Casefleet vs CounselPro: how they compare in 2026
Casefleet and CounselPro are not usually weighed against each other: Casefleet builds a chronology of the facts in a case from its documents, transcripts and media, while CounselPro rebuilds a divorce, bankruptcy or estate matter's money trail from bank, card and check statements. Put on one grid, they share the discipline that matters most in court, every fact or figure linked to the page it came from, and split on the question a client's security review asks first: who else processes the file. CounselPro names every AI provider, Anthropic, Google, Cohere and DeepInfra, with each one's role and location, and keeps all data in the United States. Casefleet's agreement says its AI uses several third party providers and names none. CounselPro sits in the top two bands on ten of fifteen axes and Casefleet on eight of fifteen, identical on nine. Both publish full price lists, and neither holds a security attestation of its own: CounselPro says plainly that the SOC 2 Type II it cites belongs to its providers.
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 AI layer is substantial and prominently positioned, and the vendor's own pricing table proves it is severable. The homepage runs under the label AI case management software and the features navigation opens with an AI-Powered group of seven entries, each with its own page: Casey AI Assistant, Agentic Workflows, Document Intelligence, Summarization, Entity Extraction, Document Organization and Proposed Facts. Against that, the published plan comparison shows the Starter plan at 30 dollars carrying none of it: document summarisation, semantic indexing, named entity recognition, fact extraction, natural language search, AI issue generation and AI credits are all marked unavailable on Starter and appear only on Advanced AI at 140 dollars. A buyer can therefore purchase a fully working version of this product with no machine learning in it, which is the clearest severability evidence any record in this pull has produced. What remains on Starter is the 2016-era platform that the company built its name on: chronologies, timelines, outlines, document review, transcripts and reporting. The AI is a real and heavily marketed layer on a product that stands without it. Checked 7 September 2026.
The models are the product. CounselPro's AI reads each statement page, extracts and categorises transactions, re-reads pages that do not reconcile, answers questions about the records in Daystrom chat and drafts a forensic report. Without the models there is little left to sell. Verified 22 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 architectural here rather than asserted, and it is documented, but nothing measures it. Every fact in the chronology is linked to the source it came from, evidence citations are included on every plan including the non-AI tier, the assistant is described as returning answers with clickable citations linking directly to the user's source documents, and Proposed Facts arrive with a citation back to the source for each drafted fact. That is linked source material the reader can open and check, which is what the middle band asks for, and the retrieval target is the case record rather than published legal authority. The agreement is unusually candid about the limits: the AI Features section states that the features may not be 100 per cent accurate and may contain errors, omissions or misinterpretations, that Casefleet makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any AI-generated output, and that beta or preview features should be used with heightened caution regarding accuracy and reliability. What is absent is measurement of any kind: no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation, no error taxonomy and no described retrieval method beyond the citation link itself. Grounding to primary legal authority and citation status checking do not bite on a fact management product and are counted neither way. Checked 7 September 2026.
Grounding and a checking method are described; accuracy is not measured. Every figure links to the statement page it came from, each statement cycle is added up against the beginning and ending balances the bank printed, a cycle that misses is re-read against the page image, and one that still cannot be proved is flagged rather than closed. Daystrom shows the arithmetic behind each answer and leaves unsupported figures open. No error rate, test set or independent evaluation is published. Verified 22 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.
A written commitment to supervision plus a real review surface, short of the full control structure. The review surface is a hard gate rather than a policy statement: Proposed Facts are drafted by Casey and staged for the user, who reviews, edits and approves every one before it joins the chronology, and the product page for the assistant describes Casey setting up cases, proposing facts and organising files while the user approves every step. The agreement reinforces it contractually, stating that AI-generated content and analyses are tools to supplement, not replace, professional legal work and human oversight, and that the user is solely responsible for reviewing, validating and verifying any output before relying on it. An activity feed records every change across a case and the platform applies audit logging. What holds this below the top band is the boundary around the autonomous mode. Agentic Workflows are marketed as handing Casey multi-step case tasks, and nothing published states what an agent may do unattended, at what point it stops, what a user sees while it runs, or what happens after it acts wrongly. No confidence signal is described as surfaced to the reviewer. The agentic workflows feature page was not opened in this pass and is named as the artifact that could move this row; it is amendable on that evidence. Checked 7 September 2026.
Flagged gaps and a written review duty, short of stated limits. The product flags statement cycles it cannot reconcile, missing months and unsupported figures for the lawyer to weigh, and reports are editable after they are written. The Terms of Service say output is not legal advice and must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. Nothing states what the forensic report may not be used for without review. Verified 22 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.
Testimonials stand in for deployment evidence and no figures accompany them. Six customer quotations are published. Three carry a person's name and role but no organisation: Jason Shinn and Paul Fleming, both described only as Attorney, and Risa Beck, Paralegal Manager. The other three are attributed by state and role alone, being a South Carolina consumer protection lawyer, an Arkansas investigative paralegal and an Illinois criminal law attorney. No firm or legal department is named anywhere on the surfaces read, no customer logos appear, no case study is published, and no operational figure of any kind is offered: no customer count, no adoption number, no time saved, no outcome measured. The one durable claim is longevity, that the company has been helping to win cases since 2016, which is a statement about the vendor rather than about a deployment. The quotations themselves are substantive and read as genuine practitioner comment, including one describing the chat feature as becoming a go-to legal AI, but a reader cannot assess any of it because no basis is stated. This grade records the shape of the evidence rather than doubt about the customers. Checked 7 September 2026.
Checked the home, About, How it works, Platform and Pricing pages on 22 September 2026. No named customer, testimonial, case study or measured result was located; the site's examples are illustrations. Verified 22 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.
Substantive published commitments, several of them AI-specific, short of vendor-side privilege treatment. The agreement grants Casefleet rights over customer data only for the purpose of providing the service and states expressly that it is for no other purpose. A confidentiality section binds both parties, and it carries an AI-specific clause: Casefleet states it implements technical and organisational measures to protect confidentiality when data is processed through AI Features, that its AI systems are designed to respect the confidential nature of legal work, and that it implements safeguards to prevent commingling of confidential data between different users and organisations. Segregation is supported in the product by granular administrator control over which data is visible to which users, described on the security page as ensuring privileged and confidential information stays that way. Data is anonymised by UUID between infrastructure components, files are virus scanned, and on account deletion Casefleet undertakes to delete or destroy all copies of customer data in its possession unless legally prohibited. Privilege and work product are named in the agreement, but as the user's compliance obligation rather than as a statement of how Casefleet handles privileged material, so the top limb is not met. One provision cuts the other way and belongs on the record: the warranty section states that the user bears sole responsibility for adequate security, protection and backup of their data, that Casefleet does not guarantee transmissions to third-party vendors will be encrypted, and that Casefleet has no liability for unauthorised access to or loss of customer data. Checked 7 September 2026.
Strong commitments, partly in the agreement, with a gap on the vendor's own use of data. The Terms of Service treat customer data as confidential information, bar sharing it with other customers or third parties beyond named subprocessors, and state that, to CounselPro's knowledge, data sent to third-party language models is not used to train them. The security page says each matter is processed in isolation, even from other matters in the same firm, that records never train any model, that data stays in the United States and can be deleted at any time, and names every AI provider. The terms also reserve by default the processing of customer data to calibrate CounselPro's internal AI systems for general product improvement, and privilege is addressed only in marketing. Verified 22 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 real published position on advice versus tooling, developed further than most records carry, held below the top band on two limbs. The agreement devotes a dedicated section to the question, headed No Legal Advice and No Attorney-Client Relationship, stating that Casefleet is not a law firm, that no attorney-client relationship arises from use of the platform including its AI Features, and that the platform and its AI are software tools rather than a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Five numbered acknowledgements follow, and two of them address non-lawyer users directly: a user who is not a licensed attorney should consult one before making decisions based on information obtained through the platform, and a user operating in a capacity other than as a licensed attorney bears sole responsibility for obtaining appropriate legal counsel. The competence and supervision dimension is present too, with the AI Features section requiring the user to ensure their use complies with professional ethical obligations, naming attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and confidentiality requirements. That treatment is deliberate and it matches a real exposure, because the vendor publishes use-case pages aimed at people handling their own matters, including VA disability claims, disability appeals, small claims preparation, custody documentation, insurance claim disputes and estate settlement. Two limbs are not established. Jurisdiction limits are addressed only obliquely, through an acknowledgement that AI output may be inapplicable to the user's jurisdiction, rather than by naming where the product is intended to be used. And whether those consumer-facing pages themselves carry a clear disclosure could not be established: none was opened in this pass, and they are named as the artifact that would settle the top band. Checked 7 September 2026.
A clear advice line in the agreement, short of jurisdiction limits. The Terms of Service say output is not legal advice, that CounselPro does not provide legal advice, and that customers who are not lawyers must have output reviewed by a qualified lawyer; the warranty section repeats the review requirement. The security page says the product is built around ABA Model Rule 1.6. The jurisdictions and uses the product covers or excludes are not stated. Verified 22 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.
No governance disclosure was located, and the grade should be read against what the vendor does publish so the absence is not mistaken for general silence. The agreement does substantial AI work: it defines AI Features as a contractual term, devotes a section to their limitations, allocates ownership of AI output, and commits on training. All of that is disclosure about the product and about data handling, and it is credited on the axes where it belongs. None of it is governance. Nothing published describes an AI policy, a responsible AI or ethics position, a bias or fairness assessment, model evaluation or testing of any kind, a named internal owner for AI decisions, or alignment to any governance framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Nothing addresses how models are selected, assessed before release, or monitored in use, on a product whose agentic features act on litigation case files. Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the homepage and full features and use-case navigation, the Terms of Service in full, the pricing page and its FAQ, and the security page.
Checked the home, About, Security, Platform and Changelog pages, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner or testing before release was located beyond the stated principle of flagging what cannot be verified. Verified 22 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.
Stewardship is contractual and AI-specific, which is rare, and two gaps hold it below the top band. The agreement commits that Casefleet will not use customer data to train its AI systems without the customer's explicit consent, and separately states that Casefleet maintains a closed-loop system in which customer data is not used to train AI models. The data licence is purpose-limited in express terms, granted only to provide the service and for no other purpose. Ownership of AI output is allocated to the customer to the extent it derives from their data, with Casefleet making no claim to it while retaining rights in the underlying technology. The confidentiality section adds AI-specific technical and organisational measures and a stated safeguard against commingling data between users and organisations. Security controls are described in unusual operational detail, covering encryption in transit and at rest, a virtual private cloud, virus and malware scanning of all uploads, daily backups, least-privilege employee access with revocation on termination, code review before release, and a published vulnerability disclosure route. Two things hold it at B. The agreement discloses that AI Features process data through third-party AI services without naming any of them, so the buyer cannot see who is in the loop. And the warranty section undercuts part of the security position by stating that Casefleet does not guarantee that transmissions to its third-party vendors and hosting partners will be encrypted, and disclaims liability for unauthorised access to customer data. Checked 7 September 2026.
Most of the ground is published and specific; incident handling is not. The security page describes AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, per-matter isolation, one-time-code sign-in with no passwords, US-only hosting and deletion of any document or matter at any time, and the subprocessor page names every vendor with its role and location and is updated when the list changes. No incident notification commitment was located, and the Privacy Policy, from July 2024, does not state retention periods. Verified 22 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 published agreement with a stated cap and a real vendor-side indemnity, and no recourse at all for AI output. On the credit side, the liability cap is quantified rather than formulaic, limited to fees actually paid in the six months preceding the claim or five hundred dollars where no fees apply, with indirect and consequential damages excluded. Casefleet gives an intellectual property indemnity running in the customer's favour, undertaking at its own expense to defend infringement actions arising from use of the software within scope, with a right to procure, replace or modify, and a pro-rata refund if it cannot. Price changes carry 30 days' notice, charges may be disputed within 60 days, and data is available for download for 30 days after termination. Against that, the AI-specific position is a complete disclaimer: the agreement states that Casefleet makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any AI-generated output, that the user is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying it, and that no output constitutes legal advice. The service is provided as is and as available with all warranties disclaimed, there is no uptime commitment, no service credit and no cure period, and Casefleet disclaims liability for corruption, deletion or loss of customer data. A firm whose chronology is built on a wrongly extracted fact has a contractual remedy of nothing, capped at six months of fees in any event. Checked 7 September 2026.
Addressed through a standard limitation clause. The Terms of Service cap CounselPro's liability at the fees paid in the prior twelve months, exclude indirect damages with carve-outs, disclaim warranties of output accuracy with a requirement for qualified lawyer review, and require the customer to indemnify CounselPro for claims arising from customer data and misconduct. Nothing stands behind a figure that proves wrong. Verified 22 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.
No integration with any legal practice system was located on any surface read. The site has no integrations page, no partner listing and no developer or API documentation anywhere in its navigation, which covers features, use cases, pricing, resources and support. No document management system, practice management system, case management system, billing system, e-discovery platform or court filing system is named anywhere. The agreement acknowledges the category in the abstract, defining Non-Casefleet Products as third-party applications a customer may use in connection with the platform whether or not Casefleet designates them official integrations, which establishes that the concept exists while naming nothing that occupies it. The agreement runs the other way on programmatic access, prohibiting users from using any non-public Casefleet APIs. Single sign-on via SAML2 is offered on Enterprise plans, but that is authentication rather than practice-system integration and it is credited on security. The product is designed as a self-contained workspace, which is a coherent choice for a chronology tool, and this grade records the disclosure position rather than a defect: a buyer evaluating how Casefleet would sit alongside their existing stack has nothing published to work from. Checked 7 September 2026.
Checked the home, Platform, How it works and Help Center pages on 22 September 2026. Statements are uploaded as PDFs and results export as CSV, XLSX, PNG or PDF; no connection to a case management, document management or accounting system was located. Verified 22 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.
Neither limb is stated, which is what the band requires. The hosting provider is named plainly and repeatedly: all Casefleet infrastructure is hosted on Amazon Web Services and all customer data is stored there, with the security page linking to AWS's own security and data centre control documentation. Architecture is described at a level most vendors do not attempt, with infrastructure handling end-user data living entirely within a virtual private network engineered to expose only required components to the public internet, all other components reachable only over the private network, encryption required for internal as well as external communication, and daily backups retained for an extended period. None of that answers either question this axis asks. No region or data centre location is stated anywhere, no residency option or commitment is offered, and nothing addresses where data sits for a customer outside the United States. Tenancy is equally absent: no statement describes whether the service is single-tenant, pooled or configurable, and the anonymisation of data by UUID between components is an internal design detail rather than a tenancy model. No self-hosted or private deployment option was located. Naming the hosting provider identifies who runs the infrastructure, not where the data rests. Checked 7 September 2026.
Region and isolation are stated for a single hosted service. The security and subprocessor pages say all client data is hosted in US data centres and never leaves the country, with every subprocessor located in the United States, and that each matter runs in its own isolated space. No other deployment option is offered, and where each model provider processes data beyond the country is not broken down further. Verified 22 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.
Controls are described in detail and no certification of any kind exists. The security page is substantive and specific across five headings, covering application security with XSS and CSRF protection, signed cookie session management, rate limiting, audit logging, password hashing and malware scanning; network and storage security with TLS required internally and externally and encryption at rest; operations with automated security testing, mandatory peer code review, staging before release, daily backups and disk-encrypted company laptops with firewalls and network monitoring for engineers holding production access; account security with two-factor authentication, SAML2 single sign-on on Enterprise, granular permission levels and session tracking that alerts on concurrent logins; and physical security through AWS and key card office access. A vulnerability disclosure route is published with a stated address, a request for reproduction detail and an ask for reasonable time before public disclosure, which is a responsible disclosure posture rather than a certification. What does not exist anywhere is third-party attestation. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no certification of any kind, no auditor or certification body named, no penetration test disclosed, and no trust centre or document portal. The claim that every piece of code, infrastructure and operations is continually audited for security impact is an internal practice statement, not an external audit. HIPAA is addressed commercially rather than by certification, with the vendor stating it is HIPAA compatible and will sign a business associate agreement on annual accounts for an additional fee. Nothing unsupported is claimed, which is why this does not sit lower. Checked 7 September 2026.
No attestation of its own. The security page says CounselPro runs on providers audited to SOC 2 Type II and states that this is the providers' certification, not CounselPro's. The security page and subprocessor list are public and security questionnaires are welcomed, but no audit report or certification of CounselPro itself is published. Verified 22 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 shape of the supply chain is disclosed and nothing in it is identified, which is an unusual combination worth stating precisely. The agreement tells a buyer more than silence would: it states that AI Features utilise multiple AI models and technologies from various providers to deliver functionality and that specific features may be powered by different underlying systems, and separately that when AI Features are used, data may be processed through various artificial intelligence systems including third-party AI services. A reader therefore learns that this is a multi-provider architecture, that providers are external, and that the model behind one feature may differ from the model behind another. That is an honest description of the structure. What follows none of it is a name. No model, no version, no family, no provider and no infrastructure route for inference is identified on any surface read, and there is no subprocessor list, DPA or trust centre where such a list might otherwise sit. Amazon Web Services is named as the hosting provider for all Casefleet infrastructure, which says where the application runs rather than whose model reads a client's case file, and it has been credited on deployment rather than counted a second time here. The result is that a firm can tell its client that several unnamed third parties process case material through AI, which is a disclosure that raises the question it does not answer. Checked 7 September 2026.
Providers are named; models are not. The subprocessor page names Anthropic, Google, Cohere and DeepInfra as AI model providers, says what each does and that each is in the United States, and says every provider is bound by an agreement that forbids training on customer data; the page is updated when the list changes. Which models are used, and advance notice of a change, are not published. Verified 22 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.
This is the most granular pricing disclosure located in the corpus, and it lands in the middle band because the top of the range is withheld. What is published without any sales contact: Starter at 30 dollars per user per month, Advanced AI at 140 dollars per user per month, a 22 per cent discount for annual payment, and a full plan comparison table setting out what each tier includes down to document limits of 20 per case on Starter against no limit above it. The unit of charge is stated for every metered component, and so are the overage rates: optical character recognition at one dollar per hundred pages after 3,000 free pages per billed user per month, media transcription at six cents per minute after three free hours, document intelligence at one cent per page after 12,000 free pages, storage at ten dollars per gigabyte per month after five gigabytes included, and AI credits at one tenth of a cent per credit after 100,000 free credits per billed user per month. Publishing an AI metering rate to that precision is rare enough to note. The agreement adds the billing mechanics: credits are allocated monthly, do not roll over, vary in consumption by feature, are non-refundable, and can be capped by the customer in settings, and AI Features are available only on usage-based billing. The trial is 14 days with no credit card and a stated 10-document-per-case limit. Two things sit against the top band. Enterprise, for twenty or more users, is a custom quote. And the additions a buyer would meet on implementation are named as categories without figures: the HIPAA business associate agreement carries an unstated additional fee, bulk uploads above 1,000 files a day are quoted upfront, and Enterprise data migration is unpriced. Checked 7 September 2026.
A buyer can price it without a sales call. The pricing page publishes a Single Project at $499 per matter and firm-wide plans at $100, $250 and $500 a month, lists what each includes, prices usage in credits per page with top-up packets from 10 to 40 cents a credit, charges no per-seat fees, offers a free trial and links a refund policy. Verified 22 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.
Practice coverage is genuinely broad and set out page by page rather than asserted. Dedicated practice-area pages cover employment law, criminal law, personal injury, workers' compensation, family law, complex litigation and medical chronologies. Workflow pages cover case management, litigation management, investigations, cross-examination preparation, summary judgment and early case assessment, which is coverage by litigation stage rather than by subject matter alone and is the more useful cut for this product. The vendor states it serves both plaintiff and defence firms, and two free tools support practice work directly: a litigation deadline calculator and a statute of limitations lookup organised by state and claim type. A further set of pages addresses individuals handling their own matters, covering VA disability claims, disability appeals, small claims, custody documentation, insurance disputes and estate settlement, which widens the audience beyond law firms. What holds this at B is that the jurisdiction is single and the firm dimension is thin. Everything is United States practice, with the agreement governed by Georgia law and Fulton County courts holding exclusive jurisdiction, and no international coverage is claimed. On firm size, the only published signal is that Enterprise begins at twenty users; no segment statement, firm-size breakdown or named practice is published. Checked 7 September 2026.
Coverage and limits are both stated. The site names family law, bankruptcy, probate, estate planning, business litigation and accounting, with use cases for paralegals, high-net-worth divorce, mediation and bankruptcy trustees; it reads bank, credit card and check statements from PDFs, says paper must be scanned first, gives typical matter sizes, and states that brokerage and tax documents are not yet supported and are planned for the fourth quarter of 2026. Verified 22 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 agreement addresses training expressly and structures it as consent-gated, which is why this takes the opt-in value rather than a never value. The operative words are that Casefleet will not use customer data to train its AI systems without the customer's explicit consent. A consent route therefore exists, and a value asserting the vendor never trains would misstate the agreement. Alongside it, in the AI Processing paragraph, the agreement states that Casefleet maintains a closed-loop system in which customer data is not used to train AI models, which describes the current architecture in unqualified terms.
Both statements sit in the same instrument and the honest reading is that the default is no training, the architecture is described as closed-loop, and a consented departure is contemplated. Nothing published describes how consent would be sought, at what granularity, or whether it can be withdrawn. Two qualifiers belong on the record. The agreement separately reserves the right to use anonymized and aggregated data derived from user interactions with AI Features to improve the platform, and elsewhere to generate and publish aggregate anonymized reports on system usage and content trends.
Those operate on de-identified interaction and usage data rather than on case content, and neither is read as a training right, but a buyer weighing the closed-loop statement should see them. The data license itself is purpose-limited, granted only to provide the service and, in the agreement's own words, for no other purpose.
The security page says client records never train any model and that the enterprise agreements CounselPro signs with its providers forbid it. The customer Terms of Service state only that, to CounselPro's knowledge, data sent to third-party language models is not used to train them, with opt-outs taken, and reserve by default the processing of customer data to calibrate CounselPro's internal AI systems for general product improvement or personalization, without using the word training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Nothing addresses how long prompts to the assistant or the outputs it returns are retained. The agreement sets an account-level rule on exit: after cancellation or termination, data is available for download for 30 days and is then deleted, and if a team account is deleted Casefleet undertakes to delete or destroy all copies in its possession in a reasonably expedient way unless legally prohibited. That governs stored case material, which would include facts once approved into a chronology, and it says nothing about the AI interaction layer: no period covers a query put to Casey, a draft fact that was rejected rather than approved, a summary generated and discarded, or the intermediate output of an agentic workflow.
Nothing states whether prompts persist at all, whether they are retained by the unnamed third-party AI services the agreement discloses, or whether a customer can purge them. Usage is metered at the account level for billing, which establishes that interaction records exist without stating what is kept or for how long. Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the Terms of Service in full, the pricing page and FAQ, the security page, and the AI feature descriptions in the site navigation.
The security page says the source document is kept only so every figure keeps its page, and that a customer can delete a document or a whole matter at any time. How long data persists after deletion, and default retention otherwise, is not stated.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
A separation model is documented at two levels and it reaches the mechanism a firm would actually use. Between organizations, the confidentiality section commits Casefleet to implement safeguards preventing the commingling of confidential data between different users and organizations, and states this specifically in relation to processing through AI Features, which is the point at which commingling risk is least visible to a customer.
Within a firm, the security page describes granular administrator control over which data is visible to which users, framed expressly as ensuring privileged and confidential information stays that way while still allowing collaborators to be invited. That is the operative capability behind an ethical wall: an administrator can exclude a conflicted user from a case. Supporting controls are described, including anonymization of data by UUID so each infrastructure component knows only the minimum required, session tracking with alerts on concurrent logins, and two-factor authentication.
What is not published is the conflicts dimension proper. Nothing describes a conflicts check, a screening workflow, a record that a wall was erected and when, or whether the AI features respect user-level permissions when the assistant searches across a case. The mechanism exists and is documented; its use as a compliance artifact is not.
The security page says every matter is processed in its own isolated space reachable only by the systems that need it, and lists another matter, even in the same firm, among the places a document never reaches. Team membership is managed in CounselPro's own account settings; nothing describes inheriting permissions from another system.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Compelled disclosure is addressed squarely in two separate clauses and neither carries any notice commitment. The confidentiality section provides that both parties reserve the right to provide confidential information to third parties as required and permitted by law, giving a subpoena or court order as the example, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in the investigation of any criminal or civil matter.
Separately, the representations section has the user acknowledge, consent and agree that Casefleet may access, preserve and disclose account information and customer data where required by law or in a good faith belief that doing so is reasonably necessary to comply with legal process, enforce the terms, respond to support requests, or protect the rights, property or personal safety of Casefleet, its users and the public.
The second is broader than compelled disclosure, since a good faith belief that disclosure is reasonably necessary is a lower threshold than a legal requirement. Across both, nothing commits Casefleet to notify the customer, to resist or narrow a demand, to disclose only the minimum required, or to keep a record of what was disclosed, and no transparency report is published. The value records that the vendor engages with the question and stops short of the commitment.
The Privacy Policy says CounselPro may preserve or disclose information where reasonably necessary to meet applicable legal process or an enforceable governmental request. Nothing in it or the Terms of Service commits to notifying the customer.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Two questions sit here and only one applies to this product. Casey operates on the customer's own case file, being the documents, transcripts and media a firm uploads to a matter, so there is no external legal corpus, case law library or third-party content set whose sourcing and licensing a buyer would need to check. That limb does not apply and is not counted against the vendor. The limb that does apply is the provenance of the models themselves, and nothing addresses it.
The agreement discloses that AI Features utilize multiple models and technologies from various providers and that data may be processed through third-party AI services, without naming any of them, so a buyer cannot establish what any underlying model was trained on, on what basis, or under what license Casefleet uses it. The one adjacent published artifact is the statute of limitations lookup, a free tool presenting limitation periods by state and claim type, whose own sourcing is not stated; it is a marketing tool rather than part of the graded product and is named here only so a reader knows it was seen.
Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the Terms of Service in full, the security page, the pricing page and the site navigation.
Checked the Platform, How it works and Daystrom pages on 22 September 2026. CounselPro works only on the statements a customer uploads and does not answer from a body of law, so no legal corpus is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product ships no citator and makes no good-law claim, which is the expected position for case chronology and fact management software. Casey's citations point to the customer's own source documents rather than to legal authority, so there is no published case to validate, no treatment signal and no subsequent history to check. Two free tools on the site touch legal currency without being citators: a litigation deadline calculator and a statute of limitations lookup by state and claim type, both of which present rules rather than verify authority, and neither is part of the platform a customer buys.
Recorded at the floor because the value set requires a value, with the reason stated here so a reader does not take it as a finding against the vendor. Nothing else in this record depends on it.
Checked the Platform, Daystrom and forensic report pages on 22 September 2026. The product cites statement pages, not legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for later treatment.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing describes how the system behaves when it is unsure. The agreement is candid that uncertainty exists, stating that AI Features may not be 100 percent accurate and may contain errors, omissions or misinterpretations, and that beta or preview features should be used with heightened caution regarding accuracy and reliability. That is an honest admission of the condition rather than an account of the behavior: it tells a user to expect error without telling them what the system does when it encounters one.
No confidence score, likelihood indicator or reliability signal is described as surfaced to the reviewer, nothing states when Casey declines to answer or flags a low-confidence result, and nothing addresses what happens with a document it cannot parse or a question the case file does not support. The Proposed Facts approval gate is the nearest surface and it is named rather than credited: staging every drafted fact for human approval is an oversight control that applies uniformly, not a behavior that varies with the model's own uncertainty, and it is graded on autonomy where it belongs.
Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the Terms of Service in full, the homepage AI descriptions, the pricing page and the security page.
The Daystrom and Platform pages say a figure the records cannot support is left open and flagged for the lawyer, that a statement cycle which cannot be reconciled to the printed balances is flagged for review and never quietly closed, and that missing months are shown as gaps. No published evaluation shows how reliably this happens.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No matter naming Casefleet or LAWPRCT, Inc. was located in the hallucination case tracking maintained by Damien Charlotin or in the sanctions reporting drawn from it, searched on 7 September 2026 on both the product name and the registered corporate name. The tracked corpus is now substantial and reporting on it names the tools involved where they are known, with the database logging well over a thousand matters worldwide and United States sanctions ranging from four-figure fines to license suspension.
Casefleet appears in none of it. The product class is relevant to why: Casey cites to the customer's own uploaded documents rather than generating citations to legal authority, and every drafted fact is staged for human approval before entering a chronology, so the specific failure mode this signal tracks is structurally unlikely rather than merely unrealised. Recorded as none located rather than as a positive finding about the vendor.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for CounselPro, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Professional obligations are referenced in general terms without any authority being named. The agreement requires the user to ensure that their use of AI Features complies with all applicable laws, regulations and professional ethical obligations, and it names the categories those obligations fall into, being attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, confidentiality requirements and data protection laws.
A separate section states that Casefleet is not a law firm, that no attorney-client relationship arises, and that a user who is not a licensed attorney should consult one. That is a real engagement with the ethical frame and it is why this sits above the floor. What is absent is any named source of guidance. No bar association, state bar opinion, ABA model rule, court standing order or regulator publication on the use of artificial intelligence is cited, referenced or mapped anywhere, and nothing is broken down by jurisdiction despite the product being sold across United States practice with a state-by-state limitation tool on the same site.
A firm looking for help aligning its own AI use to its regulator's expectations finds an instruction to comply rather than a route to the guidance.
The security page names ABA Model Rule 1.6 on confidentiality and says the lawyer's obligation to protect client information shaped how the product works, with the framework kept current as state bars refine their expectations on AI and client data. No state-by-state mapping or ethics opinion is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Savings are claimed and the fee consequence is nowhere addressed, with an unusual twist worth recording. The savings claims are the vendor's own rather than a customer's, framed as cutting hours of manual reading, reducing repetitive manual tasks and reviewing faster, with no figure attached to any of them. Nothing addresses what happens to a client bill when document review that took a day takes an hour, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is offered, and no per matter record of AI-assisted work is described.
The twist is that Casefleet meters AI work more precisely than almost any vendor in this index, allocating credits monthly, consuming them at different rates by feature, publishing an overage rate per credit, and making usage reports and billing detail available to account administrators. The metering exists for the vendor's own billing, and it is pitched at the account, not the matter: nothing ties credit consumption to a case, so a firm holding a precise record of how much AI it bought cannot derive from it how much AI went into any particular client's file.
The raw material for a per matter record is closer to hand here than in most records, and it has not been assembled into one.
The pricing FAQ tells firms to run a Single Project for a one-off matter and bill the $499 to that client as a case expense, like a filing fee or records request, or on a plan to fold the cost into standard case costs.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A firm cannot answer a client's AI clause from anything Casefleet publishes. No subprocessor list exists on any surface read, and there is no data processing agreement, trust center or document portal where one might be requested. No model provider is named. The agreement discloses the opposite of what a client wants to hear, stating that AI Features utilize multiple models and technologies from various providers, that specific features may be powered by different underlying systems, and that data may be processed through third-party AI services, all without naming a single one.
A firm asked whose model reads its client's medical records or deposition transcripts could report only that several unnamed third parties are involved. Amazon Web Services is named as the host of all infrastructure and data, but infrastructure identifies where software runs rather than whose model sees client content and does not satisfy this signal. No forwardable client-facing material was located: no consent or notification pack, no client disclosure template and no published processing terms.
Two adjacent artifacts are named and set aside because they answer different questions: a business associate agreement is offered for HIPAA on annual accounts for an additional fee, and single sign-on is available on Enterprise. Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the Terms of Service in full, the security page, the pricing page and FAQ, and the complete site navigation.
A published subprocessor list names every vendor, including the AI model providers Anthropic, Google, Cohere and DeepInfra, with what each does and where it sits, and the security page is written to be handed to a client or the firm's IT staff and links the privacy policy, terms and subprocessor list, none of which need a call first.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The record this product creates is exportable and litigation-facing by design, and it is not framed as a record of AI involvement. What exists is substantial: a chronology in which every fact carries a link to its source, evidence citations on every plan, litigation-ready reports generated in a click, case outlines tying issues and arguments to evidence, and an activity feed described as showing every change across a case, supported by application-level audit logging.
A firm asked to show how a fact was established has the source link to produce, which is the underlying discipline this signal cares about. What is not established is whether that record identifies the AI's part. The Proposed Facts workflow means every AI-drafted fact passes through a human approval step before entering the chronology, so a distinction between proposed and approved plainly exists inside the product, but nothing published states whether the activity feed or any export preserves it, whether a report can show which facts originated with Casey, or whether an agentic workflow's actions are logged in a form a court could read.
Nothing anywhere addresses disclosing AI use to a court or tribunal, and no certification, template or guidance is offered. The record is real and usable and partial for this purpose.
Every figure links back to the statement page it came from, sums print their inputs, and exhibits carry the source page on every figure so a lawyer can stand behind them on cross-examination. No record 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
- Practice Systems Integration Depth
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
Which one fits
Choose Casefleet if
- You need a fact chronology where every entry traces to its document. Casefleet links each fact to its source, adds a document reviewer, timelines, case outlines and deposition markup, and its Casey assistant drafts proposed facts that a user approves one by one before they join the chronology.
- Your case turns on video, audio and transcripts as well as documents. Casefleet reviews audio and video with transcription, marks up deposition transcripts and searches the full text of every page, with practice pages for employment, criminal, personal injury, family law and complex litigation.
- You want a chronology tool with or without AI. Casefleet's Starter plan at $30 per user per month has no AI at all, Advanced AI at $140 adds Casey, and its agreement bars using customer data to train its AI without explicit consent.
Choose CounselPro if
- You need to trace money through months of bank, card and check statements. CounselPro extracts and categorizes every transaction, reconciles each statement cycle to the balances the bank printed, reads again any page that does not balance, and flags missing months, duplicate statements and figures the records cannot support.
- You need a forensic report you can defend on cross examination. CounselPro's Daystrom AI answers plain English questions with the arithmetic shown and every figure linked to its page, and drafts an editable forensic report shaped to divorce, bankruptcy, probate or business matters.
- You want to bill the analysis to the client as a case cost. CounselPro prices a single matter at $499, which its pricing page suggests billing to the client as a case expense, or firm plans from $100 a month with no per seat charges, and names every AI provider that reads the statements.
In summary
Casefleet
Casefleet is fact management software for litigators from LAWPRCT, Inc. in Atlanta, in use at plaintiff and defense firms since 2016. It links every fact in a chronology to its source document and adds document review, timelines, case outlines, full text search, deposition markup and audio and video transcription. Its Casey assistant answers questions with citations, drafts proposed facts for approval and runs agentic workflows. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on eight of fifteen capability axes. Plans run from $30 per user per month without AI to $140 with it, and its agreement requires explicit consent before customer data trains its AI. As of 7 September 2026 the index located no security certification and no named AI provider.
CounselPro
CounselPro, from CounselPro, Inc. of New York, is forensic financial analysis software for family law, bankruptcy, probate, estate and business litigation lawyers, mediators, trustees and accountants. It extracts and categorizes every transaction in bank, card and check statements, reconciles each cycle to the printed balances, flags gaps and unsupported figures, answers questions through its Daystrom AI with the arithmetic shown, and drafts forensic reports. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on ten of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on AI centrality, pricing and coverage. It names Anthropic, Google, Cohere and DeepInfra as its AI providers and hosts data only in the United States. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no named customer and no security attestation of its own.
Questions buyers ask
Are Casefleet and CounselPro the same kind of product?
No. Casefleet organizes the facts of a case into a chronology linked to documents, transcripts and media, for any kind of litigation. CounselPro rebuilds the financial record from bank, card and check statements for divorce, bankruptcy, probate and business disputes. A litigator on a financial case might use both. The AI Legal Index grades them on the same fifteen axes because both build the record a lawyer argues from and both link every entry to its source page.
Which AI providers does CounselPro use?
CounselPro's published subprocessor page names Anthropic, Google, Cohere and DeepInfra as its AI model providers, says what each does, places each in the United States, and states that each is bound by an agreement forbidding training on customer data; the page is updated when the list changes. It does not name the specific models. Casefleet's agreement says its AI uses several third party providers without naming them. 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.
Does CounselPro train AI on client financial records?
CounselPro's security page says client records are never kept to train a model, its own or anyone else's. Its terms of service say that, to its knowledge, data sent to third party language models is not used to train them, and separately reserve, by default, processing of customer data to calibrate its internal AI systems for general product improvement, without using the word training. Casefleet's agreement bars training without explicit consent. 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 Casefleet and CounselPro cost?
Both publish full prices. Casefleet charges $30 per user per month for Starter without AI and $140 for Advanced AI, with metered overages including AI credits. CounselPro charges $499 for a single matter, which it suggests billing to the client as a case expense, or firm plans at $100, $250 and $500 a month with no per seat fees and one credit per statement page. 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 Casefleet and CounselPro both leave unpublished?
A security attestation of their own. Neither holds a SOC 2 or ISO certification; CounselPro cites its providers' SOC 2 Type II and says that certification is theirs, not its own. Neither publishes an AI governance position or a measured accuracy figure, and neither connects to a case, document or accounting system. Neither commits to notifying a customer before disclosing its data under legal process. 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.
This page compares two adjacent products rather than two answers to one purchase. CounselPro's terms reserve, by default, processing of customer data to calibrate its own internal AI systems for general product improvement, a published term a firm should read alongside its statement that client records never train any model. CounselPro names no customers. Casefleet's agreement discloses third party AI providers without naming them. Casefleet was verified on 7 September 2026 and CounselPro on 22 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.