Alexi vs Caseway: how they compare in 2026

The artificial intelligence is the product. The vendor describes itself as a private single tenant AI engine, built originally to generate evidence backed research memos, with a proprietary model layer and a retrieval first architecture. Remove the models and there is no product: memo generation, precedent finding, chronology building and workflow automation are all model driven. Return to A after three consecutive B grades on this axis in the contract cohort, which is the axis behaving as designed rather than drifting.

Every product a customer pays for is model work, and the company was built as one. Casey is a generative research assistant that answers legal questions in conversation and returns cited answers grounded in Canadian and United States case law, with citation-linked analysis of uploaded documents. CaseForm auto-completes court and regulatory forms by extracting required fields from source documents and prior filings and applying jurisdiction-specific logic before submission, which is extraction and rule application rather than a template. Synthium is a retrieval and validation layer built for complex regulated work. The agreement is framed around the same premise, defining Output as material generated by the platform from Input, acknowledging in its warranty section that the platform uses probabilistic prediction and pattern analysis with inherent limitations, and defining third-party large language models as a category of dependency. One non-model surface exists and is described honestly rather than credited: CaseLite is a keyword and citation search interface over the same corpus, offered free and without an account, and the vendor positions it as the direct search front end from which a user upgrades to Casey when AI answers are wanted. That is an on-ramp to the paid model product rather than a separate business, and it does not survive as a commercial proposition on its own. Terms of service of 7 February 2026, pricing page and methodology page read 7 September 2026.

Independently measured accuracy with a published methodology, the first such record on the index. Alexi submitted to the 2025 Vals Legal AI Report legal research study, run by an outside evaluator that published its rubric and weights in advance: accuracy at 50 percent, authoritativeness at 40 percent, appropriateness at 10 percent, across 200 United States legal research questions sourced from attorneys at named firms. Per the evaluator's own published results, Alexi scored a 77 percent weighted aggregate, placing second of the four systems measured behind Counsel Stack at 78 percent, and ahead of Midpage at 76 percent and a generalist model at 74 percent, against a lawyer baseline of 69 percent aggregate. Architecture is described rather than asserted, as retrieval first specifically to ground output in primary law rather than model memory. Two qualifications recorded, neither of which removes the A, because the underlying figures are independently produced and checkable by an outsider. First, the vendor's own published account of these results is selective: it leads with 80 percent overall accuracy against a 71 percent lawyer baseline and 79 percent single jurisdiction accuracy described as tied for the highest, which are favorable component scores, and does not state that it placed second on the evaluator's weighted aggregate. A reader relying on the vendor's page would form a different impression from one reading the evaluator's. Second, the evaluator and trade press both record that several major vendors declined to participate and at least one participated but withheld permission to publish, so the comparative field is self selected. Also recorded from the evaluator: all systems measured, this one included, struggled on multi jurisdictional questions and underperformed a generalist model on fifty state statutory surveys.

Grounding is documented and verifiable by the reader, and nothing is measured. What is published: answers are cited to real court decisions and the vendor states on its methodology page that the product does not generate opinion text or fabricate citations, and that opening a result shows structured metadata and documents tied to a real source identifier from the upstream publisher. The same corpus is exposed free through CaseLite without an account, and the vendor invites a reader to run a known citation and see how the record appears, which makes the grounding claim independently testable in a way most records on this axis are not. Limitations are published rather than implied: not every court, tribunal or historical period is equally represented; absence of a case does not mean it does not exist; metadata quality depends on the upstream source and older records may lack citations or dockets; and critical citations should be confirmed against the official reporter or court website when filing. The agreement carries the same instruction, telling users always to confirm that the sources and citations provided in any Output accurately support the statements made, and warning that outputs are generated as is and may be incorrect or incomplete. What is absent is measurement. No accuracy figure, error rate, hallucination rate, test set, benchmark or evaluation result is published for the product, so a reader can establish that the answers point at real documents and cannot establish how often the reasoning over them is right. Methodology page, terms of service and pricing page read 7 September 2026.

Autonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a described mechanism. The product runs multi step workflows that carry legal principles and citations through successive stages, and the vendor states that consistent verifiable accuracy is what makes that automation safe, which is an argument for trusting the system rather than a control structure around it. The CEO has spoken publicly about human oversight in the context of a long term vision for AI assisted arbitration. Searched the vendor site, the FAQ, the workflow and product pages and the blog on 29 Aug 2026 and located no description of what a workflow does unaided, no threshold at which it stops or escalates, no review surface a lawyer is given, and no statement of what the vendor commits to when an output is wrong. For a product whose stated advantage is that accuracy carries through each stage of an automated chain, the absence of a published stopping rule is the notable gap.

Responsibility is allocated to the user in detail and the system's own behavior is not described. The allocation is thorough and appears in more than one place: the agreement states that the user is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy and appropriateness of any Output before using it in any legal matter, that outputs are provided as is and may be incorrect or incomplete, that the user should not rely on Output without first obtaining advice from a licensed attorney, and that the vendor disclaims liability for actions taken or not taken on the basis of Output. The methodology page repeats that the search product is a research aid rather than legal advice. What none of that supplies is an oversight model. Nothing published describes what runs without a person, at what point the system acts on its own, what a review step looks like inside the product, or whether any human checkpoint exists. The question is live rather than theoretical for one product in the family: CaseForm is described as applying jurisdiction-specific logic and validation before submission of court and regulatory forms, which places automated work directly against a filing deadline, and nothing states who presses submit, what the validation checks, or what happens when it passes something wrong. No confidence signal, escalation path, audit view or reviewer workflow is described for any product. Disclaiming responsibility is not the same as describing oversight, and only the first is published here. Terms of service, methodology and pricing pages read 7 September 2026.

Customer claims stand in for evidence. The vendor states it is trusted by leading law firms and describes buyer roles precisely as CIOs and CTOs, knowledge management leaders, innovation teams, practice group leaders and managing partners, which is useful for a reader but is a market description rather than a deployment record. Searched the vendor site, the blog, the FAQ and the news announcements on 29 Aug 2026 and located no named customer, no case study pairing an organization with figures and a date, and no method a reader could assess. The strongest quantified material on this property is benchmark performance rather than production outcome, and the two are different things: the Vals figures show how the system performs on a test set, not what changed at a firm that deployed it.

Institutional association is evidenced and customer outcomes are not, on the surfaces read. What is established: a research collaboration with the University of British Columbia, reported in the legal trade press and described by the vendor in its own posts as anchoring AI systems in real court decisions; a named integration between CaseForm and MyCase, a legal practice management product; a free public search surface that any reader can exercise without an account; and sustained trade coverage in Canadian Lawyer, CBC and regional technology press across 2024 to 2026. What is not established is outcome evidence of the kind this axis asks for. No customer is named on any surface read, no deployment is quantified, no time or cost saving is measured, and no adoption figure, user count or matter volume is published. The vendor's own methodology page cuts against unmeasured scale claims, telling readers to treat any size claim as point in time and to verify current availability inside the product rather than relying on marketing adjectives, which is candid and also leaves the record without a number. Recorded so the grade is read correctly: a Success Stories page and a Testimonials page both exist in the site navigation and neither was opened on this channel, so this row records what was established from the surfaces read and those two pages are the rebuttal route on it. Site navigation, methodology page and trade coverage checked 7 September 2026.

Two of the three limbs are fully answered. Training: the vendor's FAQ states that nothing leaves the firm's private environment and that a firm's prompts, documents and workflow data never train global models and never mix with other firms, and a document management partner's listing independently records no training on customer data. That answers both the training question and the pooling question in the negative and in plain terms. Segregation is the strongest element: every firm on the private cloud model receives a fully isolated single tenant instance, and the vendor enumerates what is isolated rather than leaving it general, covering retrieval, workflows, memory, security protocols and governance. Memory being named in that list matters, because an AI platform that learns from firm usage could otherwise carry one firm's accumulated intelligence toward another. Supporting controls: AES-256 encryption, TLS 1.2 or higher, single sign on, role based access control and audit logs, under SOC 2 certification. The third limb is not answered: no retention period or deletion commitment was located as of 29 Aug 2026, which is recorded on the retention signal row. Graded A on the same basis as Noxtua, where training and segregation were both strong and no retention period was published.

A real contractual confidentiality regime sits beneath an express and unusually blunt denial that anything entered is privileged. The regime is substantive and it is in the agreement rather than on a policy page. Clause 7 makes customer data the customer's confidential information, binds each party to use the other's confidential information only for the purposes of the agreement, restricts disclosure to employees and contractors who need to know and are bound by equivalent obligations, and sets a standard of the same care each party uses for its own confidential information and in no event less than reasonable care. Around it sit a zero-retention default for customer data, automatic deletion of uploaded documents within twenty-four hours, chat history saved only where the user opts in and deletable at any time, and a prohibition on training public models on customer input. Against all of that, clause 3 states in terms that because the user is not receiving legal advice, information input into the platform is not protected by any attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, and instructs the user not to input confidential or sensitive information unless entitled to and accepting that it will not be legally privileged. So the limb this axis exists for is engaged by name and answered against the buyer, which is why this is not the top grade, and the surrounding regime is genuinely strong, which is why it is not lower. Nothing addresses segregation between matters or between users inside one customer. Terms of service and privacy policy of 9 March 2026 read in full 7 September 2026.

The audience is unambiguously lawyers and law firms, with named buyer roles inside firms and no consumer or non lawyer surface located, which is cleaner than most of this index. The vendor engages publicly with the hallucination problem in filings and positions accuracy as a professional risk question. Searched the vendor site, the FAQ, the blog and the product pages on 29 Aug 2026 and located no published position on the advice line, no treatment of competence or supervision duties, and no statement of jurisdiction limits, despite the product spanning Canadian and US law where the applicable professional rules differ. Recorded at C because the position is inferable from who the product is sold to rather than published.

The boundary is drawn repeatedly and in the agreement, and no governing instrument is named. What is published: the platform is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice; use of it creates no attorney-client relationship; Output is general information generated by AI and not a substitute for professional legal counsel; the user agrees not to rely on Output as legal advice for any course of action without first obtaining advice from a duly licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction; and the vendor disclaims all responsibility for actions taken or not taken on that basis. The warranty section restates it, and the methodology page repeats that the product is a research aid and not legal advice. A jurisdictional caveat is included, stating that no guarantee is made that the platform is appropriate or available for use in every jurisdiction and that a user accessing it where it imposes additional obligations does so at their own risk. That last point matters because the product is sold to members of the public as well as to legal professionals, which is where the unauthorised practice question actually bites, and the vendor addresses it with disclaimers rather than by engaging the prohibition. What is absent is any named authority. No provincial law society rule, no statutory prohibition on unauthorised practice, no bar guidance and no court rule appears anywhere, in a market where the governing rules are made province by province. Terms of service and methodology page read in full 7 September 2026.

Principles and evaluation results are published without a governance mechanism. The vendor's substantive contribution here is real and rare: it submitted to an independent third party evaluation and published the results, and it argues publicly that transparency and accountability in legal AI require exactly that rather than marketing claims. Submitting to outside measurement is a governance act. But it is a point in time evaluation rather than a management system. Searched the vendor site, the FAQ, the blog and the news announcements on 29 Aug 2026 and located no AI governance framework, no AI management certification such as ISO 42001, no named owner of model governance, no pre release testing gate, and nothing on uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.

Limitations are acknowledged candidly and no governance apparatus stands behind them. The acknowledgments are real and specific. The agreement states that the platform's use of AI involves probabilistic predictions and pattern analysis with inherent limitations, and that the vendor does not guarantee that Output will be correct, complete or suitable, that defects will be corrected, or that any particular legal result will follow. The methodology page publishes five named limitations of the corpus, including uneven representation across courts and historical periods, dependence on upstream metadata quality, and the warning that absence of a case does not mean it does not exist. The privacy policy commits that legal content is not used for model training, profiling or advertising. Taken together that is an honest account of what the system cannot do. What is missing is everything that would make it governance rather than disclaimer. No AI governance policy, framework or standard is published or claimed, and no certification such as ISO 42001 is asserted. Nobody is named as accountable for the system's behavior. No pre-release evaluation, red-team exercise, benchmark or monitoring practice is described. And no bias, fairness or representativeness disclosure exists at any level, which is worth naming for a product whose corpus is judicial decisions about identifiable parties and whose own methodology page concedes that representation across courts and periods is uneven. Terms of service, methodology page and privacy policy read 7 September 2026.

The vendor's security page and FAQ supply the control detail. Published: AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, single sign on, role based access control, audit logs, support for private VPC deployment, and region specific deployments for firms operating across offices. Architectural isolation is the strongest element: a fully isolated single tenant instance per firm covering retrieval, workflows, memory, security protocols and governance. SOC 2 certification underpins the control set, and a Trust Center provides a request route to a security addendum, architecture whitepaper, data processing agreement and audit reports. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026, and why this is B rather than A: a stated retention period or deletion control for research queries, uploaded case files and generated memos, a named subprocessor list, and an incident or breach notification practice.

Substantive published policy on the data questions, with the supply chain and incident practice absent. What is published, and much of it contractually rather than on a policy page: a zero-retention default, stated in clause 7 of the agreement, under which session content, uploaded documents, search queries and prompts are not stored except temporarily as needed to generate Output unless the user chooses to save them; automatic deletion of uploaded documents and context files within twenty-four hours, with a statement that they are not permanently stored; chat histories saved only on opt-in and deletable at any time; no retention on the vendor's servers of sensitive, case or matter data processed by the form automation product; a commitment not to train public AI models on customer input and, in the privacy policy, not to use legal content for model training at all; no sale of personal data and no profiling for advertising; and a stated minimum-data approach under which a category not operationally needed is not kept. Security is described in general terms: encryption controls for data in transit and at rest, access controls and permission boundaries, and service hardening, monitoring and abuse protections. Two gaps are named. No subprocessor or service provider is identified anywhere, the privacy policy referring only to contracted service providers acting on instructions. And no incident or breach notification practice is published, no notification timeline is committed and no security contact route is given. The agreement also states plainly that the vendor is not HIPAA or PCI-DSS certified and instructs users not to process protected health or payment card data, which is an honest negative disclosure rather than a gap. Terms of service and privacy policy read in full 7 September 2026.

Searched the vendor site navigation, the FAQ, the product and workflow pages, the blog and the news announcements on 29 Aug 2026. No published indemnity, liability cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position was located, and no customer terms of service or master agreement was located as published on the property. Recorded as a pure absence on the surfaces reached. Worth noting the shape of the gap: this vendor stakes its positioning on measured accuracy and on reducing the risk of hallucinated citations reaching a filing, and publishes nothing about who bears the loss if one does.

A complete two-way allocation, published and readable before signing, including something most records on this axis do not have: an indemnity running to the customer. Clause 12.1 commits the vendor to defend the customer against a third-party claim that the platform as provided and used in accordance with the terms infringes a valid copyright, patent or trademark or misappropriates a trade secret, and to indemnify against damages, costs and reasonable fees finally awarded or included in an approved settlement, with a remedy ladder of modifying the platform, obtaining a license, or terminating with a pro-rated refund. Liability is capped mutually at the greater of twelve months of fees paid or CAD 500, with a stated floor rather than an open figure, and carve-outs for fraud, gross negligence and wilful misconduct capped at twice that. Termination for convenience by the vendor carries thirty days notice and a pro-rated refund of prepaid fees. What holds it below the top grade is the substance of what is not warranted. The platform and all content are provided as is and as available, with all implied warranties disclaimed and an express statement that the accuracy or reliability of Output is not warranted, so the product's core function carries no promise. No service level is committed, no insurance position is published, and the cap's floor of CAD 500 is nominal against the exposure a wrong fact in a filed document creates. Liability for third-party AI model failure is expressly disclaimed under clause 8. Terms of service read in full 7 September 2026.

One integration is named and none is documented. A product integration with iManage is announced, which is the legal specific document management connector that matters most for a firm facing research product and which several better resourced vendors on this index lack. Searched the vendor site, the FAQ, the product pages and the news announcements on 29 Aug 2026 and located no integrations index, no other named connector for practice management, court filing or Microsoft Word, and no documentation describing what the iManage integration moves, in which direction, or what an administrator configures. Recorded at C because the connection is announced rather than documented.

One named practice system and an API, with no documentation read and no connector inventory established. What is established from surfaces read: an integration between the form automation product and MyCase, a legal practice management platform, published on its own path in the site navigation; API access stated for the research assistant, described on the pricing page as available for research and document workflows; and API or embedded user interface options offered for the form product for teams and integrations. For the enterprise data hub the vendor describes custom pipelines, integrations and workflows tailored to a customer's stack, which is a services statement rather than a named connector. What is absent is depth and evidence of it. No API or developer documentation was located, no authentication or scope model is described, no document management system, email client, word processor or e-signature product is named, and nothing states what moves in which direction across the MyCase boundary or how permissions travel with it. Recorded so the grade is read correctly: an Integrations and Partnership page exists in the site navigation and was not opened on this channel, so this row records the integration surface as established in outline and not in depth, and that page is the rebuttal route. Pricing page, site navigation and terms of service checked 7 September 2026.

Deployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, which is the B band. Two models are published and the difference between them is meaningful: a private single tenant environment per firm as the default, and private cloud deployment for firms wanting complete ownership and control of their own data. Single tenancy by design is stronger than most of this index offers and it is stated as architecture rather than as an enterprise upsell. What is missing is geography: searched the vendor site, the FAQ and the product pages on 29 Aug 2026 and located no named regions, no customer selectable residency, and no statement of where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored, which matters for a vendor operating across both Canadian and US jurisdictions.

Neither limb is stated for the product this record turns on, and what is published belongs to a different product in the family. For the research assistant, nothing states where data is stored or processed, no country or region is named, no residency option is offered, no tenancy model is described and no cloud provider is identified. The privacy policy addresses what is retained and for how long without ever saying where, and the agreement's only geographic content is a governing law clause and an arbitration seat, which are a forum rather than a data location. What does exist is published for the enterprise data hub: secure deployments with data residency options and compliance support, and deployment on premises or in an isolated cloud. That is a genuine deployment and residency disclosure and it is described here rather than credited across, because the product it attaches to is the enterprise data platform and not the legal research assistant that a lawyer buys at the published seat price. Credit follows scope, and no statement connects the two: nothing says the research assistant can be deployed on premises, in an isolated tenancy, or in a nominated region. A buyer of the research product can establish that the company knows how to offer these things to enterprise customers and cannot establish what applies to their own matter data. Pricing page, privacy policy and terms of service read 7 September 2026.

The vendor publishes a dedicated security page stating SOC 2 certification, and operates a Trust Center reached through a request access flow, which it states carries a security addendum, an architecture whitepaper, a data processing agreement and audit reports. That is a self serve request route to substantive diligence material rather than a sales gate, and the document set named is broader than most on this index. SOC 2 certification is separately corroborated on the vendor's own platform pages, its about page, its FAQ and by a document management partner's technology listing. Supporting controls published on the FAQ: AES-256 encryption, TLS 1.2 or higher, single sign on, role based access control, audit logs and support for private VPC deployment. Short of an A because no coverage period, audit scope, report date, SOC 2 type designation or named auditing firm was located as of 29 Aug 2026, and because the certification is asserted on marketing pages rather than evidenced by a certificate reached in this pass.

No certification is claimed, none is held so far as anything published shows, and no trust center exists. There is no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no independent audit, no named auditor, no report of any kind, no penetration test result, no compliance page and no portal from which documentation could be requested. The site navigation carries no security or trust entry at all, its legal section listing only the privacy policy and the terms of service, so this is established from the vendor's own page inventory rather than inferred from a failed search. Two things are recorded so the floor is read correctly rather than as an accusation of concealment. First, the vendor makes an honest negative disclosure that most records at this level do not: the agreement states plainly that it is not HIPAA or PCI-DSS certified and instructs users not to process protected health information or payment card data through the platform, which tells a buyer where the boundary is instead of leaving a badge to imply otherwise. There are no unsupported badges anywhere on the estate. Second, a document called a Statement of Confidentiality is referred to in clause 7 of the agreement as providing more technical and legal information on how customer data is protected; no location is given for it, it appears nowhere in the navigation, and it was not located. The general security controls described in the privacy policy are credited on the stewardship axis and are not counted again here. Site navigation, terms of service and privacy policy checked 7 September 2026.

The vendor refers to proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath them. Published: a proprietary model layer the vendor brands as Alex, described as trained specifically on law rather than general purpose, and a retrieval first architecture. That tells a buyer the shape of the stack and that a specialist layer exists. Searched the vendor site, the FAQ, the product pages and the blog on 29 Aug 2026 and located no named foundation model or provider underneath the proprietary layer, no statement of where models run, no subprocessor list, and no commitment to notify customers when the supply chain changes. A private single tenant environment narrows the exposure question without answering it.

The supply chain is acknowledged to exist and not one participant in it is named. Clause 8 of the agreement is explicit that the platform may rely on or incorporate third-party services including third-party large language models or data sources, that the AI engine may rely on underlying models or APIs provided by third-party AI vendors, and that some customer input may be processed by third-party AI engines under the vendor's contract with those providers. So a reader is told plainly that outside models see their material. No model is named, no model family is named, no provider is named, no inference host is named and no cloud provider is named, on any surface read including the privacy policy, which refers only to contracted service providers acting on instructions. Change notification runs in the opposite direction to what this axis asks: the same clause reserves the right to replace, update or disable third-party services at any time and states that the unavailability or modification of any such service, expressly including a third-party AI model being discontinued or changed, does not entitle the customer to any refund or relief. The vendor does commit that third-party processing will be subject to appropriate confidentiality and data protection obligations, which is a flow-down promise rather than a disclosure, and it disclaims liability for the acts or omissions of those providers. Terms of service and privacy policy read in full 7 September 2026.

Checked the vendor site navigation, the FAQ, the product and workflow pages and the blog on 29 Aug 2026. No pricing page was located, no rate is published, no unit of charge is stated and no tier structure appears. Every commercial path located terminates in a demo or contact request. No free trial or self serve entry point was located, and no third party pricing figure was located either.

Published figures for the priced products, a stated unit of charge, a free tier reachable without an account, and the commercial mechanics in the agreement rather than withheld. The research assistant is published at CA$49.00 per month with a monthly and yearly toggle; the form automation product at $49 per seat per month with its own purchase path; and the enterprise data hub as a contact route. The unit of charge differs between the two priced products and is stated for each, per user per month against per seat per month. Free access is genuine rather than a trial: the search product is offered with no account required, and the vendor frames the upgrade path from it to the AI assistant explicitly. Two discount programs are published with eligibility checks, fifty percent for students and fifteen percent for veterans. The mechanics come from the agreement: fees stated in Canadian dollars and exclusive of taxes, monthly or annual billing by card or invoice, interest on late payment at 1.5 percent per month, fees non-cancellable and non-refundable with no pro-rata on mid-term cancellation, a thirty day window to dispute a charge, and a pro-rated refund where the vendor terminates for convenience on thirty days notice. Two gaps are named rather than smoothed. No usage limits, quotas or overage terms are published for any tier. And the assistant's own feature list refers to uploads for premium users while only one price is shown for it, so a buyer can read that a premium tier exists and cannot find what it costs. Pricing page and terms of service read 7 September 2026.

Segment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries. The buyer is law firms specifically, and unusually the vendor names the roles inside them: CIOs and CTOs, knowledge management leaders, innovation teams, practice group leaders and managing partners. Practice coverage spans litigation, transactional, operational and administrative work, with a published practice area treatment for personal injury covering case file summarization, chronology building and memo drafting. Jurisdictional scope is Canada and the United States. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: any statement of which firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for, and any enumeration of jurisdictional coverage at state or provincial level, which for a research product is the boundary a buyer needs most.

Coverage is stated by jurisdiction with named collections, and the vendor publishes what it does not cover, which is rarer than what it does. What is published: case law for the United States, federal and state, and for Canada, federal, provincial and territorial; primary law browsing for four named United States jurisdictions, being California, Florida, New York and Texas, plus Canadian federal, provincial and territorial collections as released; records carrying party names, courts, decision dates, docket or court-file identifiers and citations where present in the source. Update practice is described rather than asserted, with ongoing ingest as source systems publish and an express statement that depth and lag vary by court and jurisdiction and that recent filings may appear after a delay. The limitations are the strongest part: not every court, tribunal or historical period is equally represented; absence of a case does not mean it does not exist; older records may lack citations, dockets or complete party strings; and primary-law browse outside the listed jurisdictions may be incomplete or unavailable. Buyers are named across law firms, enterprises and individuals, with legal sitting alongside defense, manufacturing, energy, mining and utilities as addressed sectors, and a practice areas surface exists. What keeps this off the top grade is that no per-court depth, date range or historical start point is given for any collection, so a reader knows the boundaries are uneven without being able to locate them. Methodology page, pricing page and site navigation read 7 September 2026.