds with inline references to the documents behind each point, and lets the user choose between AI models and regenerate; Generator drafts letters, client emails and court forms from matter data directly in Microsoft Word; and AI time recording logs billable activity from matter work. Clause 9.2 of the General Terms adds prompts and reminders about deadlines and due dates to the list. Remove the models and case management, a large library of jurisdiction specific forms, document automation, legal accounting, trust accounting, billing, payments and the client portal remain, which is the product LEAP sold before its July 2024 AI launch. The company says its AI supports lawyers rather than replacing them.
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.
Time entries mapped to matters and answers about firm profitability are what the AI produces, and it cites no law. Those outputs feed invoices clients read and decisions partners make. The company describes grounding in its own data rather than accuracy. Business intelligence answers are described as sourced and contextual, drawn from the firm's matters and billing records, and Trace entries are mapped to matter and billing codes and presented for review, editing and posting. The Trace page reports 25 to 50 more hours billed and 100 hours of manual entry saved per lawyer each year, and write downs and appeals under 3 percent, noting that results vary by location. None of those measures accuracy, and no method is given. Section 6.6 of the Terms provides the service as is and disclaims any warranty that content is accurate or complete.
Grounding is real for matter summaries, the legal research answers are verified by people rather than measured, and two court records name the product. Matter AI summaries carry inline references to the documents and details each point came from, so a lawyer can trace a summary back to the file. LawY answers from a jurisdiction specific knowledge base that is not published, and LEAP's answer to accuracy risk is procedural: a user can have any answer checked by a practicing lawyer in their state. Clause 9.6 of the General Terms says the AI Services may not reflect current law or suit the firm's circumstances, may be inaccurate, and must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. No accuracy figure, test or evaluation is published. Two court records tie fabricated authorities to AI inside LEAP: in Dayal (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 2024) a solicitor tendered non existent authorities generated in his practice software and later identified as LEAP's, and a County Court decision in Birmingham in October 2025 recorded fictitious citations produced with LEAP legal software. In the Australian matter LEAP said the lawyer had not used the verified answers.
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.
Administrators set the boundaries, according to the AI page, lawyers review before anything is acted on, every AI feature is opt in, and the firm can see and audit what the AI did. Trace follows that pattern. It drafts each time entry for a person to review, edit and post, can be turned off at any time from the system tray, and lets users exclude internal email or specific activity. Agents that carry out workflow tasks within boundaries set by administrators are described as coming soon, with every action logged along with who approved it and what followed. Not yet published is how those boundaries are set, which actions will need approval each time, and what happens when an agent acts wrongly.
A human verification route LEAP built itself, and a contract that puts review on the firm, short of limits on the features that act on their own. LawY answers can be sent at the user's election to a qualified practicing lawyer in the user's jurisdiction for verification before anyone relies on them, which few vendors offer. Matter AI summaries show their sources inline and can be regenerated with a different model, and Generator drafts open in Word for the lawyer to edit. Clause 9.6 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says a qualified lawyer should review any AI output before it is relied on, and that the firm is responsible for validating it with its own professional judgment. What is not published is where the automated features stop. AI time recording logs billable activity from matter work without saying whether each entry needs approval before it reaches an invoice, and the deadline and due date prompts listed in clause 9.2 are not described at all, including what happens if one is missed or wrong.
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.
Actionstep says it supports nearly 5,000 law firms worldwide and publishes a 2026 report on UK midsize law firm priorities based on its own survey. The Trace page reports 25 to 50 extra hours billed and 100 hours of manual entry saved per lawyer each year, with write downs and appeals under 3 percent, noting that results vary by location. None of those figures is tied to a named firm, a period or a method. The navigation links to a customer stories page, and that address returns a not found error.
Named firms in number, and no outcome figures. The US testimonials page carries video reviews from more than twenty named attorneys and their firms. Among them are Watts Law, Cadicina Law, Canarick & Canarick, Broder Law Group, Davey Law, Flick Law Group, Neave Family Law, Johnson & Borenstein, Enea, Scanlan and Sirignano, Aceto Bonner & Cole and Brian D. Perskin & Associates. A written quote from Sheryl J. Seiden of Seiden Family Law sits alongside them. LEAP also says more than 61,000 lawyers use the platform globally. Its July 2024 launch coverage described a lawyer using Matter AI to compare two parties' finances in a divorce, without naming the firm. That is a broad, verifiable base of named small and midsize firms. What is missing is any measured result: no testimonial or case study reports time saved, hours captured by AI time recording, or research time reduced with LawY, and none is dated.
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.
Firm data is not used to train AI models, the AI page says, and client information, matter history and billing records are not shared with outside AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. The Terms do not mention AI or training, so that promise sits on a web page, not in the agreement. The Terms add confidentiality protection for one group. The addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority recognizes that data may include confidential client information subject to professional duties and commits to protect it accordingly. It also waives any lien over the data, keeps storage in the UK or EU and requires 28 days' notice before hosting changes. For all customers, access is governed by user roles and permissions, and section 8.5 allows deletion 30 days after termination, with a backup available on request within 20 days. Privilege is not named.
The training commitment is now in the contract, alongside a full confidentiality regime, with privilege and matter separation still unaddressed. Clause 9.3 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says LEAP will not use a firm's matter data to improve or train the AI Services, which moves the promise from the security page into the agreement. The security page adds that client data is not used to train third party foundation models without explicit consent, and that third party AI vendors are bound as sub processors to the same standards. Clause 24 sets up mutual confidentiality. Clause 24.3 requires LEAP, where the law allows, to notify the firm promptly before disclosing its confidential information under a court order or regulator's demand, and to limit and protect any disclosure. The firm owns its client data under clauses 8 and 23. What remains unaddressed is attorney client privilege and work product by name, separation between matters inside a firm, which matters for Matter AI reading across a matter's documents, and how long AI prompts and outputs are kept.
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.
Section 6.5 of the Terms says the firm alone decides whether the service suits its regulatory and compliance requirements and that Actionstep does not provide legal, compliance, regulatory, accounting or tax advice. Sections 6.3 and 6.4 say anti money laundering and trust accounting obligations stay with the firm, which indemnifies Actionstep for breaches of them. The SRA addendum goes further for regulated firms in England and Wales, acknowledging the regulator's powers and agreeing to cooperate with it. On the AI itself, the company frames Actionstep Intelligence as serving the business and operations of the firm rather than practicing law, and its AI page says lawyers review before anything is acted on. Nothing connects the AI features to a lawyer's duties of competence, supervision or billing accuracy, though Trace drafts the narratives on client invoices, and no bar or regulator guidance on AI is cited.
A clear contractual line on advice and review, framed for lawyers and aware of jurisdiction. Clause 9.6 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says the AI Services may not have been developed or approved by legal practitioners and carry no legal or professional endorsement. It says they may not reflect applicable law or suit the firm's circumstances, do not constitute legal advice and must not be relied on as such, and should be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. The firm is responsible for validating output through its own skill and judgment. Clause 9.5 notes that LEAP has not advised the firm on what client consents its jurisdiction requires before matter data goes through AI. LawY's verification option routes an answer to a practicing lawyer in the user's own state, and LawY's availability is stated to depend on jurisdiction and area of law. The buyer is always a law firm. No bar opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is cited.
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.
The AI page says governance is built in from the start, not added later. It lists the controls a firm has: opt in features, boundaries set by administrators, lawyer review before action, and a full view of what the AI did. It also describes an internal AI center of excellence that guides customers and shapes the roadmap. Nothing published says how Actionstep governs its models: who is accountable for their behavior, what is tested before a new model is connected, and whether time capture or profitability insights perform unevenly across practice areas, offices or fee earners. The company calls itself model agnostic and expects to switch to better models as they appear. No responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent is cited.
A governance statement and a data minimization design, without a published framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The security page says AI related security and privacy risks are assessed within LEAP's standard risk management process, that AI features are designed for data minimization consistent with GDPR Article 25 and lawyers' professional obligations, and that third party AI vendors are held to the same data protection standards as other sub processors. Those statements govern data. What the models produce is left to the firm's review under clause 9.6 of the General Terms. No responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre release testing process, or finding on whether LawY answers or Matter AI summaries perform unevenly across jurisdictions or practice areas is published. For LEAP the question has a concrete edge: two courts have recorded fabricated authorities traced to AI within its software, and a published account of how research answers are tested and monitored would be the natural response.
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.
Section 8.5 of the Terms allows Actionstep to delete all copies of a firm's data 30 days after termination and gives the firm a backup if it asks within 20 days. The New Zealand addendum keeps data seven years for tax purposes. Sections 9.2 and 9.4 host the service on Amazon Web Services in a region the firm elects. The security page lists multi factor authentication, single sign on, role based permissions and encryption of data in transit, and the company announced in February 2026 that it had completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination. The SRA addendum commits, for those firms, to act only on the firm's instructions, maintain technical and organizational measures, vet staff with access and audit its measures at least annually. What is not published is a list of subprocessors that includes the AI providers behind Actionstep Intelligence, or any commitment on how quickly a firm would be told of a breach.
Substantive commitments, several of them now in the contract, short of a published sub processor list and a deletion commitment. The General Terms (1 August 2026) require each party to notify the other of a suspected notifiable data breach without undue delay and within 72 hours, and to cooperate on investigation and mitigation. Clause 26 commits LEAP to security controls that meet or exceed SOC 2 Type 2 standards. The security page describes encryption in transit, at rest and in use with managed key rotation, and role based access with mandatory multi factor authentication for privileged access and periodic access reviews. It also describes continuous monitoring with documented incident procedures, and high availability across multiple AWS availability zones with defined recovery objectives, encrypted tested backups and annual disaster recovery tests. A sub processor register and a data processing agreement are available on request. At the end of a subscription, clause 20 moves the firm onto a paid single user historical license until it has extracted its data, which preserves access but sets no deletion date. Retention of AI prompts and outputs is not addressed.
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.
Section 7 of the Terms excludes all liability for loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on the service. It limits any claim for Actionstep's negligence or breach to the access fees paid in the previous 12 months, and makes termination the firm's only remedy if it is dissatisfied. Section 6.6 provides the service as is and as available with every warranty disclaimed. Sections 6.3 and 6.4 exclude liability for regulatory penalties from anti money laundering or trust accounting failures, with the firm indemnifying Actionstep. Nothing in the Terms addresses the AI features, so a time entry billed to the wrong matter or a misleading profitability insight falls under the same general exclusion. Only the SRA addendum adds a duty of reasonable care and skill and an assurance against intellectual property infringement, for regulated firms in England and Wales.
LEAP now publishes a full customer agreement with balanced caps and a higher cap for data breaches, and it leaves AI output errors with the firm. The General Terms, effective 1 August 2026 for new clients and 1 September 2026 for existing ones, set mutual liability caps in clause 17 at the fees paid in the prior 12 months. A mutual super cap of USD 1,000,000 in the US schedule applies to breaches of the license and intellectual property terms and to the indemnities for infringement and misuse of confidential information. Clause 16 makes those indemnities mutual, and clause 17.3 leaves liability for gross negligence, willful misconduct and personal injury uncapped. Clause 15.2 warrants that LEAP will not knowingly introduce errors and that the service does not breach the law or infringe copyright. On AI, clause 9.6 says the AI Services may be inaccurate or out of date, are not legal advice and must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. Clause 9.5 has the firm indemnify LEAP if it lacks the consents needed to put matter data through them. No remedy for defective AI output is offered.
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.
The integrations page says the platform integrates with most tools midsize firms use and lists an Outlook add in for Office 365 as its primary integration, with Trace capturing work across Outlook, Word, Excel, PDFs and Teams. The Privacy Policy describes the Google integration's scope in detail, from saving documents to Drive and email records from Gmail to creating and updating calendar appointments. The company names QuickBooks Online, Xero and DocuSign elsewhere, and offers a public API under published developer terms. On the AI side, it features Lexidesk, an AI intake service, as a partner integration. The AI page positions Actionstep as the hub: AI tools need a trusted data layer, and other tools must integrate with Actionstep rather than the reverse. The integrations directory notes that listings are not monitored for quality by Actionstep and that firms should assess partner software themselves. What each connection moves in which direction is documented only for Google.
Real integrations, with the data flow described for some, and a contract that governs third party products. LEAP names Microsoft 365 and Word, where Generator creates documents directly, and Xero and QuickBooks for accounting. It also names InfoTrack for searches and filings, WealthCounsel for estate planning drafting and trust administration inside LEAP, FeeWise for online payments, LawConnect for client collaboration, Power BI for reporting and DecisionVault. Its Lawmatics integration announcement describes what moves: client information entered once in Lawmatics flows into LEAP without being entered again, with both subscriptions required. LawY is itself a third party product built into LEAP with an in product button. The Third Party Terms (1 August 2026) set out the supplier terms for products such as LawY, WealthCounsel and FeeWise. Clause 4 of the General Terms sets out who is responsible for what between the firm, LEAP and the supplier. What each connection moves in each direction and what a firm configures is documented only for Lawmatics.
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.
Section 9.2 of the Terms hosts the service on Amazon Web Services regions determined by the firm's data sovereignty requirements. Section 9.4 lets the firm elect any AWS region Actionstep supports, commits to keep its data on servers in that region, and notes that because users connect from anywhere, some data may travel outside it. For firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the addendum fixes storage in the United Kingdom or European Union, requires lawful transfer mechanisms for anything leaving those regions and 28 days' notice before the arrangements change. Actionstep contracts through entities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, which is why regional hosting matters to its buyers. What is not stated is whether firms share infrastructure, which regions are supported, and where the third party AI providers behind Actionstep Intelligence process a firm's data, which may not be the region the firm elected.
Regions are named by country and the AI exception is stated, with the tenancy model left out. The security page says client data is hosted primarily in the firm's selected region. Firms in Australia and New Zealand are on AWS Asia Pacific in Sydney, and firms in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Canada are each on dedicated regional infrastructure, across multiple availability zones. It then says plainly that some AI features, including Matter AI, may transfer limited client data to the United States for processing by AI service providers. Data processing agreements and standard contractual clauses are in place for UK and EU clients, and the General Terms (1 August 2026) carry country specific schedules for each market. What is not stated is whether firms share infrastructure within a region, which AI providers receive the data, or whether a firm can turn off the AI features that send data abroad.
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.
On 18 February 2026 Actionstep announced it had completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination, explaining that the AICPA standard tests both the design of controls and how they operate over a review period, and the announcement is linked from every page footer. The security page adds AWS hosting, multifactor authentication, single sign on including federated sign on, role based permissions and encryption of data in transit. The SRA addendum commits to an annual audit of security measures for regulated firms in England and Wales. The auditor, review period and systems in scope are not published, including whether Actionstep Intelligence and Trace are covered, and there is no trust center or route for requesting the report.
A named attestation with the report reachable through a trust center, and the in progress work stated honestly. The security page says LEAP's internal controls underwent an independent audit and that it holds SOC 2 Type 2 and SOC 3 reports, lists UK Cyber Essentials, and aligns its incident handling with NIST SP 800-61. Its FAQ says the answers it gives security reviewers are aligned with its SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, and states plainly that ISO 27001 is in progress rather than claiming it. For due diligence it offers the SOC 2 Type 2 report and penetration test summary findings through the LEAP Trust Center or on request, completed SIG and CAIQ questionnaires, a data processing agreement, a sub processor register and a dedicated security contact for enterprise clients. Clause 26 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) commits LEAP to controls that meet or exceed SOC 2 Type 2 standards, which ties the attestation to the contract. The auditor, report period and systems in scope, including whether the AI features are covered, are not stated on the public page.
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 AI page says Actionstep is model agnostic, so firms can move to better models as they appear without rebuilding. It also says client information, matter history and billing records are not shared with third party AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. Both statements confirm outside providers are involved, and neither names one. No model, provider, inference location or version appears on the AI, Trace or security pages, in the Terms or in the Actionstep Intelligence webinar recap, and nothing commits the company to tell firms before it changes models. Because the platform is model agnostic, the model reading a firm's email and documents to capture time may change without the firm knowing.
Third party AI providers are acknowledged and bound, and none is named. The security page says LEAP uses third party AI foundation models, that the vendors are contractually bound as sub processors to the same data protection standards as any other, and that Matter AI may send limited client data to the United States for processing by AI service providers. The AI page says a Matter AI user can choose between different AI models to refine a summary. Each of those statements confirms that several outside models are in the chain, and none identifies a provider, a model, a version or where inference runs. The one AI product named is LawY, which LEAP treats as a third party product with its own supplier terms under the Third Party Terms (1 August 2026), without saying which models LawY itself uses. A sub processor register is available on request, which may list the providers, but it is not published, and no commitment to notify firms before a model or provider changes is published.
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 pricing page lets a firm choose its region, US, UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, and describes each product as priced per user plus implementation fees. Practice Management includes time capture, billing and core accounting, and Legal Accounting, available only in North America, is sold alone or added to practice management. Every tier ends in a request pricing button, and no figure is shown for any tier or for implementation. The support center adds that a base access fee covers up to three licenses, with per user charges beyond that. The Terms set billing at the start of each subscription period, prorated additions, no refunds for prepaid periods and no credit for unused licenses. The pricing page does not say whether Actionstep Intelligence and Trace cost extra.
The charging model is published and the figure is not. LEAP says case management, document automation, legal accounting, billing and its AI come in one integrated system for one price. It says LawY and the research AI are included in the subscription at no extra cost, and that Matter AI summaries are included for select matter types. The US pricing page carries no per user figure, tier or term and routes every buyer to a demo. The General Terms (1 August 2026) fill in some mechanics. Fees follow the order form. At the end of a subscription the firm moves onto a single user historical license at its current monthly single user rate for as long as it needs to extract its data. A third party review states a figure, but it is not the vendor's own. No price or starting figure is published for a product marketed to small firms on an all in one price.
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.
Actionstep is built for midsize law firms, with pages for fourteen practice areas, from mixed practice, bankruptcy and banking to personal injury, immigration, residential real estate and tax. It also has pages for six roles, from managing partners and firm administrators to IT and accounting managers. It contracts through entities in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand, prices by region including Canada, and publishes privacy policies and terms addenda for each jurisdiction, including the SRA addendum for regulated firms in England and Wales. Its legal accounting product is available only in North America. The Terms state that the service is not designed or warranted to meet anti money laundering requirements or any jurisdiction's trust accounting rules, which firms must confirm themselves. Nothing says how well the AI features serve each practice area or region, for example whether Trace works across languages.
Segments, practices and jurisdictions are described with substance, and some limits are named. The buyer is small and midsize law firms. The US site has pages for estate planning and probate, family, real estate, business and criminal law. The forms library covers common areas of law, and specialist estate, elder law and probate work comes through WealthCounsel. LEAP operates in six markets: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Each has its own forms, regional hosting and a country specific schedule in the General Terms (1 August 2026), and LEAP says more than 61,000 lawyers use the platform. The limits it states are real. LawY is available only for certain jurisdictions and areas of law, Matter AI summaries are included for select matter types, and some AI features process data in the United States regardless of the firm's region. What is not stated is which US states or practice areas LawY covers today, or where the forms library is thin.
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?
Training on the firm's data is ruled out on the AI page, which says 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 contain no clause naming training either way. Section 5.2 licenses data to Actionstep only to provide the service. A separately negotiated agreement prevails over the terms under section 10.2 and could carry a contractual term on training.
The published agreement prohibits training on matter data. Clause 9.3 of the LEAP General Terms, effective 1 August 2026 for new clients and 1 September 2026 for existing clients, states that LEAP will not use a firm's matter data to improve or train the AI Services, while allowing that matter data may be processed by those services to provide them. The US security page adds that client matter data is not used to train third party AI foundation models without the firm's explicit consent, and that third party AI vendors are bound as sub processors.
The contract term covers LEAP's AI Services; the consent qualifier on the security page concerns third party foundation models. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Section 8.5 of the Terms entitles Actionstep to delete all copies of data thirty days after termination, with a backup available on request within twenty days, and the firm cannot change that period. 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.
Prompts to LawY or Matter AI, and their outputs, are held for no stated period. The LEAP General Terms (1 August 2026) address matter data processed by the AI Services and bar training on it, and at the end of a subscription move the firm onto a paid historical license to extract its data, but set no retention period for prompts or outputs. The US security page covers backups, encryption and incident handling without a retention period. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The security page describes role definition and per-user permissions with custom data collections restricted to selected users, and section 2 of the Terms 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.
Matter level walls, and whether Matter AI's retrieval honors them, have no described mechanism within a firm. The product is organized around matters and Matter AI summarizes a single matter with inline references to its documents, and the security page describes role based access controls, mandatory multi factor authentication for privileged access and periodic access reviews in general terms, but nothing addresses ethical walls or whether a user restricted from a matter can reach it through the AI features. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 4.1 of the Terms keeps the other party's information confidential except where law requires disclosure, with no commitment to tell the customer when its data is demanded. The SRA addendum separately allows disclosure to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on request without prior consent. Section 4.2 incorporates a privacy policy for each jurisdiction.
The published agreement commits to notice before compelled disclosure. Clause 24.2 of the LEAP General Terms (1 August 2026) allows either party to disclose the other's confidential information where required by law, a regulator's binding directive or a court order, and clause 24.3 requires the party disclosing, to the extent legally permitted, to notify the other promptly on becoming aware that disclosure may be required, to limit what it discloses to what the purpose requires, and to take reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality. No transparency report on requests actually received was located. General Terms read 29 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 legal corpus sits behind the AI features. Trace captures time from a user's activity and Actionstep Intelligence works from matter data, citing no law.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction without identifying the underlying corpus. LawY answers from a legal knowledge base the vendor describes as specific to each jurisdiction, 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?
The product does not retrieve or cite primary law, so no authority is checked for subsequent history.
Authorities LawY cites get no described subsequent history check. 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?
Neither the AI page nor the Terms describe 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. Actionstep Intelligence also has its own product page.
LawY and Matter AI have no described behavior for an answer they cannot ground. 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?
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Actionstep, Actionstep Intelligence or Trace. The AI captures time and surfaces matter data, and cites no legal authority.
Two court records tie fabricated citations to AI in LEAP; the vendor responded to the first. In Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found at paragraph 1 that a solicitor had tendered nonexistent authorities without verifying them. They were prepared using an AI tool in his practice management software, which the court did not name. The finding addressed the filer, who was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner; it varied his practicing certificate on 19 August 2025.
In Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, decided 31 January 2025, the court at paragraph 32 named LEAP as the software in Dayal. Legal IT Insider reported on 15 October 2024 that a LEAP spokesperson said the solicitor submitted the cases for verification, received corrected cases within four hours and did not use them. In Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University, County Court at Birmingham, 14 October 2025, the court found citations in a lawyer's application fictitious.
The AI Hallucination Cases database records the tool as LEAP legal software, a wasted costs order and referral, and no vendor dispute. Database maintained by Damien Charlotin searched 29 September 2026.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Actionstep's terms deal with a named regulator on outsourcing, not on lawyers' use of AI. Section 11 of the Terms is an addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It recognizes the professional duties attached to client data, waives any lien, fixes data location in the UK or EU, gives twenty eight days' notice of changes, and commits to an annual audit of security measures and to cooperation with the SRA.
No ethics opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is named anywhere, and no similar addendum exists for the US, Australia or New Zealand.
Professional obligations shape the design, yet no ethics opinion, bar rule or framework is named. 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. Trace passively captures billable time and Actionstep Intelligence is marketed as finding efficiency, and the company'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.
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.
Nothing says whether answers verified through LawY 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?
The privacy policy names service providers, including Intercom and the scope of the Google integration, and section 5.4 of the Terms covers data access by third party applications a firm enables. The AI page says outside AI providers exist and do not receive data in a way that exposes it beyond the firm, without naming them. A privacy policy is published for each jurisdiction.
The documents a firm's outside counsel guidelines would ask for are offered on request rather than published. The US security page lists what LEAP provides for due diligence: its SOC 2 Type 2 report and penetration test summary findings through the LEAP Trust Center or on request, completed SIG and CAIQ questionnaires, a data processing agreement, a sub processor register and a dedicated security contact for enterprise clients, and it states that third party AI vendors are bound to the same standards as other sub processors.
The customer agreement itself is published, with a 72 hour breach notice and a commitment to controls meeting SOC 2 Type 2 standards. The sub processor register and the list of AI providers are not published. Security page and General Terms read 29 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
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.
A filer needing to certify AI assisted work would find no exportable record. LawY's human verification produces an answer checked by a lawyer, which is a form of verification record. Nothing states that a record for each document of the model used, sources retrieved and human verification can be exported for a court. The 2024 Australian matter described in the fabricated citation record 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
In summary
Actionstep
Actionstep, from Actionstep Limited of New Zealand, is a cloud practice management platform for midsize law firms. It covers 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. According to the AI Legal Index, its terms let a firm elect the AWS region that holds its data. It announces a completed SOC 2 Type 2 examination and states that every AI feature is opt in. It serves more than 5,000 firms. Its pricing is a base access fee covering up to three licenses, plus a charge for each user beyond that.
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. It 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. According to the AI Legal Index, LEAP sells in six countries and states more than 61,000 lawyers on the platform. LawY's option to have a lawyer verify an answer is included at no extra cost.
Questions buyers ask
Actionstep vs LEAP: which is better for a midsize law firm?
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. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
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. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of 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. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How are Actionstep and LEAP priced?
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. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Both training commitments sit on web pages rather than in terms. LEAP's covers third party foundation models, not its own, and yields to a firm's consent. Neither vendor reviewed this page.