Aderant vs Intapp: how they compare in 2026

The models are the engine of a real capability layered on a business system that plainly functions without them, which is the B band. The AI is substantial and named: MADDI, introduced in 2023 and described as the AI foundation embedded across Aderant cloud solutions; askMADDI, generally available in four named surfaces, Stridyn Analytics for natural-language business queries, Onyx for guideline terms and rule lookups, iTimekeep for work descriptions and narrative suggestions, and the cloud general ledger; and Agent Center, seven purpose-built agents opened to early access in August 2026. What decides the grade against A is what the product is. Aderant sells practice and financial management, time capture, bill delivery, docketing and calendaring, and a talent suite, and it sold all of that for decades before MADDI existed. Remove the AI and Expert, iTimekeep, BillBlast, Milana, CompuLaw and the vi suite remain fully saleable systems. The vendor frames it this way itself, describing MADDI as making AI a core capability rather than an add-on, which is a claim about integration rather than about the models being the product. Recorded on the other side, because it is the strongest argument for A: the 2026 positioning is aggressive, the home page leads with an intelligent ecosystem and AI built for the way law firms work, and the general ledger, receivables and time capture releases are all described as AI-driven. That is a platform adding an AI engine to a core capability, which is what the B band says. Verified 12 September 2026.

Models do real work on top of a platform that ran for two decades without them, and the vendor's own architecture pages say so. The model half is genuine and named twice over. Intapp Assist is embedded in Intapp Time, Intapp Terms and DealCloud, providing natural language answers to conversational queries by analysing firm-specific data, generating insights and automating data entry and relationship tracking; its Ask Intapp feature runs inside Microsoft Teams and answers questions about client contractual obligations with direct links to source records. Intapp Celeste is a firm-wide AI layer with its own use-case library and architecture documentation, and its published subprocessor entry shows customers choosing between Anthropic models on Amazon Bedrock and Azure OpenAI models. The other half is not models and is the larger half: intake, conflicts, anti-money-laundering, ethical walls, timekeeping, prebilling, billing, matter-centric workspaces and relationship management are systems of record that a firm would still buy with the generative features removed, and the vendor describes its AI as built on an Intapp Data Foundation that exists to serve them. The transparency statement is candid about the mixture, describing products that operate by applying rule-based logic, statistical models and machine learning algorithms. Trust page, AI transparency statement, subprocessor list and product navigation read 7 September 2026.

Reliability is asserted without measurement and grounding is claimed without a described method, which is C, and R15 governs how heavily it should read. This product generates no legal authority. askMADDI answers questions about a firm's own ledger, receivables and time data, and the agents work on billing, collections, rates, forecasts and evaluations, so the limbs about primary authority, openable citations and citator status do not bite and the record is not penalised for them. What does bite is that the output is quantitative and consequential, and the vendor asserts quality without evidence. The assertions located: that Aderant applies controlled orchestration, safeguards and validation to help ensure AI is relevant and reliable, and that it delivers explainable, secure and performance-driven technology. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation of any kind is published for MADDI, askMADDI or any agent. Two grounding claims exist and neither is a described method: the Agent Center states that agents work with a clear record of the information used and the work prepared, and the Compliance Agent is described as citing the source language of the guideline requirements it finds. Both are real and both are one clause long. Recorded because it is the sharpest version of the risk here: a general ledger assistant that answers a partner's financial question wrongly, or a Time Agent that recommends the wrong UTBMS code across a matter, produces an error that reaches a client's invoice, and nothing published says how often either is right. Verified 12 September 2026.

Grounding is real and documented, limitations are published with unusual candour, and nothing is measured. On grounding, the Ask Intapp feature is described as researching an answer exclusively by reference to the firm's own Intapp Terms data and returning it with direct links to the underlying source information, so the answer is bounded to a known corpus and traceable back to it. That is documented grounding with linked sources. On limitations the vendor goes further than most records in this corpus, publishing five explicit statements in its AI transparency statement: outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or context dependent; performance depends on the quality and context of input data; no specific accuracy level is guaranteed unless explicitly stated; outputs are not a substitute for professional judgment or expertise; and outputs are not guaranteed to be error-free, uninterrupted, consistent, up-to-date, accurate, complete or free from bias. A separate AI Disclaimer is published in the product terms. What is absent is measurement of any kind. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set, benchmark or evaluation result is published for Assist, for Celeste or for any other AI feature, and no verification mechanism beyond the source link is described. A reader can establish what the vendor promises not to promise, and cannot establish how often the products are right. AI transparency statement, Assist and Terms product pages read 7 September 2026.

A written commitment that the models work alongside a human decision-maker, with real controls, short of the full structure. The commitment is unusually crisp and is published on the Agent Center page in one line: agents prepare, prioritize, and draft, and the firm's team reviews and decides. That is a categorical boundary rather than a hedge, and it is repeated in the agent descriptions, each of which stops at drafting, ranking, flagging or recommending. Around it sit two real controls. Agents are stated to follow product permissions and firm controls, so the firm's existing access model constrains what an agent can reach. And each agent is stated to keep a clear record of the information used and the work prepared, which is a review surface rather than a slogan because it lets a reviewer see the basis before accepting the draft. What holds it off A is that nothing below that line is published. No threshold, confidence boundary or class of work is described at which an agent proceeds without review, no error handling or escalation path appears, and nothing states what happens after an agent is wrong. The GL Forecasting Agent is described as producing confidence ranges, which is a property of a forecast rather than a statement of model uncertainty, and it is recorded here rather than credited. The A case is real and is noted rather than taken: a categorical constraint can stand in for a numeric threshold on a product of this kind, which is a live band question logged in the pull's parking file, and it is not resolved in this vendor's favour unilaterally. Verified 12 September 2026.

The autonomy boundary is stated and the oversight position is stated more bluntly than anywhere else in this corpus. What is published: the products are not intended to perform fully autonomous decision-making; users remain responsible for final decisions and for verifying outputs; the user or customer is ultimately responsible for the action taken or decision made; and users must not use the products for automated decision-making at all, which is listed among the prohibited uses alongside any use that would reclassify the system under the EU AI Act. Transparency at the point of use is addressed: users are informed when they are interacting with an AI system in accordance with EU AI Act transparency obligations, and are made aware that outputs are generated by artificial intelligence. The blunt part, and the reason this row is worth reading closely, is the vendor's statement that its products are operated by users without intervention by Intapp other than standard support, that Intapp therefore does not deploy human oversight in relation to a user's use of the products, and that implementing human oversight over outputs is the customer's and the user's responsibility. That is a clear allocation rather than a claim, and it tells a buyer exactly where the obligation sits. What is missing is the product half: no in-product review step, approval gate, confidence signal or escalation path is described, and no autonomy setting is configurable. AI transparency statement read in full 7 September 2026.

Named customers in quantity and no figure attached to any of them, which is the B band. The naming is the strongest part of this record and it is specific: published client stories cover Chartwell Law, a National Law Journal 500 firm with nearly 300 attorneys adopting Expert Sierra; Michael Best and Friedrich, an Am Law 200 firm running BillBlast, iTimekeep and compliance solutions; Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney on the vi suite; Miles and Stockbridge on Expert Sierra and Stridyn Analytics; and Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady and Tressler LLP. Those are real firms named with the products they bought. The aggregate scale claims are also published: more than 2,500 client firms, 98 per cent of the Am Law 200, 86 per cent of the Global 100, 26 countries. What is missing is measurement tied to a customer. No named firm carries a figure for what changed, nothing is dated, and no method is published for any of it. The vendor's own headline metrics are unsourced and self-assessed, a net promoter score of 92, more than 35 new products released, and a claim of zero failed enterprise implementations at 100 per cent, none of which states a period, a population or a basis, so none is credited as outcome evidence. Nothing published attaches any result to MADDI or to an agent specifically, which matters because the AI is the thing being graded. The client stories library is published and was not opened; under R25 it corroborates rather than carries a grade resting on the named-customer strip, and it is the artifact that would move this row if the studies carry dated figures with a stated basis. Verified 12 September 2026.

Institutional evidence of an unusual kind, and no measured AI outcome. The strongest element is structural rather than promotional: the vendor is a public company listed on NASDAQ as INTA, with an investor relations site and the periodic financial reporting that listing requires, which is a form of verifiable operating evidence almost no record in this corpus carries. Around it sit a named legal customer with a published case study, Fredrikson and Byron, described as choosing Intapp Terms to digitise and centralise management of its clients' outside counsel guidelines; a partner ecosystem the vendor states exceeds 100 organisations across data, technology, channel and services; a client community, a training university and a public system status site, all of which evidence an installed base that needs supporting. Dated product milestones are published, including the general availability announcement for Intapp Assist for Terms in August 2024. What is absent is outcome measurement for the AI. No deployment is quantified, no time or cost saving is measured, no adoption figure for Assist or Celeste is published, and the one percentage located, a claim that adopting Activator behaviours can increase partner revenue by up to 32 per cent, is attributed to research rather than to a customer result and concerns a behavioural programme rather than an AI feature. Recorded so the grade is read correctly: a clients page and a client stories library both exist in the navigation and neither was opened on this channel; they are the rebuttal route on this row. Trust page, product pages, investor announcement and site navigation read 7 September 2026.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms and cannot be read in a published instrument, which is the C band, with one specific commitment that keeps it off the floor. The specific commitment is on training and it is worth stating precisely: the vendor states that its AI architecture does not use any confidential, intellectual property, personally identifiable or sensitive data for model training, and that all input undergoes masking, anonymisation and filtering. That is more than most records at this grade publish, and it is graded on the training signal as well as recorded here. Everything else on this axis is asserted rather than committed. MADDI is described as designed with the security, privacy and governance standards law firms require, as working within each firm's existing controls, and as helping keep customer data protected, private and governed. Those are three general assertions and none is a commitment a buyer could hold the vendor to. The reason they cannot be is structural rather than accidental, and it is the finding on this record: no customer agreement is published anywhere on the estate. The only legal instruments in the footer are a privacy notice and an API terms of use, and the privacy notice expressly excludes data processed on behalf of customers in the vendor's role as processor through its products, which is precisely the client data a law firm cares about. So privilege and work product are addressed nowhere, no retention or deletion commitment exists, no position on third-party model providers is published, and segregation is asserted through product permissions without being described. Verified 12 September 2026.

Controls are stated at a high level and the question this vendor is uniquely placed to answer is not answered. What is published about the AI specifically is one paragraph: safeguards described as appropriate to a low-risk AI system, including encryption in transit and at rest, access controls and role-based permissions, data minimisation and retention limits, audit logging and monitoring, and secure development and testing practices. Around it the platform publishes a Tenant Access Policy, a client data stewardship page and matter-centric Microsoft 365 workspaces, none of which was opened on this channel and all of which are the rebuttal route on this row. What is absent is express privilege and work product treatment, which appears nowhere on any surface read, so the limb this axis exists for is untested and the top grade is unavailable. The sharper gap is specific to this vendor and worth naming plainly. Intapp sells Intapp Walls, a product whose stated purpose is to secure, control and enforce access to sensitive client information and to limit access to sensitive matters across applications, in fulfilment of a firm's ethical duty. Nothing published states whether Intapp Assist or Intapp Celeste, reading firm-specific data to answer questions, honour the walls that product enforces. A vendor that sells ethical walls and generative retrieval over the same estate is the one that could answer that question most directly, and on the surfaces read it does not. AI transparency statement, Walls and ethical walls pages, trust page and site navigation checked 7 September 2026.

Nothing published on professional responsibility was located, which is the D band, and R15 requires naming which limbs bite before the grade is read as heavier than it is. The advice-line limb barely applies. This product does not produce legal work product, advise on a client matter, or generate anything filed with a court; the AI drafts e-billing appeals, collections outreach, time narratives, associate evaluations, rate explanations and financial forecasts. The audience limb is answered and answered narrowly: the buyer is a law firm's finance, operations, talent and compliance functions, and the vendor is unambiguous about selling the business of law rather than the practice of it. What is genuinely absent, and what the grade records, is any statement connecting the output to the professional obligations of the people relying on it. Two places where it would bite are worth naming rather than passing over. The Time Agent improves time narratives and recommends UTBMS task, activity and expense codes, and a time narrative is a representation to a client about work performed, made by a lawyer who signs the bill. The Compliance Agent turns outside counsel guidelines into machine-readable rules that then govern what the firm may bill, which is a contractual and ethical obligation being encoded by a model. Nothing published addresses the supervision either requires, no disclaimer of any kind was located on any surface read, and there is no published agreement in which such a position might otherwise sit. Verified 12 September 2026.

Several limbs do not bite and are named rather than penalised, and what remains is generic. The products do not advise on law: they run new business intake, conflicts searching, anti-money-laundering checks, ethical walls, outside counsel guideline compliance, timekeeping, prebilling and relationship management, and the AI features answer questions about a firm's own contractual obligations and internal data rather than producing legal conclusions citing authority. So the unauthorised practice risk this axis was written for is structurally remote, the buyer is a firm's professional staff rather than the public, and no citator, no legal research output and no client-facing advice surface exists to fence. On what does bite the engagement is thin. The AI transparency statement records that outputs are not a substitute for professional judgment or expertise and that users must verify all outputs before relying on them, which is a general competence statement rather than an engagement with professional responsibility. One phrase comes closer and is recorded because it is the vendor's own framing: the ethical walls solution page describes the product as fulfilling a firm's ethical duty to its clients and profession, which acknowledges the duty while selling against it. No rule of professional conduct, bar guidance, ethics opinion or court practice direction is named anywhere. AI transparency statement, legal solution pages and site navigation read 7 September 2026.

Principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime or anything a buyer could audit, which is the C band. The principles are real and are set out as four named pillars: firm-centric by design, responsible by principle, grounded in legal expertise, and engineered for trust, the second glossed as designed to be governed, transparent and human-centered. Around them sit assertions of controlled orchestration, safeguards and validation, and a claim to deliver explainable technology. None of it is a mechanism. No governance framework is named, no certification such as ISO 42001 is claimed, nobody inside the vendor is identified as accountable for AI, nothing describes what is evaluated before an agent ships, and no finding from any evaluation has been disclosed. The bias limb is unaddressed and it is not theoretical on this estate, which is why the note says so plainly. The vi suite ships AI-powered employee performance reviews, sentiment analysis and auto-summarisation, and the Talent Agent drafts evidence-based associate assessments and identifies development themes from performance history and feedback. That is a model writing evaluations of named individuals inside a firm, feeding decisions about advancement and work allocation, in a jurisdiction where employment discrimination is actionable. Nothing published addresses whether those assessments are even across the people being assessed, what the model was trained on for that purpose, or how a firm would audit the output. Verified 12 September 2026.

The broadest published AI governance disclosure located in this pull, short of attestation and of a named owner. What exists is a dedicated, dated and versioned AI transparency statement, effective 2 August 2026, applying across all of the vendor's AI products, which is itself rare. Its content is substantive. It describes how the products work, by processing input data and applying rule-based logic, statistical models and machine learning algorithms. It engages the EU AI Act on three fronts: a self-assessed risk classification, describing safeguards appropriate to a low-risk AI system; transparency obligations, committing that users are informed when they are interacting with an AI system and that outputs are identified as AI-generated; and a prohibition on any use that would reclassify the system under the Act. It states prohibited uses including unlawful, discriminatory and harmful purposes and automated decision-making. It publishes a complaints route that expressly includes a user's local data protection authority or regulator. It commits to communicating material changes to the statement. And it acknowledges bias directly, stating that outputs are not guaranteed to be free from bias, which most records at this grade do not concede at all. Three things keep it below the top grade. Nobody is named as accountable for model behaviour. No pre-release evaluation, benchmark, red-team exercise or result is published, and the bias acknowledgement is a disclaimer rather than a measurement. And the statement says in terms that it is not a legally binding document and does not form a contract, so the governance is published as posture rather than obligation. AI transparency statement read in full 7 September 2026.

Access is addressed and what happens to data after processing is not, which is the C band, and here the gap has a documented cause rather than being simple silence. What is published on the protection side: SOC 2 Type 2 examinations completed across named products, graded on the certifications row; a statement that agents follow product permissions and firm controls; a statement that MADDI aligns with each firm's existing permissions, configurations and governance; and, on the input side, a specific and unusual commitment that all input to the AI architecture undergoes masking, anonymisation and filtering, alongside the statement that confidential, intellectual property, personally identifiable and sensitive data are not used for model training. What is absent is the entire data lifecycle. No retention period is published for prompts, outputs, agent working records or customer data generally. No deletion or return commitment on termination was located. No subprocessor list exists on any surface. No incident notification commitment to customers was located. The reason is structural and is recorded as a finding rather than a retrieval limit: there is no published customer agreement, and the privacy notice, last updated March 2024, expressly excludes personal data processed on behalf of customers through the products, so the one published instrument that might carry these commitments removes itself from the question by its own terms. Verified 12 September 2026.

Published policy across every limb this axis asks about, with the attestations independently audited and reachable. Certifications are named with the standards enumerated rather than gestured at: ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018 and ISO 27701, SOC 1 and SOC 2, CSA STAR registration, and a Global Privacy Recognition for Processors certification. The auditor is named, Schellman, and the certificates are linked directly from the compliance page rather than sitting behind a request, with the CSA STAR entry pointing at the Cloud Security Alliance's own registry. A Shared Assessments SIG 2024 Lite questionnaire is published as a downloadable resource, which is the artefact a firm's procurement function actually sends. GovRAMP status is stated honestly as membership while a verified offering is pursued, rather than implied as achieved. On the data side the subprocessor disclosure is the most granular in this corpus, listing every subprocessor per product, per processing activity and per location, with routing rules stated where they differ, a subscription feed for changes and prior versions retained. Training is addressed: unless agreed otherwise with a customer, customer data uploaded into the AI products is not used to train them. Security measures are enumerated as encryption in transit and at rest, access controls and role-based permissions, data minimisation and retention limits, audit logging and monitoring, and secure development and testing. Cloud policies are published individually, covering maintenance, tenant access, sandbox and deprecated features, alongside a public status site. Two gaps are named: no incident or breach notification commitment was located on the surfaces read, and retention is described as subject to limits without any period being stated. Compliance page, subprocessor list, AI transparency statement and trust page read 7 September 2026.

Nothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong was located, which is the D band. No warranty, indemnity, liability cap, exclusion, service level, service credit or insurance position appears on any surface read. The cause is that no customer agreement is published at all. The complete legal inventory in this vendor's footer is a privacy notice, an API terms of use, a modern slavery and human rights statement and a code of ethics; there is no master subscription agreement, no terms of service, no data processing addendum and no order form template. This is an enterprise vendor selling to the Am Law 200 under negotiated contracts, so an agreement certainly exists, but the buyer cannot read any of it before entering a sales process, which is precisely what this axis measures. The API terms of use is published and was not opened; under R25 it is named and not treated as load-bearing, because it governs consumers of the application programming interface rather than the platform and its AI, and a liability regime for API access would not settle what the vendor stands behind when an agent misprices a matter or a general ledger answer is wrong. The exposure is worth stating because it is concrete rather than abstract: the AI here drafts appeals against e-billing deductions, prioritises collections, recommends billing codes and forecasts revenue, and every one of those errors has a direct financial consequence for the firm or its client. Verified 12 September 2026.

Nothing establishable on this date states who bears the loss when an AI output is wrong, and the reasons divide into three which a reader should be able to tell apart. First, the customer agreement is not published. The AI transparency statement refers throughout to a Governing Agreement between the vendor and the customer entity, including any applicable orders, and no such document appears anywhere in the site's published inventory, which was read in full from the navigation and footer. So no indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level, exclusive remedy or insurance position for the products can be read before entering a commercial conversation. Second, the one document on the site that does carry warranty and liability language is scoped to the website rather than to the products: the legal policy disclaims all representations and warranties as to the operation of this site and the information, content, materials or products included on this site, and excludes all damages of any kind arising from use of this site, which tells a buyer about the marketing estate and not about the software. Third, a document titled AI Disclaimer is published in the vendor's product terms and could not be retrieved on this channel; both the direct URL and a targeted search on distinctive clause language failed to return its body, so it is recorded as a limit of this reading rather than as an absence, and it is the primary rebuttal route on this row along with the published data processing addendum, which was not opened. What can be established points one way without settling it. The AI transparency statement says of itself that it is not a legally binding document and does not form a contract, so the most substantive AI-specific document the vendor publishes is expressly outside the bargain. Within it, the vendor states that no specific accuracy level is guaranteed unless explicitly stated, that outputs are not guaranteed to be error-free, accurate, complete or free from bias, and that the customer and user are ultimately responsible for the action taken or decision made. Site inventory, legal policy, AI transparency statement read and AI Disclaimer attempted 7 September 2026.

Real integrations, named and dated, with the direction described on the one that matters most, short of documentation an implementer could work from. Three named partnerships are published as announcements on the vendor's own newsroom. The Harvey integration is the deepest and the most specific: it connects Harvey's AI-performed legal work to iTimekeep so that completed work becomes draft time entries which lawyers review and submit through the firm's standard approval process, which states both what moves and in which direction. The First AML integration brings automated anti-money-laundering and client due diligence checks into Expert and Expert Sierra, described as enabled through Aderant's professional services team. The LawPay partnership was renewed on a multi-year basis for payments. Beneath the partnerships sits genuine internal interoperation: sixteen products across financial management, work-to-cash, docketing and talent, with Stridyn as the common cloud platform and MADDI spanning them, and the Agent Center's stated design is that agents draw authorised billing, receivables, time, rates, talent and financial data from whichever Aderant products the firm licenses. An API exists and is real enough to have its own published terms of use. What holds it off A is documentation: no public API reference, developer portal or connector register was located, no configuration detail is published for any integration, and the First AML route is stated to run through the vendor's own services team rather than through self-service configuration. Verified 12 September 2026.

Integration is the product rather than an adjunct to it, and the named surfaces run deeper into the practice stack than any record in this lane. Microsoft is the spine and is named repeatedly and specifically: Ask Intapp is delivered as a Microsoft Teams application rather than only in a web console, so the AI answers arrive where the firm already works; Intapp Workspaces delivers matter-centric workspaces and content management inside Microsoft 365; a dedicated Microsoft Copilot offering applies the firm's business structure and security requirements to firm, client and engagement data in Microsoft 365 and beyond; and Microsoft Azure is the hosting layer. A dedicated integration product exists in its own right, the Intapp Integration Service, and its published subprocessor entry names Boomi as the cloud integration platform beneath it with customer data processed in the region of the customer's choice, which is an unusually concrete statement of how integration actually runs. Third-party data providers are named as subprocessors rather than described generically, including Dun and Bradstreet, S&P Global Market Intelligence, Grata and ESRI for content and mapping, and Plaid and Gresham for financial institution data feeds. A partner ecosystem is published with more than 100 organisations across data, technology and integration, channel and services partners, each with its own directory. What is not established is the depth of any single connector, because no API or developer documentation was located and the integrations page was not opened. Subprocessor list, product navigation, Copilot and collaboration pages read 7 September 2026.

Cloud delivery is stated plainly and neither the tenancy model nor the region is published, which is the C band. The delivery model is not in doubt and is described repeatedly: Stridyn is the vendor's AI-driven cloud platform, Expert Sierra is the cloud successor to the on-premises Expert product, and the current marketing is built around cloud migration, with a webinar series addressed to firms moving from Expert to Expert Sierra. So a buyer knows the product is cloud-delivered and knows there is a migration path from an installed predecessor. What a buyer cannot learn is anything below that. No region, country or data centre location is named anywhere on the surfaces read. No cloud provider is identified. No residency option is offered or refused. No tenancy model is described, so nothing states whether a firm's data sits in a shared or isolated environment. And nothing distinguishes where data is stored from where it is processed, which is a live question on this record for a specific reason: the AI layer's own hosting is never addressed, and the vendor's account of what sits behind MADDI is inconsistent, so a buyer cannot tell whether inference happens inside the same environment as the firm's financial data. The gap is more consequential than it would be for a domestic vendor, because Aderant reports clients in 26 countries and offices across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, and European firms have residency obligations that nothing published addresses. Verified 12 September 2026.

Residency is published in more detail than anywhere else in this corpus and tenancy is not stated. On residency the disclosure is granular to a degree that is genuinely unusual. Hosting regions are named per product across the United States, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Australia and Canada, with location stated to depend on the customer's hosting location. Routing rules are published where they differ from the headline, recording that United Arab Emirates traffic for one email service is routed via the European Union and Singapore via Australia. AI processing location is stated separately and specifically: artificial intelligence features are processed in the United States or the European Union depending on the customer's hosting location, and customers located outside both are processed in the European Union. Where a subprocessor's data location is fixed regardless of the customer's region, the list says so explicitly. DealCloud is offered as four separate regional instances with distinct login endpoints for the United States, Europe, the United Arab Emirates and Asia-Pacific. The integration layer states that customer data is processed in the geographic region of the customer's choice. What is absent is the other co-equal limb. No tenancy model is described on the surfaces read: nothing states whether customers are single or multi-tenant, whether isolation is logical or physical, or what changes between tiers. A Tenant Access Policy is published and was not opened, and it is the named rebuttal route on this row. Subprocessor list, compliance page and product navigation read 7 September 2026.

Certification is real, current and stated with its scope named product by product, and no evidence behind it is reachable at all, which is the B band. The scope naming is what distinguishes this record and it is better than most: rather than a single unexplained claim, the vendor publishes dated announcements of completed SOC 2 Type 2 examinations identifying which platforms each covers, one for Expert Sierra, vi by Aderant and iTimekeep, and a separate one for Onyx. A buyer can therefore tell which products sit inside the audited boundary and which do not, which is the question the scope section of a SOC 2 report exists to answer and which most vendors leave open. C does not fire: these are announcements in the vendor's own voice with named subject matter, not badges on a page. What is missing for A is the whole evidentiary apparatus and any route to it. No auditor is named on any first-party surface read. No report period or observation window is published, no certificate or report number, and no statement of which trust services criteria are covered. There is no trust centre or security page of any kind on the estate: the footer's complete inventory is a privacy notice, an API terms of use, a modern slavery statement and a code of ethics, so R5 is not reached because there is no access flow to grade, not even a sales-gated one. Nothing is published on penetration testing, vulnerability remediation or incident response. Verified 12 September 2026.

Certifications named, auditor named, and the certificates themselves reachable without a request, which is the combination this axis exists to reward and which almost no record in this corpus achieves. The published set is ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018 and ISO 27701, each described by what it covers rather than listed as a badge; SOC 1 and SOC 2; CSA STAR registration; and a Global Privacy Recognition for Processors certification. The auditor is identified as Schellman, and the ISO and privacy processor certificates link directly to Schellman's own certificate service while the CSA STAR entry links to the Cloud Security Alliance registry entry for Integration Appliance, Inc., so a reader can verify the claims at source rather than take them on trust. No non-disclosure agreement, email address or sales conversation stands in the way of any of it. A Shared Assessments SIG 2024 Lite questionnaire is published as a resource, a DORA customer guide addresses the EU financial-sector regime, and a public cloud status site operates alongside individually published cloud policies. The vendor also states its GovRAMP position honestly as membership while actively pursuing verified offering status, which is a claim about where it is rather than where it would like to be read as being. What is absent, and it is the only thing: no audit period or scope statement is published on the compliance page itself, so a reader must open the linked certificates to establish what and when was covered, and no SOC report is downloadable from the page. Compliance page read in full and certificate links inspected 7 September 2026.

The vendor describes what sits underneath in two ways that contradict each other and identifies nothing in either, which is the C band. The first account is that the technology is proprietary: MADDI is stated to be developed entirely in-house by Aderant's research, development and engineering teams, purpose-built, and not retrofitted from general-purpose AI models. The second account appears on the same page: MADDI is stated to combine enterprise-grade model platforms with Aderant's legal-domain expertise and proprietary AI capabilities. Those cannot both be the whole truth, and R37 rule 2 governs, so neither is picked as the favourable one. What the conflict reveals is the thing the band measures: no model is named, no version is given, no provider is identified, and a buyer cannot tell whether their firm's financial data is processed by a model Aderant built or by a third-party platform Aderant licenses. Nothing states where inference runs and no commitment to notify customers when the model or provider changes was located. There is no subprocessor list anywhere on the estate that would answer the question by another route. One adjacent disclosure is recorded and expressly not credited to this vendor's own supply chain, because it is a partner's model rather than a component of MADDI: the published Harvey integration brings Harvey's AI-performed work into iTimekeep, and Harvey is a named third-party AI whose own disclosures are its own. Verified 12 September 2026.

Models named, providers identified, change notification operating, and the customer given a choice between models, which is the fullest disclosure on this axis located in the corpus. The subprocessor list is organised per product, and the AI entries are specific. For Intapp Celeste it names Amazon AWS Bedrock as a generative AI services provider which hosts Anthropic models, across six named regions, and states in terms that the customer can select Anthropic or Azure OpenAI models; it names Microsoft Azure AI Services for text generation and extraction; and it names Exa Labs for web grounding services. For Intapp Assist it names Microsoft Azure AI Services for text generation and summarisation. Anthropic PBC is separately named as a generative AI services provider for other products in the family. So a reader can establish which model families process their content, which provider serves them, in which region, for which product, and that the choice between two model families is theirs. Change notification is not a promise but a mechanism: the page carries an effective date, a subscription form for update notifications, and retained prior versions, with updates stated to be posted in accordance with the terms of the agreement. What is not published is the specific model version within each family, so a reader knows Anthropic or Azure OpenAI without knowing which release, and nothing states what happens to an in-flight matter when a model is deprecated. Subprocessor list of 11 August 2026 read in full 7 September 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, which is the D band. There is no pricing page on the estate, and this is a page-inventory finding rather than a retrieval limit: the full navigation was read and it carries Solutions, Learn, Careers, Service and Support, About Us, Product Login and Momentum, with no pricing tier anywhere, and the single call to action across every page is to request a demo. Nothing states whether the platform is licensed per user, per timekeeper, per firm or per module, nothing indicates a minimum, and no figure, band or term appears for any of the sixteen products. Under R10's closing discipline an estate that only invites a sales conversation is an absence and belongs in this note alone, so no VendorPricing row is written for this record. Two things are recorded and neither is credited. The vendor publishes a marketing blog answering the objection that its cloud product costs two to three times the incumbent one, framed as a full cost comparison; it was not opened, and it is named here rather than treated as load-bearing because a blog answering a migration objection is not a published price and could not supply a unit of charge. And the agreement that would carry commercial terms does not exist publicly either, there being no master subscription agreement or order form template on the estate. The absence is worth weighing against the buyer: these are Am Law 200 firms making eight-figure platform decisions with no published starting point. Verified 12 September 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, and the site's own navigation establishes that no pricing page exists rather than that one could not be found. The published inventory was read in full: a products menu spanning fourteen named products, an industries menu spanning seven sectors, a why-Intapp menu covering company, data foundation, cloud infrastructure, partners, client resources, services and trust, and a footer repeating all of it alongside cloud, partner, learning, client and company sections. There is no pricing entry anywhere in either the header or the footer, and no pricing link on the trust, compliance or product pages read. Every conversion path on every page ends at the same two calls to action, scheduling a demo or contacting the company. No tier or edition is named, no unit is identified whether by seat, user, matter, timekeeper or module, no band or range appears, and no minimum or term is stated. Nothing indicates whether the fourteen products are priced separately or bundled. The company is listed on NASDAQ and publishes revenue in its financial reporting, so aggregate figures exist in the public domain, but nothing there tells an individual buyer what the product costs them, which is what this axis asks. Where the only route is an invitation to contact sales, no pricing row is owed and none is written. Full site navigation, footer, trust, compliance and product pages checked 7 September 2026.

Segment coverage is described with real substance and evidenced by scale, with the boundaries left open, which is B. Who this is for is unambiguous and is demonstrated rather than claimed: law firms, and predominantly large ones, with published figures of more than 2,500 client firms, 98 per cent of the Am Law 200, 86 per cent of the Global 100 and 26 countries served. Functional coverage is enumerated product by product across four named groups, financial management, work-to-cash, docketing and calendaring, and people management, so a buyer can see exactly which parts of a firm's operations the estate reaches. Roles are addressed by implication throughout, the buyer being finance, billing, operations, talent and compliance leadership. R15 applies to two limbs of the A band and the note says so rather than penalising silently: practice areas are not applicable, because this is business-of-law infrastructure that does not vary by whether the firm does patent litigation or trusts and estates; and in-house and government use are neither claimed nor relevant to a product built around law firm timekeeping, realisation and outside counsel guideline compliance. What holds it off A is that the limits are not stated. No firm size floor is published, so a small firm cannot tell whether it is a customer; nothing identifies a segment the product is not for; and, most concretely, agent availability is stated to depend on which Aderant products a firm licenses without publishing which agent requires which product. Verified 12 September 2026.

Buyer and workflow coverage is described with more granularity than any record in this lane, and no boundary is stated. Seven industries have their own solution sets: legal, accounting, consulting, corporate, investment banking and advisory, private capital and real assets. Within legal alone, twelve distinct solutions are published individually, being client intelligence, the Activator programme, Microsoft Copilot enablement, Microsoft 365 collaboration, compliant timekeeping, compliant prebilling, compliant time and billing, new business intake, conflicts management, outside counsel guideline compliance, anti-money-laundering and know-your-client, ethical walls, lateral hire onboarding and partner attestation management. The corporate segment is addressed separately with matter management and relationship management for in-house legal departments, so both sides of the legal market are served by named surfaces. Private capital is broken down further into ten named markets. Geographic reach is evidenced rather than asserted, with offices contactable in the United States, United Kingdom and Asia-Pacific and seven named hosting regions. What is absent is any limit. No firm size, practice area, matter type or jurisdiction is named as in or out of scope; nothing states a minimum deployment; and no coverage statement distinguishes which of the fourteen products carry AI features from those that do not, which matters on a record where the AI reaches only some of the estate. Full product and industry navigation, legal solution pages and contact details read 7 September 2026.