AI Demand Pro vs EvenUp: how they compare in 2026
AI Demand Pro and EvenUp both turn a personal injury file of police reports, medical records and bills into a settlement demand for an insurer, and in both the models are the product. They are strong in different places. EvenUp's strength is evidence about how it handles data. It holds a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, recertified in April 2026, and a HIPAA attestation. It runs a trust center with a request route, and its chronologies cite each entry back to the source record. AI Demand Pro's strength is paperwork. Its published master services agreement caps liability at twelve months of fees and has the vendor indemnify the firm for its own confidentiality breaches, HIPAA violations, security incidents and negligence. It excludes inaccurate AI output and tells attorneys to review every demand.
Which one fits
Choose AI Demand Pro if
- You want the vendor answerable for its own mistakes with your clients' records. AI Demand Pro's master services agreement indemnifies the firm against third party claims arising from its breach of confidentiality or of the business associate agreement, HIPAA violations, security incidents it causes and its negligence, and caps liability at twelve months of fees. It excludes liability for inaccurate AI output.
- You want a demand you can edit yourself, on your own letterhead. AI Demand Pro drafts a formatted demand with a medical summary and hyperlinked exhibits in about 15 to 20 minutes, delivered as a Word document on the firm's letterhead, and Demand Studio lets attorneys edit any section directly or have the AI rewrite it.
- You want to know the shape of the contract before a demo. AI Demand Pro's published agreement sets out monthly fees, setup and professional services fees, census allotments and overages, commits the firm to the full term, and caps renewal price increases at 6.5 percent.
Choose EvenUp if
- Your compliance review needs evidence on protected health information. EvenUp holds a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, recertified in April 2026, and an independent HIPAA compliance attestation, with documentation available through a request route at trust.evenuplaw.com.
- Every fact in a chronology has to be checkable against the record. EvenUp's medical chronologies cite each entry back to its source document, and its demands cite comparable verdicts from its settlement repository inside the document, with a Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supporting legal citation.
- You want people to check a demand before it reaches you. EvenUp sells demands in tiers, from instant AI generation through Express Demands to an expert reviewed tier in which an in house team quality checks the document before delivery.
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.
AI Demand Pro's AI reads uploaded records and bills and drafts the full settlement demand, rewrites sections or the whole strategy on instruction in Demand Studio, answers questions from the case file and produces medical summaries and chronologies. An older product page still online says the software is built on OpenAI and tuned exclusively for personal injury demands. Without the models there is nothing left to sell.
Piai is named as EvenUp's own AI engine, and the vendor's central technical claim is that it is trained on a large dataset specific to personal injury rather than adapted from a general model. Every deliverable is model output. Medical chronologies are generated from raw records with treatment timelines and ICD extraction, demand letters are generated end to end, case valuations come from a settlement repository, and analytics sit on top of the extracted data. Without the models, what remains is a document store the firm already had. Independent review material describes it as a vertical drafting engine trained on injury cases rather than a general legal assistant.
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.
The site describes attorney-quality, evidence-backed demands with hyperlinked exhibits, an assistant whose answers are grounded in the actual record, and built-in accuracy when switching demand types. Section 17 of the master services agreement and the AI disclaimer say output is not guaranteed to be error-free, complete or current and must be independently verified, and the disclaimer adds that results depend on the quality of the input. No error rate, test or evaluation is published.
Medical chronologies carry citations back to source documents, so a reviewer can check any entry against the underlying record. Demand packages cite comparable verdicts from the settlement repository, so the valuation argument traces to named prior outcomes, and a Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supports legal citation. Two accuracy figures circulate in third party material and neither is published in vendor material with a method attached: that chronologies capture over 90 percent of relevant medical information on first pass, and that demands are 69 percent more likely to reach policy limits. Neither comes with a sample, baseline or definition. Nothing says what the system does when a record is illegible, contradictory or missing, which in medical record work is the common case.
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.
Demands are delivered as drafts for final review before sending. Demand Studio lets attorneys select any section for an AI rewrite, make bulk edits, switch demand types and rework the whole strategy, and Section 17 of the master services agreement says a competent attorney should always review and double-check the work product before submitting it; the disclaimer adds that no ethical attorney should submit an AI-created document without careful review. An older product page still online describes the draft as needing a final review by competent staff or attorneys before it goes to the carrier the same day. No limit on what the AI assistant may do is stated.
Demands are offered in tiers from instant AI generation through Express Demands to an expert reviewed tier, where an in house team checks the document before delivery. Independent material notes that the human quality step adds turnaround time, a trade off that shows in the pricing structure. Output is consistently positioned as a draft that requires attorney review. Nothing says what the in house reviewers check or against what standard, or what distinguishes the tiers beyond speed. No confidence indication is given on generated content, and nothing describes the instant tier, where no human sits between generation and the attorney's inbox.
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.
The customer story features Easton & Easton, the firm whose attorneys founded AI Demand Pro, quoting managing partner Matthew D. Easton and reporting a 100% revenue increase and a cut of more than 200% in time to complete demands. Aaron Hicks, founding partner of Hicks Law Firm, is quoted without figures, and the site links customer firms including Ledger Law. The figures are undated and give no method, and none comes from a firm outside the founders' own.
Lundy Law is reported to have increased output from about 30 to about 110 demand packages a month after adopting AI tooling without adding staff, and J. Chrisp Law to have reclaimed 80 hours of paralegal time per case. The vendor claims demands are 69 percent more likely to reach policy limits. That figure speaks to case outcome rather than throughput, and it carries no method, comparison group or sample. The independent guide reporting these figures says most such benchmarks come from vendor marketing and that results depend on case complexity and record volume. None of it is published as a vendor case study with a method.
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.
Section 14 of the master services agreement protects AI Demand Pro's own confidential information, and its return or destruction duty falls on the subscriber, so the agreement carries no confidentiality commitment over the firm's case files. Protected health information is covered by a business associate agreement that the master services agreement references and that is not published. The privacy policy says client health information is handled under HIPAA and that personal information is not sold, and an older product page still online says patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth are redacted before records reach the AI. Nothing addresses whether customer data trains any model, what OpenAI, named on that page, retains, privilege, or how long case files are kept.
The product takes in complete medical records, billing statements and treatment histories for injured claimants, so the confidential material is not only the client's legal matter but a third party's protected health information. The vendor holds an independently assessed HIPAA attestation validating safeguards for PHI and a SOC 2 Type 2 examination whose scope includes confidentiality and privacy as well as security and availability. It also says it supports customers handling sensitive information through contractual, technical, organizational and compliance measures, which acknowledges the business associate relationship a plaintiff firm needs. Nothing addresses legal professional privilege or attorney work product. A demand package is work product and the case strategy in a valuation is privileged, and the published material covers health data protection and general security only.
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.
The master services agreement says the professional duty to the client lies solely with the personal injury attorney, that a generated demand supplements and does not replace the attorney's judgment, and that the firm is solely responsible for the quality, accuracy and legality of what it submits. Section 17 and the AI disclaimer say output must be reviewed by a competent attorney before submission, that users are responsible for submitting inaccurate AI content, and that no ethical attorney should submit an AI document unreviewed; the disclaimer adds that the tool is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The jurisdictions its demands suit are not stated, and no ethics opinion is named.
The product generates the demand letter a firm sends to an insurer, an advocacy document making legal and valuation arguments on a client's behalf, and it generates the case valuation that shapes settlement advice. Independent material states consistently that output is a draft requiring attorney review, and the vendor does not publish that position itself. Nothing addresses the supervising attorney's duty over machine drafted advocacy, the professional responsibility of relying on a machine generated valuation when advising a client whether to settle, or any bar guidance. The output goes out under the firm's name to an adverse party.
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.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how demands vary across case types is published.
No AI policy, model card, bias or fairness testing, evaluation methodology or result, accuracy monitoring, drift statement, named governance body or ISO 42001 certification is published. Case valuation is generated from a settlement repository of past outcomes, and historical personal injury settlements carry the demographic and geographic patterns of who was compensated well and who was not. A valuation engine trained on that history can reproduce those patterns for a new claimant while presenting the result as a data backed figure. Nothing published indicates whether that has been examined.
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.
The site describes HIPAA-compliant document handling and enterprise-grade security, the privacy policy and disclaimer refer to industry-standard security measures, and the master services agreement references a business associate agreement for protected health information that is not published. An older product page still online says patient identifiers are redacted before records are submitted to the AI. The agreement's return or destruction clause binds the subscriber to return AI Demand Pro's confidential information, not the vendor to delete case files. No retention period, subprocessor list, security controls or incident notification timeframe is published.
The HIPAA attestation and the SOC 2 Type 2 privacy and confidentiality scope show that safeguards over protected health information have been independently assessed. No statement is published on whether medical records, demand drafts, case files or settlement outcomes submitted by firms are used to train or improve Piai, how long client content is kept, or whether a firm can require deletion. The vendor's main technical claim is a proprietary model trained on a large personal injury dataset, and nothing published says where that dataset came from or whether customer matters continue to feed it. A credential covering how data is protected is not a statement about what it is used for.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The master services agreement, last modified in December 2023, has AI Demand Pro indemnify the subscriber against third-party claims arising from its breach of the agreement, its material breach of the confidentiality article or the business associate agreement, HIPAA violations and security incidents it causes, its negligence, and bodily injury it causes. Liability on indemnified claims is capped at the fees paid in the twelve months before the claim, with no special or punitive damages. Section 17 excludes liability for AI inaccuracies, errors and omissions and provides the services as is. Both parties must carry insurance sufficient to cover their obligations under the agreement, with no amounts stated.
Nothing is published on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. A missed injury, a misread treatment date or an omitted provider in a generated chronology flows straight into a demand letter and can understate a claim, and an understated demand that settles is a loss the claimant never learns about. A generated valuation that anchors a firm low has the same effect. No published vendor position addresses any of it, so the risk sits with the firm and ultimately the injured claimant. Enterprise agreements govern this and are not public.
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.
Documents are uploaded and demands download as Word files on the firm's letterhead; no connection to a case management or document system is published.
A Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supports legal citation inside generated demand packages, giving the citation layer an established source. No case management system integration is published. A personal injury practice runs on a case management platform holding intake, treatment tracking and deadlines. No API or export documentation is published either, and nothing describes how records get in or how a finished demand returns to the matter file. Independent comparisons in this market treat case management integration as a primary criterion.
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.
No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published.
No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no single tenant or dedicated instance option is described. Nothing says where protected health information for injured claimants sits or how it is separated. The HIPAA attestation shows that safeguards were assessed without saying where the data sits. The Trust Center offers a request access route to further documentation.
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.
The site describes HIPAA-compliant software and enterprise-grade security, the privacy policy says the website is designed to be fully compliant with HIPAA, and the master services agreement references a business associate agreement. No audit, certification, report or trust center is published.
A Trust Center at trust.evenuplaw.com describes security, privacy and compliance practices and offers a request access route to documentation rather than a sales gate. The attestation is named with its scope: a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, four of the five Trust Services Criteria. Currency is dated, with recertification announced in April 2026. Alongside it sits an independently conducted HIPAA compliance assessment and attestation, which matters because the product processes protected health information. The vendor explains that HIPAA has no formal certification and that what exists is a third party attestation. The auditing firm is not named for either the SOC 2 or the HIPAA assessment.
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.
An older product page still online says AI Demand Pro is built on the backbone of OpenAI and enhanced exclusively for personal injury demands. The master services agreement says the services use generative AI and may incorporate web-based applications and software tools of third-party licensors. No model, version, inference location or change notification is named.
Piai is named and claimed as proprietary, trained on a personal injury specific dataset, which is a statement about ownership rather than about supply chain. No foundation model provider is named, nothing states whether third party models sit underneath Piai or process any part of the pipeline, and no subprocessor list is published. The Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration establishes at least one external data relationship, with no disclosure of what flows to it. For a product handling protected health information, no party in the processing chain is identified in public material.
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.
An older product page still online describes a flat price per demand set by monthly volume and invoiced demand by demand, with figures that conflict on the same page: no more than $600 a demand with $450 a demand in the Boutique Firm package at about ten demands a month, and no more than $500 a demand with $300 a demand at the same volume. The master services agreement refers to monthly fees, set-up and professional services fees, census allotments and client overages set in each order, a 12-month initial term that renews automatically, non-refundable payments, a 1.5% monthly late charge, and renewal price increases capped at 6.5%. The current site routes pricing questions to a demo or an ROI calculator.
Pricing is per case. EvenUp announced the model in May 2025: one cost per case for the full Claims Intelligence Platform, with no feature tiers and no add ons, so cost scales with caseload rather than headcount. No price, range or per case figure is published, and nothing indicates what a demand package costs. Independent review material notes that the platform pays off only at sufficient injury volume. A price comes through a sales conversation, on an annual contract. Contingency fee firms carry case costs themselves, so a per case charge comes directly out of a claimant's eventual recovery.
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.
Personal injury firms, from solo attorneys to multi-state firms, are the market, and the outputs are settlement demands, medical summaries and chronologies, with life care plans, discovery and deposition tools marked as coming soon. The injury types, jurisdictions and carriers it handles less well are not stated.
EvenUp says it builds for plaintiff personal injury and nothing else, and independent review confirms it is not a general legal assistant. Inputs include police reports, medical records, billing statements, photographs and intake notes, and outputs include demand letters, chronologies, case valuations, negotiation preparation and caseload analytics, with a settlement repository supporting comparables by jurisdiction. Nothing says how many verdicts or settlements the repository holds, which jurisdictions it covers, its date range, how often it updates, or whether it is deep enough in a given venue for a comparable to carry weight in negotiation.
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?
The master services agreement, terms, privacy policy and AI disclaimer are all published, and none addresses whether subscriber data or uploaded case files are used to train or improve any model; no improvement right over subscriber data is granted either. An older product page still online names OpenAI as the backbone of the software without saying what OpenAI receives or keeps.
No statement either way is published on whether medical records, demand drafts, case files or settlement outcomes submitted by firms are used to train or improve Piai. The SOC 2 Type 2 examination covers security, availability, confidentiality, and privacy, which shows safeguards over customer content were assessed, not what that content is used for. The vendor's central technical claim is a proprietary model trained on a large personal injury dataset, and nothing published says where that dataset came from or whether customer matters continue to feed it. The Trust Center offers further documentation on request.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No retention period for uploaded records, case files or generated demands is stated in the master services agreement, privacy policy, terms or disclaimer. The agreement's return or destruction clause binds the subscriber to return AI Demand Pro's confidential information rather than the vendor to delete case files, and the business associate agreement it references is not published.
No retention period is published for uploaded medical records, generated chronologies, demand drafts or case valuations, and nothing says whether a firm can require deletion when a matter closes. The content is protected health information belonging to a third party claimant, and HIPAA safeguards address how it is protected rather than how long a business associate keeps it.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Separation inside a firm's account, between matters or users, has no described controls. Nothing addresses separating matters or users within a firm's account.
No permission model, matter level access restriction or tenant separation is described. The settlement repository is a shared benchmarking asset drawn from past outcomes, and nothing published describes the boundary between one firm's case data and the pooled comparables sold to every other firm, including opposing firms in the same venues. A plaintiff firm's settlement history is competitively sensitive as well as confidential. No document management system integration exists to inherit permissions from.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No published term addresses court or government requests for subscriber data. The master services agreement's required disclosure clause binds the subscriber when it must disclose AI Demand Pro's confidential information, and the business associate agreement it references is not published.
No government or law enforcement request clause, commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, or transparency report is published. The vendor holds protected health information and unfiled demand material for claimants in active disputes, and a subpoena to the vendor rather than the firm would reach work product the firm would otherwise resist producing.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Source material comes from the firm alone. Demands are drafted from the firm's own uploaded records and bills; no body of law or verdict data behind the drafting is identified.
The Settlement Repository is described as a database of past settlements used for benchmarking and case valuation, and comparable verdicts from it are cited inside demand packages, so that data is the substance of the argument sent to an insurer. No count of verdicts or settlements, jurisdictional coverage, date range or update frequency is given, and nothing states how the outcomes were obtained, whether from public court records, customer results or licensed data.
Piai is separately claimed as trained on a large personal injury dataset whose provenance is also unstated. Two central data sources are named, and neither is sourced.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Any legal authority a demand cites goes out with no currency check. Nothing addresses checking any legal authority cited in demands for currency.
The product cites legal authority through a Thomson Reuters and Westlaw integration supporting citation inside demand packages. Nothing published says whether cited authority is checked for current treatment, whether an overruled or superseded case would be flagged before it reaches a demand letter, or whether the Westlaw integration includes KeyCite treatment data or only citation retrieval. Comparable verdicts from the settlement repository are outcomes rather than authority and raise no treatment question, but the legal citations in a demand do.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Incomplete records and unanswerable questions have no described handling. Nothing describes what the software does when records are incomplete or a question cannot be answered from the file; the disclaimer says output depends on the quality of the input.
Nothing published describes an explicit no answer path, abstention behavior or confidence signal. Medical records arrive illegible, contradictory, incomplete or out of order as a matter of routine. Nothing states whether the system flags a gap in the treatment timeline, marks a low confidence extraction, or produces a clean looking chronology from an incomplete file. Independent material notes that missed items and misinterpretations occur in complex cases with extensive treatment histories, and the vendor does not describe how such misses are surfaced.
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 AI Demand Pro or Demand Pro as the tool used.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming EvenUp. The product generates documents citing both legal authority and comparable verdicts, sent to adverse parties.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The AI disclaimer and master services agreement tell attorneys that ethical practice requires careful review of any AI-created document before submission and that a competent attorney should always check the work product. No rule or ethics opinion is named.
EvenUp cites no named ethics opinion, ABA Formal Opinion 512 or state bar guidance, and does not engage with professional conduct rules. The product drafts the advocacy document a firm sends under its own name and generates the valuation informing settlement advice to a client. Both sit inside the competence and supervision duties that bar guidance on AI addresses.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
An older product page still online says each demand is invoiced individually at the per-demand rate so that a firm can pass the whole cost of the service onto the client's case costs, which it calls ethical. Nothing addresses how that charge is disclosed to the client. The current pages cite faster demands, lower overhead and a customer's doubled revenue.
Personal injury work is contingency fee work. The firm advances case costs and recovers them from the claimant's settlement, so a per case charge for AI demand packages is money that comes out of an injured person's recovery. Nothing published says whether the platform's per case cost is a case expense or firm overhead, how it should be disclosed to a client, or what record a firm could produce showing how much of a demand the machine generated. Reported time savings of 80 hours per case describe only the firm's side.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material is published. An older product page still online names OpenAI as the backbone of the software, and the master services agreement refers to tools of unnamed third-party licensors.
The Trust Center at trust.evenuplaw.com offers a request access path to documentation. Behind it sit a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, recertified in April 2026, and a HIPAA compliance attestation. No subprocessor list, named model provider, downloadable summary or business associate agreement template is published outside that request route.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Disclosure of AI use in a demand gets no supporting record. Demands go to insurers rather than courts, and nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use.
Medical chronologies carry citations back to source documents, so any entry can be checked against the underlying record, and demand packages cite comparable verdicts from the settlement repository. A firm can show what a factual assertion or a valuation argument rests on. Nothing indicates that output records which model generated it, and no human verification record is captured. That includes the expert reviewed tier, where an in house team checks the document before delivery but no record of that check appears to reach the customer.
A demand package is a document prepared before litigation, so the forum is a claim file or a later suit rather than a court with a standing order, and the same question applies in either.
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.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Deployment Model and Data Residency
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
In summary
AI Demand Pro
AI Demand Pro is personal injury settlement demand software from AI Demand Pro, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California, built by personal injury attorneys. A firm uploads police reports, medical records and bills, and the software drafts a narrative demand with a medical summary and hyperlinked exhibits in about 15 to 20 minutes, delivered in Word on the firm's letterhead for attorney review. According to the AI Legal Index, its published master services agreement references a business associate agreement and a vendor indemnity for confidentiality breaches, security incidents and negligence. Its agreement sets monthly fees, setup fees and census allotments with overages, and caps renewal increases at 6.5 percent.
EvenUp
EvenUp is an AI platform built only for plaintiff personal injury firms, founded in 2019 in San Francisco. It turns police reports, medical records, bills and intake notes into demand letters, medical chronologies and case valuations, using Piai, its own AI engine, and a repository of past settlements. According to the AI Legal Index, it holds a SOC 2 Type 2 examination covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, recertified in April 2026, and a HIPAA attestation. Its chronologies cite each entry to the source document. It sells demands in tiers, from instant AI generation to an expert reviewed tier checked by an in house team.
Questions buyers ask
AI Demand Pro vs EvenUp: which is better for demand letters?
The two are close. EvenUp publishes stronger evidence about data protection, with SOC 2 Type 2 and HIPAA attestations, and chronologies traced to source records. AI Demand Pro publishes its agreement, with an indemnity and a written attorney review duty. A firm that weighs contract terms first has more to read from AI Demand Pro, and one that weighs certifications has more from EvenUp. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does EvenUp train its AI on client medical records?
EvenUp describes Piai as its own engine, trained on a large personal injury specific dataset. Its SOC 2 Type 2 examination covers confidentiality and privacy, which describes how data is protected rather than what it is used for. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does AI Demand Pro sign a business associate agreement?
Yes. AI Demand Pro's master services agreement references a business associate agreement for protected health information, which is not published, and makes the vendor indemnify the firm against claims arising from breach of that agreement, HIPAA violations and security incidents it causes. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do AI Demand Pro and EvenUp cost?
AI Demand Pro's agreement describes the structure, with monthly fees, setup and professional services fees, census allotments and overages, a commitment to the full term and renewal increases capped at 6.5 percent, and an older product page still online quotes a flat price per demand set by monthly volume, invoiced demand by demand, at up to $500 or $600 a demand. EvenUp sells demands in tiers, from instant AI generation through Express Demands to an expert reviewed tier, and third party review material describes its pricing as per case rather than per seat. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 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.
Two points matter. AI Demand Pro's indemnity is written into its own agreement and excludes inaccurate AI output. It covers what the vendor does with a firm's data rather than what a demand says. EvenUp's security and HIPAA credentials describe how data is protected, not what it is used for. Neither vendor says whether uploaded records train its models. That question carries more weight for EvenUp, because it describes its engine as trained on a large personal injury dataset whose origin is not stated. Neither vendor reviewed this page.