CaseBlink vs Visalaw AI: how they compare in 2026
CaseBlink and Visalaw AI both prepare US immigration cases for attorneys, researching agency materials and case law and drafting petitions, briefs and RFE responses with citations. Visalaw AI sits in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen axes and CaseBlink on thirteen of fifteen, identical on eight. Visalaw's lead is its contract on client material. Its platform agreement bars training by Visalaw and its model providers, its security addendum documents isolation down to the shared vector index, and it publishes guidance on keeping AI work privileged. It hosts in AWS US East 1 and connects to eImmigration, Clio and Docketwise. CaseBlink's lead is naming its supply chain. Its data processing addendum names OpenAI as its AI provider, gives 15 days' notice of new subprocessors with a right to object, and its agreement binds AI providers to retain nothing. Its agreement also licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products. CaseBlink publishes seat prices from $100 a month; Visalaw's start at $220.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models do the core work, which is the A band. CaseBlink's product is AI case preparation: models label and organise client documents, extract data into USCIS forms, summarise evidence, run immigration research and draft support letters, briefs and RFE responses, and the Autopilot agent runs the whole sequence from upload to assembled packet. Only the entry Lite plan (packet assembly and exhibit lists) works without the AI features. Verified 18 September 2026.
The models drive the research and drafting the vendor leads with, on a platform with real non-AI functions, which is the B band. Natural-language research over the immigration library, petition and brief drafting, legal analysis, document chat, translation and summarisation are model work. Around them sit projects organised by matter, team permissions, audit trails, e-signature, a certified-translation option and a large curated library of agency materials, AILA content and case law that has value in its own right. Verified 18 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Grounding is real and described, short of any accuracy measurement, which is the B band. CaseBlink says every output cites directly to the client's uploaded evidence so the attorney can verify it, that its research draws on AAO decisions, the USCIS Policy Manual and case law, and that it reviews uploaded documents for missing context and quality gaps. No accuracy or error rates are published, and the Service Agreement warns that AI output may contain errors or misleading information. Verified 18 September 2026.
Grounding is real and documented against a named corpus with citations on every output, short of any measurement, which is the B band. The platform page describes the research library, agency materials from DHS, USCIS, DOJ, DOS, DOL and HHS, AILA secondary sources and more than 10 million cases from over 2,000 courts searchable by jurisdiction, and the FAQ says every output includes transparent citations so attorneys can cross-check. No accuracy figure, evaluation or failure mode is published, nothing says what the system does when the library does not support an answer, and the FAQ's claim that the product ensures accuracy every time is not backed by any measurement. The Platform Agreement states that output is AI-generated and may contain errors. Verified 18 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Human review before filing is the stated model, with citations as the review surface, short of thresholds or stopping points, which is the B band. Autopilot runs document organisation, research, drafting and packet assembly in one pass and then hands the attorney a complete packet to review before filing; the page for individual applicants says the attorney prepares the case using CaseBlink under their supervision. The Service Agreement says CaseBlink may review output before it is returned but does not guarantee it, and puts the risk of relying on output on the customer. No confidence signal, checkpoint inside the Autopilot run or route for flagged errors is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
A written position that the attorney stays in control, with real review surfaces and a supervision rule for staff, short of a published control structure, which is the B band. The Platform Agreement calls the service a research and drafting tool whose output is not legal advice and makes the customer responsible for evaluating output for accuracy; the about page says technology should support professional judgment rather than replace it. Paralegals and assistants may use the product only under a supervising attorney's account, with audit trails, and drafts are edited in the platform before use. No mode, threshold or categorical limit on what an output may be used for is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Named customers and usage figures, without outcome measurement, which is the B band. CaseBlink shows logos of firms including Dorsey & Whitney, Dickinson Wright, Fakhoury Global Immigration, Clark Lau and Cline Williams, names twelve partner firms by city on its applicant page, and reports more than 100 firms, 1,000 users and 3,000 cases prepared (March 2025: more than 50 firms and 1,000 cases). Testimonials are named customer evidence, not outcome evidence (R122), and the 'five times faster filing' figure has no method behind it. Verified 18 September 2026.
Named customers with some figures, short of any method, which is the B band. The customer stories page names Charles Kuck of Kuck Baxter, Cyrus Mehta of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, Chase Hertel of SimpleCitizen, and solo practitioners John Manley and Ken Robinson, who says the platform saves him four to six hours a week and let him cut his hourly rate. The platform page claims up to 90 per cent reductions in drafting time and an ROI of 10 hours per case and $60,000 a year, stated as based on an assumption of ten drafts a month. None of the figures is measured across a described sample. Verified 18 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Confidentiality and zero retention with AI providers are in the published agreement, but the licence to use customer data is broad and privilege is not named, which is the B band. The Service Agreement (15 July 2026) says third-party AI tools acting for CaseBlink retain no customer data, requires written notice before any compelled disclosure, and its DPA requires deletion within 90 days of termination and lists OpenAI and Google as subprocessors; the security page adds isolated tenant environments and says client content is never used for model training. Against that, section 1.4 licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products, and neither the agreement nor the security page addresses privilege or work product. Verified 18 September 2026.
Every element of the confidentiality picture is contractual, and the vendor addresses privilege and work product directly, which is the A band. The Platform Agreement commits that Visalaw will not train any AI model on customer data or content and that its model providers will not either, that subprocessors other than cloud storage will not retain or log content for human review, and that customer content is the customer's confidential information for the term and ten years after. The Security Addendum documents per-organisation isolation enforced at the API and database layers, including in the shared vector index, and contractually bars model providers from training, from keeping content beyond a single API call and from sharing it. The Data Processing Addendum limits de-identification to operational metadata and says matter-level content never leaves the customer's tenant. The vendor's March 2026 post on United States v. Heppner explains why the court denied privilege and work product protection to a client's consumer AI output, sets out the Kovel route for AI used at counsel's direction, and advises attorneys to use enterprise tools with contractual no-training and confidentiality terms and to document attorney direction, pointing to Visalaw's own commitments. Flagged for sampling as the pull's first Privilege A. Verified 18 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A clear position that the tool is not legal advice, with the attorney's role stated, short of jurisdiction limits, which is the B band. The Service Agreement says content is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship and should not be acted on without a competent professional, and describes the service as a tool for legal professionals. CaseBlink also runs a consumer page that takes applicants' details and matches them with partner immigration firms; it says the attorney prepares the case under their supervision but carries no not-legal-advice statement and does not say whether partner firms pay for referrals. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
A clear position on what the product is, who may use it and how staff use is supervised, short of jurisdiction limits, which is the B band. The Platform Agreement states that the service is a research and drafting tool and that output is not legal advice; the platform FAQ says the product is designed for immigration attorneys and professionals who are AILA members, and that paralegals and assistants may use it only under a supervising attorney's account with audit trails. No jurisdictional limit is stated, and the same FAQ asserts that the product ensures ethical compliance and meets professional responsibility standards, a claim a tool cannot make on a lawyer's behalf. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Limitations are acknowledged without a governance programme, which is the C band. The Service Agreement lists the limitations of AI output, including errors, bias from training data and weak reasoning on complex tasks, and makes the customer responsible for any bias audits, notices or consents required where AI processes personal data. No internal owner, testing before release, bias assessment or evaluation of the immigration models is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Values and AI-specific data controls are published without a governance framework for model behaviour, which is the C band. The about page states principles, including that every answer must be grounded in the law, and the Security Addendum has a dedicated AI Model Security section on provider restrictions, tenant isolation and data flow documentation; the DPA commits to renegotiate if new AI regulation requires it. Those are security and data commitments rather than governance of model behaviour: nothing names who owns model quality, what is tested before release, or what has been found about uneven output across case types, languages or nationalities. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Retention, deletion, access, subprocessors and incident practice are published and specific enough to hold the vendor to, which is the A band. The Service Agreement binds CaseBlink's AI providers to retain no customer data; the DPA requires deletion within 90 days of termination, breach notification without undue delay with remediation and assistance, a named subprocessor list (Google, OpenAI, Slack, all processing in the US) with 15 days' notice of changes and a right to object and terminate, and annual audit rights satisfied by a SOC 2 report. The security page adds AES-256 encryption, isolated tenants, SSO, role-based access and audit logs for sensitive operations. The breach clause sets no fixed hour window. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
The stewardship set is published in contract detail, with the subprocessor list itself unreadable, which holds this at the top of the B band. The Security Addendum commits to AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, least-privilege access with multi-factor authentication, annual penetration tests, stated vulnerability remediation windows, background checks, and notice of a security incident within 24 hours with an independent forensic assessor at Visalaw's expense. The DPA commits to return or delete customer data within 30 days of termination with written certification, and to 60 days' notice of new or changed subprocessors with objection and termination rights. The subprocessor list is held in the Trust Portal, hosted on Drata behind an access request, which refuses automated reading, so the top band is not asserted on it. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A real published position with a cap and super-cap, and an express exclusion of AI output, which is the B band. The Service Agreement caps liability at 12 months of fees, raises the cap to twice that for breaches of data security or confidentiality involving customer data, and indemnifies the customer for claims that the service infringes a US copyright or trade secret, but excludes output from that indemnity, disclaims any warranty of the accuracy of output, and requires the customer to indemnify CaseBlink for claims arising from its use of output. Verified 18 September 2026.
A detailed published liability position with named insurance, short of anything that stands behind output, which is the B band. The Platform Agreement gives a vendor indemnity against third-party claims that the service infringes intellectual property or arises from Visalaw's violation of law, caps general liability at twelve months' fees with carve-outs for confidentiality breaches and indemnities, sets a separate cap at twice annual fees, and commits Visalaw to maintain technology errors and omissions and cyber liability insurance, with certificates on request. Insurance amounts are not stated, and output accuracy is placed on the customer. Verified 18 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Connections are thin or unnamed, which is the C band. CaseBlink exports to Word and PDF, supports single sign-on through SAML 2.0 and OIDC with Okta, Azure AD and Google Workspace, and the Service Agreement mentions an API; the Pro plan (in beta) builds case management and a client portal into CaseBlink itself, and Enterprise offers custom integrations. No integration with an immigration case management system, document management system or other practice tool is named. Verified 18 September 2026.
Named integrations across immigration practice systems, short of documented depth, which is the B band. The platform page lists integration partners including the eImmigration case management system, Clio, Docketwise, Candle AI for email drafting, MotaWord for translation, and Google Drive, OneDrive and Dropbox, and says research and drafts fit case management and email workflows; API developer access is included on the Pro plan. What each integration exchanges and in which direction is not documented on the surfaces read. Verified 18 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Hosting and options are described in real terms, short of region choices for standard plans, which is the B band. CaseBlink runs on Google Cloud Platform in isolated tenant environments; its subprocessor list puts all processing, including OpenAI, in the United States; and the Enterprise plan offers dedicated or private hosting and data residency. Which regions residency covers is not published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Tenancy, hosting region, residency options and where processing happens are all stated, which is the A band. The Security Addendum states that customer data and content are stored and processed by Visalaw and its vendors in U.S. data centres, hosted by default in the AWS and MongoDB US East 1 regions with replication only within the United States, that customers may request a specific region, and that the service runs on shared infrastructure with logical separation enforced by organisation at the application and database layers; model providers receive content over encrypted API calls and may not keep it beyond the call. Encryption keys are provider-managed, with no customer-managed keys. The DPA describes the same arrangement as a dedicated tenant environment, a difference in wording recorded here. Verified 18 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
A named, dated attestation with reports available on request, short of evidence a reader can open, which is the B band. CaseBlink says it completed a SOC 2 Type 1 audit in 2024 and a SOC 2 Type 2 audit in 2025, audits annually, runs regular third-party penetration tests and a vulnerability disclosure programme, and lists 52 controls; the audit reports and its zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI are available on request through trust.caseblink.com, which renders only in a browser and could not be read (R128). Verified 18 September 2026.
A named attestation with a contractual route to the report, short of evidence a reader can see, which is the B band. The Security Addendum states that the security programme is audited against SOC 2 Type II, that ISO 27001 is targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026, and that customers receive recent SOC 2 reports, penetration test summaries and questionnaire responses on request at no cost; the security page adds ISO/IEC 42001 as in progress, a dedicated CISO, SAML single sign-on, audit logs and IP allow-listing. The auditor, report period and scope are not stated on any page read. The Trust Portal is hosted on Drata behind an access request, and the host refuses automated reading, so its contents could not be read. Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The model provider is named and changes are contractually notified with a right to object, which meets the A band. The DPA's subprocessor list names OpenAI OpCo, LLC as the third-party AI deployment provider, processing in the United States, and requires 15 days' notice before any new subprocessor can access customer data, with a right to object and to terminate if the objection is not resolved; the security page describes a zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI, available on request. The specific models and versions are not named. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
The AI architecture and provider obligations are described with change notification, without the providers named on any surface read, which is the B band. The Security Addendum describes content passing to contracted model providers over encrypted APIs, bars them from training, retention beyond a single call and onward sharing, and says Visalaw documents which subprocessors receive data at each stage; the Platform Agreement and DPA give 60 days' notice before a new or changed subprocessor, with objection rights, and the security page says these obligations extend to external model providers. The providers themselves are listed only in the Trust Portal, which is hosted on Drata behind an access request and refuses automated reading; a 2024 announcement co-issued with AILA named GPT-4, which is dated and not relied on. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Prices are published, which is the A band. The pricing page lists Lite at $100 per seat per month (packet assembly), Core at $200 (AI drafting, case preparation and the Autopilot agent) and Pro at $300 (case management, in beta), each with unlimited cases and a 14-day free trial, with one month free on annual billing; Enterprise is custom. The Service Agreement sets out the per-seat reasonable-use limits, trial cancellation, renewal and fee-change terms. Verified 18 September 2026.
A buyer can price the product and see what each plan includes before a sales conversation, which is the A band. The pricing published on the platform page sets Core at $220 a month for research, the curated library, document analysis, translation, projects, skills and case management integration, and Pro at $480 a month adding up to ten petition and brief drafts a month, custom skills, exhibit review, collaboration and API access, with Enterprise custom for unlimited drafting. Onboarding differs by plan, with customised onboarding on Pro and Enterprise and in-person training on Enterprise, and qualifying firms on annual plans receive two free support-staff seats per attorney licence. Enterprise rates are withheld. A pricing row is written. Verified 18 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Segments and matter types are set out in detail, short of stated limits on the AI, which is the B band. CaseBlink covers US employment visas (H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, E-3), green cards (EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-1C, EB-2 NIW, PERM, EB-3), family-based petitions, humanitarian cases (asylum, DACA, TPS, U and T visas) and naturalisation, for solo practitioners through large firms and corporate immigration departments. It is built only for US immigration law; where drafting or research is weaker by case type is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
Segments, practice areas and limits are documented precisely, which is the A band. The product is for immigration attorneys who are AILA members, from solo practitioners to mid-to-large firms, and the platform page lists the case types supported for drafting: business (O-1A, O-1B, EB-1A to EB-1C, NIW, H-1B, TN, L-1, E-1 to E-3, R-1, I-360), family (I-601, I-601A, I-485, N-400, N-600), humanitarian (asylum, T and U visas, VAWA, cancellation of removal) and multi-category work such as RFEs, motions and BIA appeals. The research library is scoped to named agencies and courts, with separate U.S., Canadian and global libraries. Anything outside immigration is outside the product by design. Verified 18 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The security page says client data is never stored or trained on and that there is no model training on client content. No matching prohibition is in the Service Agreement (15 July 2026), whose section 1.4 licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products and services; the agreement does bind third-party AI providers to retain no customer data.
The published Platform Agreement prohibits training on customer data and content, and extends the bar to the vendor's model providers. Section 4.3 commits that neither Visalaw nor its third-party model providers will train any AI model on customer data or content, and that subprocessors other than cloud storage will not retain or log it for human review; the Data Processing Addendum repeats the commitment and says it is enforced through the subprocessor agreements.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Fixed terms are published. The Service Agreement says third-party AI providers acting for CaseBlink retain no customer data, the security page says data is purged after each AI operation, and the DPA requires deletion of customer personal data within 90 days of termination. Case files, including AI output, are kept in the account for the life of the subscription.
The customer controls return or deletion of its data, and model providers keep nothing beyond the call. The Platform Agreement and DPA commit to return or delete customer data and content at the customer's election within 30 days of termination, with written certification, and the platform describes data as user-managed. The Security Addendum bars model providers from keeping content beyond a single API call. No shorter in-term retention setting for prompts and outputs is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is claimed at tenant level without matter-level detail. The security page lists isolated tenant environments and role-based fine-grained access controls, and the Pro plan adds team management; nothing describes restricting access to particular cases or clients within a firm.
The product's own separation model is documented. The Security Addendum says every record is scoped to an organization identifier enforced through access tokens at the API layer, and that embeddings in the shared vector index are filtered by organization and draft; the platform offers projects organized by matter with private team access, role-based permissions and audit trails. Walls between matters inside one firm rely on project permissions, which are described but not documented in detail.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The Service Agreement commits CaseBlink to give written notice before any disclosure required by subpoena or order, to let the customer intervene, and to cooperate in seeking protection; the DPA commits to notify the customer of government access requests. No transparency report is published.
The Data Processing Addendum commits to notify the customer of legally binding law enforcement requests for its data, to the extent legally permitted, and to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a waiver where notice is prohibited. It also commits to advance notice where law requires processing outside the customer's instructions. No transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The research sources are named without a license or provenance statement. CaseBlink says its immigration research draws on AAO decisions, the USCIS Policy Manual and case law; where the case law comes from and on what terms is not stated.
Sources are named by publisher and scale, with curation described, without a license basis for each. The platform page names agency materials from DHS, USCIS, DOJ, DOS, DOL and HHS, AILA publications and practice pointers, the vendor's own content, and a case law library of more than 10 million cases from over 2,000 courts, curated daily; access to AILALink and AILA.org content requires AILA membership. The rights basis for the case law collection and AILA material is not stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Searched the product, security, pricing and Autopilot pages, llms.txt and the Service Agreement on 18 September 2026. No check that cited AAO decisions or case law remain good law is described.
Searched the platform page and FAQ, the legal documents and the customer stories on 18 September 2026. The product cites case law from a library of more than 10 million cases, but nothing states whether cited cases are checked for subsequent history or flagged when overruled.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. CaseBlink flags missing context and quality gaps in uploaded documents, but no behavior for signaling uncertainty in drafts or declining to draft when evidence is missing is described.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. No abstention or uncertainty behavior is described. The FAQ says every output carries citations for cross-checking, which supports verification but does not describe what the system does when the library lacks support.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court or agency records addressing fabricated content in output from CaseBlink. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court or tribunal records addressing fabricated or hallucinated citations in output from Visalaw AI or Gen. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Searched the product, security and applicant pages, llms.txt, the Service Agreement and a web search of the vendor's blog on 18 September 2026. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or bar guidance is referred to.
The vendor names a specific court decision on AI and applies it to practice. Its March 2026 post on United States v. Heppner explains Judge Rakoff's ruling that a client's consumer AI output was neither privileged nor work product, discusses the Kovel doctrine for AI used at counsel's direction, and advises immigration attorneys to counsel clients in writing, use enterprise tools, document attorney direction and adopt a firm AI policy.
The platform FAQ adds that paralegal use runs under a supervising attorney. No bar ethics opinion or EOIR guidance is named on the surfaces read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Speed and efficiency are marketed without billing or disclosure guidance. CaseBlink says cases are filed weeks ahead and five times faster and that firms win more cases with less effort; nothing addresses how firms should reflect AI-assisted preparation in fees or tell clients about it.
Time and cost savings are claimed for work inside a lawyer and client fee relationship, without billing guidance. The platform page claims 10 hours saved per case and $60,000 a year on an assumption of ten drafts a month, and a customer story reports a solo attorney who cut his hourly rate by $300 because of the time saved. Nothing addresses how firms should bill or disclose AI-assisted work.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Disclosure material is published without an agreement in place. The DPA in the public Service Agreement lists every subprocessor with its role and country, naming OpenAI as the AI model provider and Google as cloud host, with change notice and objection rights, and the security page offers the SOC 2 reports and the zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI through the Trust Center.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Output cites to uploaded evidence and the platform keeps audit logs of sensitive operations, but nothing records which parts of a filing were AI-generated or supports disclosure of AI use to USCIS or a court.
Some elements of a record exist, short of a document-level export. Every output carries citations to its sources, and the platform keeps audit trails of team activity. Nothing records which model produced a draft or who verified it, and no disclosure export is described for filings with USCIS, EOIR or courts.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose CaseBlink if
- You want one click from documents to a filing packet. CaseBlink's Autopilot agent organizes and labels client documents, extracts data into USCIS forms, researches, drafts support letters and briefs with citations to the uploaded evidence, and assembles a tabbed packet for attorney review.
- You need the AI provider named with change control. CaseBlink's data processing addendum names OpenAI as its AI provider and Google as cloud host, processing in the United States, gives 15 days' notice before any new subprocessor with a right to object, and binds AI providers to retain no customer data.
- You want to start at a lower seat price. CaseBlink publishes Lite at $100, Core with AI drafting at $200 and Pro at $300 per seat per month, each with unlimited cases and a 14 day free trial, and names firms including Dorsey & Whitney and Dickinson Wright.
Choose Visalaw AI if
- You need privilege and training addressed in the contract. Visalaw's platform agreement bars training by Visalaw or its model providers and keeps content confidential for ten years after the term, and the vendor publishes guidance on keeping AI assisted work privileged under the Kovel doctrine.
- You research from a curated immigration library. Visalaw answers with citations from DHS, USCIS, DOJ, DOS, DOL and HHS materials, AILA publications and more than 10 million cases, and drafts for a published list of business, family and humanitarian case types.
- Your case management system is already chosen. Visalaw names integrations with eImmigration, Clio and Docketwise, plus Google Drive, OneDrive and Dropbox, offers API access on Pro, and hosts in AWS US East 1 with replication only inside the United States.
In summary
CaseBlink
CaseBlink, from CaseBlink, Inc. of New York, founded in 2023, is an AI case preparation platform for US immigration attorneys. It organizes client documents, extracts data into USCIS forms, drafts support letters, briefs and RFE responses in a firm's style with citations to the uploaded evidence, researches AAO decisions and the USCIS Policy Manual, and assembles filing packets, with an Autopilot agent running the sequence for attorney review. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on AI centrality, data stewardship, model supply chain disclosure and pricing, from $100 per seat a month. As of 18 September 2026 the index located no accuracy measure and no named practice system integration.
Visalaw AI
Visalaw AI, from Visalaw Ventures, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee, formed by people at the immigration firm Siskind Susser, is a research and drafting platform for immigration attorneys who are AILA members. It answers research questions with citations from a curated library of agency materials, AILA publications and more than 10 million cases, and drafts petitions, briefs and support letters for a published list of case types. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on privilege, deployment, pricing and practice coverage. Its published agreement bars training by Visalaw or its model providers. As of 18 September 2026 the index located no accuracy measure, and its model providers sit in a trust portal that could not be read.
Questions buyers ask
CaseBlink vs Visalaw AI: which is better for immigration lawyers?
The grid places them one axis apart: Visalaw AI sits in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and CaseBlink on thirteen of fifteen. Visalaw publishes stronger contract terms on training and privilege, a curated research library and named case management integrations. CaseBlink names its AI provider in its contract, runs an agent from upload to packet, and costs less per seat.
Does CaseBlink train AI on client files?
CaseBlink's security page says there is no model training on client content, and its service agreement binds its AI providers to retain no customer data. Section 1.4 of the same agreement licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products and services, without naming training. Visalaw's platform agreement states that neither Visalaw nor its model providers will train any model on customer data. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which AI models do CaseBlink and Visalaw use?
CaseBlink's data processing addendum names OpenAI as its AI deployment provider and Google as its cloud host, both processing in the United States, and it describes a zero data retention agreement with OpenAI. Visalaw describes contracted model providers barred from training or from retaining content beyond a single call, but lists them only in a trust portal that requires an access request. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do CaseBlink and Visalaw AI cost?
CaseBlink charges per seat per month: $100 for Lite, $200 for Core with AI drafting and Autopilot, and $300 for Pro, each with unlimited cases and a 14 day trial. Visalaw charges $220 a month for Core research and $480 for Pro with up to ten drafts a month, with Enterprise quoted. Visalaw requires AILA membership. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do CaseBlink and Visalaw AI both leave unpublished?
Any measure of accuracy and any check on cited law. Neither publishes an error rate or test set, neither says whether the decisions and cases it cites are checked for later treatment, and neither describes what its AI does when the evidence or the library does not support a point. Neither publishes an AI governance framework with an owner or testing before release. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. The outside counsel guideline readiness signal has not been recorded for Visalaw AI; that is a gap in the record, not a finding about the vendor. Visalaw's model providers and subprocessor list sit in a trust portal that could not be read, and its FAQ claims the product ensures ethical compliance, which a tool cannot do for a lawyer. CaseBlink's page for individual applicants matches them with partner firms without saying whether those firms pay. CaseBlink and Visalaw AI were both verified on 18 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.