CaseCreate vs Litmas AI: how they compare in 2026
CaseCreate starts with the work a litigator needs to produce: a pleading, discovery response, motion or other filing. Users select the task and can supply their own researched law and facts, then export the draft for editing. The AI Legal Index treats that selection and refinement workflow as a direct route to preparing routine litigation text. Its question database, objection responder and checklists sit alongside optional ChatGPT and Claude generation. Litmas AI builds a structured picture of the case from the uploaded record. It maps facts to legal elements, raises contradictions and keeps page and line references connected to assertions. For the AI Legal Index, that connection between the evidence map and the draft distinguishes its approach to motion preparation. Litmas also follows citations and assembles the cited exhibits when a lawyer approves an export. CaseCreate emphasizes starting a chosen work product quickly; Litmas combines case analysis, research and drafting around a developing evidentiary record.
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.
CaseCreate uses ChatGPT and Claude to draft litigation work from selected options and facts supplied by the user. Its generated outputs include motions, demand letters, discovery requests and appellate briefs. Alongside that AI layer, the platform has a selection based drafting system, a question database, practice checklists and a file labeler. The founder describes AI as optional, with automated pleading creation remaining available through structured choices. That combination makes generation central to several drafting tasks without making every function dependent on a model. The product is a litigation workspace with both automated assembly and generative drafting, rather than a standalone conversational assistant.
Litmas AI answers research questions about the case, extracts causes of action and maps evidence to their elements, builds a relationship graph of the case, drafts discovery and deposition questions, and drafts motions and pleadings from the case file and validated case law. Newer features include an Agentic Associate with control points called Review Draft and the Verification workflow. The Authority Map is described as "a citation network built from the orders themselves". It ranks leading authorities by how many dockets cite them and can check an opposing brief. The platform alerts the lawyer when a new transcript contradicts an earlier statement, and exports a motion with every cited document as an exhibit. For mass claims, a master case holds shared facts, case law and templates, and work product is generated for each sub case. The case library that holds the documents supports that work.
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.
CaseCreate describes its drafts as accurate and suitable for refinement, and asks users to provide the facts and law they have researched. That input can constrain a draft, but the public workflow does not show linked primary authorities, pinpoint support or a retrieval method that verifies generated assertions. No measured error rate, evaluation set or account of citation failures accompanies the accuracy claim. Its registration agreement also disclaims accuracy and reliability of results. The discovery question bank and objection responder provide drafting assistance without explaining how each proposed objection is connected to current authority or a verifiable passage in the case file.
Litmas AI's FAQ says every case, statute and pincite is checked against verified U.S. court opinions through a dual layer validation system before it reaches the user. A citation that cannot be validated is removed rather than shown, and every citation that remains is linked inline so the lawyer can open it and judge its applicability. Facts are cited to the record at the pincite level. The home page promises "100% Citation Accuracy" and says every legal citation is verified against authoritative sources "with full Shepardization", following citations in both directions. The case law research page lists checks for existence, treatment and proposition, subsequent history and negative treatment, and where a case has been distinguished and by whom. The pricing page promises zero fabricated case law. No error rate, test set or independent evaluation is published, and case law is updated at a cadence that varies by court and is given on request.
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.
The drafting sequence begins with a user's selection of a work product and, where needed, supplied facts and legal research. After generation, the lawyer exports and edits the result before using it. This creates a review step and leaves the final text under professional control. Practice checklists also guide preparation, while optional AI permits use of the selection based drafting functions. The public workflow does not describe a mandatory approval gate, a confidence threshold that stops generation or an escalation route following an incorrect draft. Nor does it identify an automatic filing process that would act on behalf of the lawyer.
Drafting runs step by step, with verified facts assigned to a motion and elements marked as proven by the user. Litmas AI's FAQ says the lawyer keeps full editorial control and can review every section before submission, and that the platform supports the duty to supervise rather than substituting for it. A blog post of 27 September 2026 answers whether Litmas AI files or sends without the lawyer's review: "No. Every draft stops at your desk before it moves anywhere else." Each section can be edited, approved or regenerated. Nothing states what the product may not be used for or what happens when its output is wrong. Output is marketed as ready to file and ready for filing, and a blog post of 10 September 2026 describes a summary judgment draft as 90 percent ready to be filed.
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.
In its January 2026 founder submission for ABA TECHSHOW, CaseCreate reported approximately ten customers paying monthly subscriptions. That statement identifies paid use at a particular stage of the business, although it supplies no customer names, matter examples or retention figures. The current homepage promises faster drafting but gives no measured comparison against manual preparation. A visible disclaimer identifies some displayed metrics as illustrative placeholders, so those figures do not establish performance. Its association partnership describes a market relationship rather than a measured customer result. The available account therefore supports a small paying customer base without a quantified improvement in litigation work.
The site quotes Kristina Ducos of The Ducos Law Firm, George G. Leynaud of the Law Offices of Leynaud & Leynaud, and Richard R. Kennedy of the Law Offices of Richard R. Kennedy. The home page claims more than 200 firms and 10 times faster drafting. Litmas AI's FAQ says users typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent, and the how it works page repeats the figure, with no basis or source given for any of these numbers. Litmas AI was named among 15 finalists for the Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW 2026, announced on 5 March 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.
The privacy policy promises reasonable precautions against misuse or unauthorized access to personal information. It covers account details, transaction information and sharing with service providers. It does not separately define confidential matter content, attorney client privilege or work product, and it makes no explicit commitment against using client material for model training. The terms give broad reuse rights over comments and feedback, a category that is not clearly aligned with uploaded case material. No matter segregation or model provider handling arrangement is described. General personal information protection therefore leaves the treatment of legal confidences and drafting inputs largely unspecified.
The Trust Center and FAQ say case data is encrypted, isolated to the firm's workspace, never shared with other users, stored on U.S. servers and never used to train AI models. The pricing table lists attorney client privilege as protected, and the pre suit workflow covers client intake and privileged communications. No terms of service, customer agreement, data processing addendum or subprocessor list is published. Nothing says which model providers process case data, and deletion after cancellation follows an unstated retention period.
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.
CaseCreate presents itself as software for litigators and asks users to supply their own researched law for generated work. Its founder identifies solo and small firms, independent paralegals and legal departments as intended customers. The registration terms classify site material as general information and direct users toward primary sources, but do not expressly define the boundary between software assistance and legal advice. They also do not require attorney supervision for independent paralegals or identify a professional license check. The Texas governing law provision governs the agreement rather than defining every jurisdiction in which the resulting work may be used.
Litmas AI's FAQ says it does not provide legal advice or replace professional judgment, that the filing is the attorney's whatever tool produced it, that verifying output before filing remains the lawyer's responsibility, and that the platform is designed to support the duty to supervise. The trial page says Litmas AI "is designed exclusively for licensed attorneys, in-house counsel, and their professional staff", and that anyone outside a legal practice or legal department may not be eligible for access. The product is built for litigators, and coverage is U.S. federal and state law. No published agreement repeats that position, and the same pages describe output as ready to file and ready for court.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
The public product description focuses on faster litigation drafting, structured selections and a final editing step. It does not set out principles for responsible model development, an accountable AI governance role or a release approval process. Named founders and a practicing lawyer on the leadership team establish company roles without assigning responsibility for evaluating generated legal work. No published testing program addresses differences across jurisdictions, document types or affected groups. The general prohibited use provisions govern user behavior, including discrimination, rather than reporting how the models themselves are evaluated for uneven or inappropriate output in legal matters.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how research or drafting performs across jurisdictions, practice areas or case types is published. The About page lists the team, including Chief Legal Officer Wayne Atkins, and names no owner for AI governance.
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 published privacy terms cover account data, browser information, consent, service providers and basic security precautions. Payment processing through Stripe receives specific treatment, including a statement about transaction data after completion. Those provisions do not give a retention period for legal prompts, generated drafts or uploaded case records. There is also no named incident notification timetable, legal content deletion procedure or inventory of infrastructure processors. A user may withdraw consent for continued collection or disclosure, but the policy does not explain the effect on existing matter files or backups. The operational rules for the AI data lifecycle remain separate from the payment handling description.
Litmas's Trust Center says data is encrypted with AES-256 at rest on servers based in the U.S., isolated to each workspace, protected by access controls and never used for training. After cancellation, data stays exportable for a limited period and is then permanently deleted. The Privacy Policy, effective 18 November 2025, keeps personal information as long as necessary and names categories of service providers, including those that provide AI functions. No retention period, subprocessor list or incident notification commitment is published.
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 service agreement broadly excludes warranties and disclaims liability for inaccurate results, service interruption and losses arising from use. The customer undertakes to indemnify Case Crafter Inc. and related parties for specified breaches and third party claims. No reciprocal provider indemnity, output accuracy warranty or insurance commitment addresses an erroneous pleading or missed legal issue. The agreement selects Texas law and Dallas jurisdiction, and permits termination in stated circumstances. These standard terms allocate most use risk to the customer without publishing a specific remedy for defective AI work. They do not promise reimbursement for lawyer verification or correction of a generated filing.
No terms of service or customer agreement is published, so nothing states what Litmas stands behind when its output is wrong, its liability limits or any indemnity.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
The platform operates as its own browser workspace, with users selecting a task, supplying information and exporting the generated draft for editing. No named connection to a practice management, document management, email or docketing system accompanies that workflow. The discovery labeler converts and organizes files, but that internal file function does not establish synchronization with a firm's existing repository. Its partnerships concern legal practice and staffing rather than data connectors. An API, integration configuration guide and description of permission inheritance are not supplied. Moving work between CaseCreate and the firm's other systems is therefore described through user input and export.
Litmas AI's FAQ says it can integrate with most case or practice management systems through APIs, naming Clio, Filevine and MyCase, and the Unlimited plan includes case management integration support. The home page describes an API ready ecosystem, and a blog post of 20 February 2026 promises API ready integration with existing systems without naming them. Drafts export to Word, with PDF export described as coming, and a motion can be exported with every cited document as an exhibit. What connects, what syncs and how it is configured is not described.
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.
CaseCreate runs in a web browser without an installed desktop application. The customer creates an account and works in the hosted service, but the public material does not identify its cloud host, tenant arrangement or storage region. The privacy policy warns generally that external providers may operate in another jurisdiction, without naming the locations relevant to legal drafting. It does not distinguish where files are stored from where ChatGPT or Claude processing occurs. No private cloud, customer hosted installation or regional selection is described. The Texas contractual forum does not establish the physical location of client material or model inference.
The Trust Center and FAQ say the platform runs in the browser, that all data is stored on servers in the U.S., and that each firm's data is isolated to its workspace on a privately housed server. It is a single cloud service. Where AI processing takes place, and whether infrastructure is dedicated or shared, is not stated, and no other deployment option is offered.
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 privacy policy states that reasonable precautions and industry practices protect personal information. Its specific standards discussion concerns Stripe and payment card handling under PCI DSS. That payment processing assurance does not establish an independent assessment of CaseCreate's legal drafting application or storage of case files. The public product and registration materials do not identify a SOC 2 report, ISO security certificate, assessor or application trust center. There is no accessible scope or assessment period for an audit of the product itself. The distinction is between a named payment standard and assurance covering the legal content processed by the service.
Litmas has completed a SOC 2 Type I examination and an independent HIPAA compliance audit, according to its Trust Center and its blog, and offers both reports to customers and prospective customers under NDA, requested by email to privacy@litmas.ai. The case law research page calls it SOC 2 certified. The auditor and the report period are not stated.
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 current drafting workflow identifies ChatGPT and Claude as the AI technologies used to produce work. The founder's earlier product account also describes ChatGPT based generation alongside structured document assembly. These names disclose part of the model supply chain, while leaving the deployed versions, hosting arrangements and routing between providers unspecified. No published term commits to notifying customers before a model replacement or provider change. Provider specific retention and training settings are also unstated. The workflow explains what the models do, but does not give a technical account of how client facts move between the application and those external services.
Litmas AI's FAQ says answers are combined through its proprietary legal reasoning layer from the case file and verified U.S. court opinions, and the Privacy Policy lists service providers that provide AI functions. The employment law page says the system is trained exclusively on verified legal data, never general internet content, and a blog post refers to a proprietary database of case law, statutes and regulations. No model, model provider, inference location or change notification is published.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The current offer is a single subscription at $199 per month, billed monthly and cancellable at any time. It includes unlimited drafting, documents and matters, along with the discovery suite, checklists, subpoenas, jury instructions and file labeling tools. The price is described as independent of seat count, with no additional tiers or fees. Browser access requires no local installation. A free trial is available without a public duration in the plan description. The earlier founder submission quoted $150 per month; the current product page gives the applicable advertised figure. No separate implementation charge is presented within the inclusive offer.
The pricing page publishes a plan priced per case at $125 per case per month, pausable at any time, and an Unlimited plan at $999 per attorney per month with a free paralegal seat, personalized onboarding and drafting before suit. Each case includes 5,000 pages, with additional pages at $0.01 each, and uploads can be up to 500 MB per file. A drafting service by Litmas's own legal team is priced at $1,499 per case per month per attorney, covering defined drafting requests per case each month. A free trial of 7 days is offered, and the compare page says no annual or multi year commitment is required.
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.
The founder identifies solo and small firms as the main audience, with independent paralegals, medium firms and insurance legal departments also targeted. CaseCreate supports civil litigation drafting through pleadings, discovery, motions, demand letters and appellate work, with a real estate attorney association partnership. Its January 2026 plan emphasized Texas first and described additional state specific features as future expansion. The current product menu does not supply a jurisdiction by jurisdiction availability table. Nor does it distinguish every supported practice specialty or exclude consumer use through a clear eligibility rule. The work types are concrete, while geographic and professional boundaries remain incomplete.
The site covers solo practitioners to larger firms and in house teams, and lists the motions and documents it drafts. Practice area pages cover personal injury, insurance defense, commercial litigation, criminal defense, employment, debt collection, family law, IP litigation, bankruptcy, appeals and mass litigation. The family law page offers fourteen starting points across dissolution, custody, support, paternity and protective orders, in California Family Code and general versions. The IP page covers patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret cases, and the bankruptcy page makes all 91 bankruptcy courts selectable. Litmas claims case law coverage in all 50 states and federal courts, with local rule formatting. Case law currency varies by court, and the cadence is given only on request. What the product does not handle is not stated.
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 registration terms and privacy policy do not specify whether legal inputs or generated drafts may train models. The agreement permits unrestricted reuse of comments, ideas and feedback, but does not clearly define that category as client matter content or establish a training right. The privacy policy's consent language concerns purchase information and secondary uses such as marketing. It does not create a comprehensive service only restriction on legal content.
No dedicated training prohibition, permission or customer control is stated for the ChatGPT and Claude drafting workflow.
The Trust Center and FAQ state that workspace data remains private, is never used to retrain AI models, and is used only to power the firm's case analysis. The personal injury page says data is never shared or used for training. No customer agreement is published, so the statement is not matched by a contractual term. Which model providers process case data is not stated.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The policy describes payment information being used to complete a transaction and then no longer saved, but does not extend that statement to legal drafts or prompts. Case files, generated work, account history and backups have no published storage duration. Withdrawal of consent is possible for continued collection or disclosure, without a described deletion schedule for existing litigation material. Unlimited documents and matters in the subscription describe product access, not a promise that those records are either preserved indefinitely or erased immediately.
Litmas's Trust Center says that after cancellation data stays available for a limited retention period for export and is then permanently deleted, without stating the period. The Privacy Policy keeps personal information as long as necessary for its stated purposes. Nothing states how long prompts and AI outputs are kept during a subscription.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Individual and organization account types are available at registration, and the product organizes litigation work by matter. The public workflow does not explain which users can view each matter, whether separate teams have isolated content or whether model retrieval is limited by those permissions. A common case workspace does not establish an ethical wall. There is no described inheritance of restrictions from a firm's external repository or procedure for revoking a team member's access to material already processed by the drafting service.
Litmas's Trust Center says each firm's data is isolated to its workspace and not shared with other users. It does not describe how access is controlled within a firm, whether cases can be walled off from particular users, or how isolation is enforced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The privacy policy permits disclosure of personal information when required by law or following a violation of the service terms. It does not promise advance or subsequent notice to the customer, reserve a specific notice decision or describe a process for challenging an excessive demand. No transparency report accompanies the provision. The clause explains a circumstance in which information can leave the service, while the customer's opportunity to object and the handling of legal matter content under such a request remain unstated.
The Privacy Policy says Litmas may disclose personal information in response to valid requests by courts or government agencies, or to comply with a legal obligation. Nothing addresses whether the firm will be told, and no customer agreement is published to address requests for case documents.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Users can provide their own researched law and facts for drafting. CaseCreate also supplies a discovery question database, checklists and document assembly options, but does not identify the underlying legal authorities or rights supporting that material. No external primary law collection, licensing agreement or update schedule is named. The founder's Texas focus describes an intended market rather than a complete source inventory.
The public workflow therefore does not establish what legal material, beyond the user's own inputs and model knowledge, supports a generated argument.
Litmas AI's FAQ and pricing page describe the source material as verified U.S. court opinions with coverage of all 50 states and federal courts, updated on an ongoing basis at a frequency that varies by court and is given on request. The case law research page says every cite is resolved against the reporter, without naming it. The source of those opinions and the basis on which they are used are not identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
CaseCreate drafts from selected options and user supplied facts and law, without describing a service that evaluates the later treatment of cited cases. No commercial citator or proprietary subsequent history feature is named. The instruction to bring researched law assigns an input task to the user, but does not specifically require a good law check or show one inside the product. Discovery objections and appellate drafting may contain legal assertions; the public workflow does not explain how the continuing validity of their authorities is established.
The how it works page says Litmas AI "verifies the historical citation treatment of every case cited to determine whether the case is good law or bad law." The case law research page lists subsequent history and negative treatment as checked, with where a case has been distinguished and by whom, and describes the Authority Map as a citation network built from court orders. Dual layer validation also checks each citation for existence and accuracy against U.S. court opinions. No commercial citator is named as the source, and the lawyer is left to judge weight and applicability.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The generation workflow moves from selecting a document to producing and editing a draft. It does not describe an abstention response when the supplied facts are incomplete or the legal authority is unsupported. No confidence display, unsupported assertion warning or demonstration of a refused legal request accompanies the product material. The terms disclaim accuracy and reliability, which allocates risk without specifying model behavior. A final opportunity to edit the work leaves correction with the user rather than defining when generation itself stops.
Litmas AI's FAQ says that a citation which cannot be validated against a source is removed rather than shown, and the how it works page says the Evidence Mapper surfaces claims the record cannot support and shows where evidence is missing. A blog post of 20 March 2026 says that when the evidence does not support an argument, the platform says so, and the case law research page flags where a case does not support the proposition. No published evaluation shows that behavior.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database contains no matching entry for CaseCreate or its former CaseCrafter name as of October 16, 2026. The product generates litigation work with external AI systems, and its agreement disclaims the reliability of results. Absence of a matching judicial or disciplinary incident does not establish that all drafts or citations are accurate. The database records reported legal incidents, rather than providing a comprehensive evaluation of every pleading, objection or appellate argument generated through this particular service.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case involving Litmas. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product is on the public record.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The product is built around lawyers' drafting work and asks them to contribute their own researched law. Its public materials do not apply a named ethics opinion to competence, confidentiality, supervision or client consent. The general information disclaimer and final editing step describe use conditions without explaining professional responsibility requirements. Independent paralegals are among the founder's intended users, yet no separate supervision arrangement is described for them.
The real estate association partnership establishes a professional relationship, not a published mapping to bar guidance.
A blog post of 27 September 2026 names ABA Formal Opinion 512, California's recently passed law on attorney duties over AI, and Rule 11. Litmas AI's FAQ says the filing is the attorney's, verification before filing is the lawyer's duty, the platform supports the duty to supervise, and attorneys have been sanctioned for citations fabricated by AI.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
CaseCreate promotes shorter drafting time and a shift toward charging clients for completed work through flat fees. This addresses the business model of a law practice, but does not provide a per matter account of AI activity or a method for separating actual lawyer time from automated preparation. There is no concrete client disclosure template or guidance on treating the software expense in a bill. The stated monthly subscription is the firm's purchase price; the product's general flat fee message does not determine an appropriate fee for an individual engagement.
Litmas AI's FAQ says attorneys typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent. A blog post of 10 September 2026 says attorneys are often left reducing the hours it took to draft when they bill the client. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is reflected in what a client is billed or what a client is told.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
ChatGPT and Claude power generation, giving a firm two relevant names for an initial account of its AI use. It does not provide a complete subprocessor register, model versions, processing locations or provider specific handling terms. The registration policy separately names Stripe for payments. No client consent wording or standard disclosure package connects these services to confidential legal work. The public names therefore expose part of the external AI arrangement without supplying a complete response to a client's information requirements.
The SOC 2 and HIPAA reports are offered under NDA on request. No subprocessor or model provider list and no disclosure material for clients is published in the Trust Center, the FAQ or the Privacy Policy.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
A user can export and edit the generated litigation draft, but the public material does not describe an accompanying record of the model, inputs, authorities or human verification. No court disclosure template or certification workflow is supplied. The practice checklists organize preparation without expressly recording AI provenance. Export of the final work product alone would not establish which passages were generated or which citations a lawyer independently validated. Any explanation of that process for a court would require information beyond the described drafting output.
Every fact and case reference in the output carries an inline pincite to its source, and Litmas AI's FAQ says the platform gives lawyers the traceability to show their work. The appeals page claims a full audit trail for every output. No record of which model produced a draft, and no export of AI use for disclosure to a court, is described.
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
Which one fits
Choose CaseCreate if
- The team already has researched law and wants assistance turning it into a selected litigation draft.
- Discovery requests and objections should draw on a question bank alongside AI generation.
- A single subscription covering unlimited documents and matters suits the firm's workflow.
Choose Litmas AI if
- Facts need to be mapped to the elements of a claim before a motion is written.
- New material should be compared with earlier testimony to flag contradictions.
- The final motion should export with the underlying cited files assembled as exhibits.
In summary
CaseCreate
CaseCreate combines selected drafting tasks, a discovery question bank and optional generation in one monthly plan.
Litmas AI
Litmas AI connects fact mapping, legal research and drafting to the uploaded case record.
Questions buyers ask
Does CaseCreate supply the legal research for every draft?
Its workflow asks users to provide their own researched law where needed. It does not describe the linked authority collection and citation traversal offered by Litmas. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Litmas connect a claim to the record?
It organizes facts by claim and legal element, with page and line links back to the original files. Drafting then uses that structured case information. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can lawyers revise the generated work?
CaseCreate explicitly includes export and editing after generation. Litmas exposes the supporting record and requires approval before exporting a motion and its exhibits. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Both products support litigation drafting. This comparison uses their current workflows and does not treat an accuracy slogan or an illustrative homepage metric as a measured result.