Casefleet vs Everchron: how they compare in 2026

The AI layer is substantial and prominently positioned, and the vendor's own pricing table shows it is severable. The homepage is labeled AI case management software, and the features menu opens with a group of seven AI entries: Casey AI Assistant, Agentic Workflows, Document Intelligence, Summarization, Entity Extraction, Document Organization and Proposed Facts. The published plan comparison shows the Starter plan at 30 dollars carrying none of it. Summarization, semantic indexing, 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 the product with no machine learning in it. What remains on Starter is the platform the company has built its name on since 2016: chronologies, timelines, outlines, document review, transcripts and reporting. The AI is a real and heavily marketed layer on a product that stands without it.

The AI layer is extensive, and the agreement itself makes it optional. EC:AI covers eight named capabilities in two groups, Matter Intelligence and Document Intelligence, and the vendor calls it its proprietary AI suite built for litigation, investigations and arbitration. But the customer agreement defines AI Products as optional components the customer opts into, and section 7.1 begins by saying the customer may opt in. A subscriber who never opts in still gets the product Everchron has sold since 2016: the case chronology, master file, witness profiles, transcript management and designations, full text search and the Relativity integration. Because the opt in is a contract term rather than a packaging choice, it is firm evidence that the platform stands without the AI. The AI is a substantial, well developed layer on a platform that works without it.

Grounding is built into the product and documented, but nothing measures it. Every fact in the chronology links to its source, and evidence citations come on every plan, including the plan without AI. The assistant returns answers with clickable citations to the user's source documents, and Proposed Facts arrive with a citation to the source of each drafted fact. A user can open and check that linked material, and the retrieval target is the case record rather than published legal authority. The agreement is candid about limits. It states that the AI Features may not be 100 percent accurate and may contain errors, omissions or misinterpretations, and that Casefleet makes no representations or warranties on the accuracy, completeness or reliability of AI output. Beta or preview features are to be used with heightened caution. What is absent is measurement: no accuracy figure, test set, evaluation or error taxonomy, and no retrieval method described beyond the citation link. Grounding to primary legal authority and citation status checking do not apply to a fact management product and are counted neither way.

Grounding is documented as a design principle and the limitation is disclosed in the contract, but nothing is measured. A named section of the vendor's material says EC:AI keeps its work connected to the materials behind it. Answers, extracted facts, search results and summaries link back to the relevant documents and transcript passages so the output is easier to verify. Agentic chat returns clickable citations for every response, drafted facts link to their sources, and transcript summaries are tied to their page and line excerpts. The hallucination warning is in the agreement itself. Section 7.3 states that use of the AI Products may produce incorrect output that does not accurately reflect reality, and that output may contain hallucinations and may be inaccurate. The customer must evaluate the accuracy of any output, including by human review. No figure is published that a reader could test: no accuracy rate, test set, evaluation or error taxonomy, and no retrieval method beyond the citation link. Grounding to primary legal authority does not apply to a fact management product.

Proposed Facts are drafted by Casey and staged for the user, who reviews, edits and approves every one before it joins the chronology. The assistant's product page describes Casey setting up cases, proposing facts and organizing files while the user approves every step. The agreement states that AI content and analyses 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. Agentic Workflows, which have their own feature page, are marketed as handing Casey multi step case tasks. The assistant page and the agreement do not state what an agent may do unattended, when it stops, what a user sees while it runs, or what happens after it acts wrongly. No confidence signal is described as shown to the reviewer.

Each part of the oversight model is published. What the system does alone: agentic chat plans the work, gathers context, reviews the record and runs as many steps as needed before assembling a cited response, and extraction and summarization run in bulk across uploads and imports. What constrains it: EC:AI is opt in at organization level, administrators enable or disable it matter by matter, and permissions decide which users can reach it. Scope is set per request to the full matter, a filtered set, selected items, specific documents, or related material such as families and exhibits. How a lawyer checks it: the user sees the plan, the sources reviewed and the steps taken, every response has clickable citations to the supporting material, and generated content is labeled as AI generated throughout the matter. The route back to human judgment: drafted facts are presented to accept or reject, with the vendor stating that the team decides what goes into the chronology. The user can refine scope and continue with follow ups, and the agreement requires the customer to evaluate accuracy, including by human review.

Six customer quotations are published. Three carry a person's name and role but no organization: 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: a South Carolina consumer protection lawyer, an Arkansas investigative paralegal and an Illinois criminal law attorney. No firm or legal department is named, no customer logos appear, no case study is published, and no operational figure is offered: no customer count, no adoption number, no time saved, no outcome measured. The company says it has been helping to win cases since 2016. One quotation praises the chat feature as a legal AI tool.

There is a named customer but no figures. Everchron publishes a case study on its blog for Bennett Bigelow and Leedom, a named law firm, and says that since entering the wider market in 2016 the platform has been adopted by numerous AmLaw firms and litigation boutiques. Its material describes its customers as including AmLaw 100 firms, top litigation boutiques and corporate counsel. The founders practiced as litigators at Irell and Manella, an AmLaw 200 firm, before building the product. What is missing is measurement. No figure of any kind is published: no customer count, adoption number, time saved, matter volume or outcome. The case study is the only named deployment, and it comes with no dated result or method.

Substantive published commitments, several of them AI specific, without a statement of how the vendor treats privileged material. The agreement grants Casefleet rights over customer data only to provide the service and expressly for no other purpose. A confidentiality section binds both parties and carries an AI clause. Under it, Casefleet applies technical and organizational measures when data passes through AI Features and guards against commingling confidential data between users and organizations. In the product, administrators control which data each user can see, which the security page describes as keeping privileged and confidential information that way. On account deletion, Casefleet will delete or destroy all copies of customer data unless legally prohibited. Privilege and work product are named in the agreement, but as the user's compliance duty rather than as a statement of how Casefleet handles privileged material. One provision cuts the other way. The warranty section puts sole responsibility for data security and backup on the user, does not guarantee that transmissions to third party vendors will be encrypted, and disclaims liability for unauthorized access to or loss of customer data.

Privilege is named expressly in the agreement, and one clause cuts hard the other way. Section 4.1 defines Confidential Information to include information a reasonable person would consider confidential, attorney client privileged communications or proprietary information, marked or not, and expressly includes customer content, protected health information and personally identifiable information. Section 4.2 bars both parties from disclosing or using it outside the Services and requires protection at least equal to each party's own and never below commercially reasonable care. Section 1.5 leaves the customer owning its content. Access controls are real: SAML single sign on, TOTP multifactor authentication, an organization settings panel and matter level provisioning. The clause that cuts against this is section 4.5. Everchron says it acts as a neutral vendor with no duty to review cases for conflicts of interest and will never be required to run a conflict review or seek a waiver. In the same clause, the customer agrees that Everchron may access its confidential information and that of other parties using the Services. On a litigation platform where opposing parties may both be customers, that limit is disclosed in the contract. Work product is not named anywhere.

The agreement has a dedicated section on legal advice and the attorney client relationship. It states that Casefleet is not a law firm, that no attorney client relationship arises from use of the platform or its AI Features, and that the software is not a substitute for an attorney's advice. Two of the five numbered acknowledgments that follow address users who are not lawyers: such a user should consult an attorney before making decisions based on the platform, and bears sole responsibility for obtaining counsel. The AI Features section requires users to keep their use within their professional ethical obligations, naming attorney client privilege, the work product doctrine and confidentiality. Casefleet also publishes use case pages for people handling their own matters, such as VA disability claims, small claims, custody documentation and estate settlement. On jurisdiction, the agreement acknowledges only that AI output may not apply in the user's jurisdiction.

There is a real published position on advice versus tooling, short of the full treatment. Section 4.4 is direct. Although the Services support customers in the legal industry, Everchron never works under or at the direction of any counsel using them. There is never an attorney client relationship between Everchron and any party, and nothing provided through the Services is legal advice. Section 4.5 adds that Everchron provides the Services as an independent contractor and neutral vendor and represents no party in any matter the Services support. It is never to be treated as an expert witness or consultant for any subscriber or party. That matters in litigation, where a vendor's status can itself become discoverable. Supervision is addressed in the AI section, which requires the customer to evaluate the accuracy of any output, including through human review. Jurisdiction is not addressed. Nothing says where the product is meant to be used or what limits apply, and no bar or conduct authority is cited. Nothing tells a lawyer how to meet competence and supervision duties when an agent runs multistep work across a matter.

No governance disclosure is published, and the absence should not be 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 none of it is governance. Nothing published describes an AI policy, a responsible AI or ethics position, a bias or fairness assessment, or model evaluation or testing of any kind. No internal owner for AI decisions is named, and no governance framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework is cited. 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: 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.

No governance disclosure is published. There is no AI policy, responsible AI or ethics statement, governance framework, bias or fairness discussion, description of model evaluation or testing, named internal owner for AI decisions, or claim of alignment with a framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. This is not general silence. Everchron publishes a detailed account of how a user controls EC:AI: opt in at organization level, enablement by matter, permissions by user, scope selection, visible plans and steps, and provenance labels. That is governance of use. None of it is governance of the models: nothing describes how they are chosen, assessed before release, monitored in production, or tested for uneven performance across the kinds of material in a litigation record.

Stewardship is contractual and AI specific, with two gaps. The agreement commits that Casefleet will not use customer data to train its AI systems without the customer's explicit consent, and separately describes a closed loop system in which customer data is not used to train AI models. The data license is granted only to provide the service and for no other purpose. AI output derived from customer data belongs to the customer. The confidentiality section adds AI specific technical and organizational measures and a safeguard against commingling data between users and organizations. Security controls are described in operational detail. They include encryption in transit and at rest, a virtual private cloud, virus and malware scanning of all uploads, daily backups, least privilege employee access revoked on termination, and code review before release. The first gap is that AI Features process data through third party AI services that are not named, so the buyer cannot see who is in the loop. The second is that the warranty section does not guarantee that transmissions to third party vendors and hosting partners will be encrypted, and disclaims liability for unauthorized access to customer data.

Control over exposure is strong; how content is handled inside the AI is not described. The AI is off unless chosen. EC:AI is opt in at organization level, the agreement defines AI Products as optional, administrators can enable or disable them by matter, and permissions decide which users reach them. That lets a firm keep a sensitive matter out of the AI entirely. The content license in section 1.4.1 is granted for the sole purpose of providing the Services, section 4.6 limits the vendor's own improvement use to deidentified usage data such as document types and tag counts, and section 1.5 leaves ownership with the customer. An independent security firm audits and tests the web application and network infrastructure, and the product supports SAML single sign on and TOTP multifactor authentication. What is missing is an account of data in the AI. Nothing says what happens to content while EC:AI processes it, whether it leaves Everchron's environment, whether any outside provider receives it, or how long anything derived from a request persists. Section 12.1 mentions contractors, third party vendors and hosting partners without naming any. And the license in 1.4.1 extends to improving the Services using content itself, which goes beyond pure purpose limitation.

A published agreement with a stated cap and a real indemnity in the customer's favor, and no recourse at all for AI output. The liability cap is quantified: fees actually paid in the six months before the claim, or five hundred dollars where no fees apply, with indirect and consequential damages excluded. Casefleet gives an intellectual property indemnity, defending infringement actions at its own expense, with a right to procure, replace or modify and a pro rata refund if it cannot. Data can be downloaded for 30 days after termination. The AI position is a complete disclaimer. The agreement makes no representations or warranties on the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any output the AI generates, makes the user solely responsible for reviewing and verifying it, and states that no output is legal advice. The service is provided as is with all warranties disclaimed, with no uptime commitment, service credit or cure period, and Casefleet disclaims liability for corruption, deletion or loss of customer data. A firm whose chronology rests on a wrongly extracted fact has no contractual remedy for it, and any claim is capped at six months of fees.

No real recourse survives the agreement's drafting. Section 8.2 expressly disclaims all warranties, including that results will be accurate or reliable, and provides the Services and output as is and as available. Section 7.3 says output is provided as is and that Everchron is not liable for any damages a customer or third party claims from it. Section 9.1 excludes direct damages as well as indirect, incidental, special and consequential ones, then caps total liability at fees paid in the six months before the event. There is no uptime commitment, service credit or cure period, and the trial carries no service level agreement at all. The one apparent exception is empty: section 10.2 has Everchron indemnify the subscriber for breach of its warranties under section 8.2, but section 8.2 is the disclaimer and contains no warranties to breach. Disputes go to mandatory individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, with class action and jury waivers, subject to a thirty day opt out by email.

The site has no integrations page, partner listing, or developer or API documentation anywhere in its navigation of features, use cases, pricing, resources and support. No document management, practice management, case management, billing, ediscovery or court filing system is named. The agreement allows for third party applications a customer may use with the platform, whether or not Casefleet designates them official integrations, but names none. It also prohibits users from using any Casefleet APIs that are not public. Single sign on via SAML2 is offered on Enterprise plans, which is authentication rather than practice system integration. The product is built as a self contained workspace.

There is one integration, and it is the one that matters most for this kind of product. Relativity has its own page in the navigation, and Everchron describes integration with both RelativityOne and Relativity Server, positioning the platform as the bridge between ediscovery and litigation management. For a fact management tool that sits after document review, Relativity is the system that matters most, and naming both the cloud and server editions is a real distinction. An API exists, known from the agreement rather than from documentation: section 6.3 reserves the right to suspend access for excessive API use. SAML single sign on supports integration with a firm's identity management. Breadth and documentation are missing. No document management, practice management, billing or court filing system is named, the depth of the Relativity connection is not described, and no public API documentation is published.

Neither data location nor tenancy is stated. The hosting provider is named plainly: all Casefleet infrastructure and customer data sit on Amazon Web Services, and the security page links to AWS's own security and data center documentation. The architecture is described in some detail. Infrastructure handling user data runs inside a virtual private network that exposes only required components to the public internet, internal and external communication must be encrypted, and daily backups are kept for an extended period. None of that answers either question. No region or data center location is stated, no residency option is offered, and nothing addresses data for customers outside the United States. Nothing says whether the service is single tenant, pooled or configurable, and the anonymization of data by UUID between components is an internal design detail rather than a tenancy model. No self hosted or private deployment option is published. Naming the hosting provider identifies who runs the infrastructure, not where the data rests.

Neither tenancy nor residency is stated, and the one statement about location points away from the customer. Amazon Web Services is named as the infrastructure, with Everchron pointing to AWS's own risk management and compliance assessments. That identifies the host and nothing more. No region, data center location or residency option is published, nothing restricts where content sits, and no tenancy model is described. Matter level access provisioning exists, but that is access control, not separation. The privacy notice addresses location in the permissive direction: unless the customer instructs otherwise, Everchron and its subprocessors may process personal information globally and may transfer it out of the European Economic Area, so global processing is contemplated rather than constrained. No self hosted or private deployment option is offered. A status page reports service availability, which is operational transparency rather than a residency or tenancy commitment.

Controls are described in detail and no certification of any kind exists. The security page covers five areas. Application security includes XSS and CSRF protection, signed cookie sessions, rate limiting, audit logging, password hashing and malware scanning. Network and storage security requires TLS internally and externally and encrypts data at rest. Operations covers automated security testing, mandatory peer code review, staging before release, daily backups, and encrypted, firewalled laptops for engineers with production access. Account security offers two factor authentication, SAML2 single sign on for Enterprise, granular permissions and alerts on concurrent logins, and physical security relies on AWS and key card office access. A vulnerability disclosure route is published with an address. No third party attestation exists anywhere: no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no auditor or certification body named, no penetration test disclosed, and no trust center. The claim that all code, infrastructure and operations are continually audited for security impact is an internal practice statement, not an external audit. HIPAA is handled commercially, with the vendor stating it is HIPAA compatible and will sign a business associate agreement on annual accounts for an extra fee. Nothing unsupported is claimed.

There are real controls, including an independent testing claim, and no certification or portal of any kind. The site has no security page. The security material on the homepage is specific on one point: an independent security firm audits and tests the web application and network infrastructure. The firm is not named, no report is published and no date is given, so the claim cannot be checked from outside. Alongside it are SAML single sign on, TOTP multifactor authentication and an organization settings panel for security configuration. A business associate agreement is published in full for customers handling protected health information, a real document rather than an offer to negotiate one. There is no attestation: no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no other certification, no named auditor, no penetration test report and no trust center or document portal. The AWS compliance material Everchron points to belongs to the hosting provider. No unsupported badge is displayed.

The shape of the supply chain is disclosed and nothing in it is named. The agreement states that AI Features use multiple AI models and technologies from various providers and that specific features may run on different underlying systems. It also states that data may be processed through various AI systems, including third party AI services. A buyer therefore learns that the architecture uses several external providers and that the model behind one feature may differ from the model behind another. What none of it gives is a name. No model, version, family, provider or inference route is identified on any surface read, and there is no subprocessor list, DPA or trust center where one might sit. Amazon Web Services is named as the host for all Casefleet infrastructure, which says where the application runs rather than whose model reads a client's case file. A firm can tell its client only that several unnamed third parties process case material through AI, a disclosure that raises the question it does not answer.

Nothing about the models is disclosed. No model, version, family or provider is named, no inference route is described, and there is no subprocessor list, data processing agreement or trust center where such details might sit. The only description is the phrase proprietary AI, used once on the product page. That claims ownership without describing provenance: it does not say whether the models were built in house, adapted from open weights, or licensed and run on Everchron's infrastructure. The agreement mentions third parties only in general terms. Section 12.1 says Everchron may use contractors, third party vendors and hosting partners to provide the Services and the hardware, software, networking and storage they need, which is not specific to AI and names no one. Amazon Web Services is named as the host, but that says where software runs, not whose model reads a case file. The vendor publishes a full account of how a user controls the AI and nothing at all about what the AI is.

Pricing is published in fine detail without any sales contact, and the top of the range is withheld. Starter is 30 dollars per user per month and Advanced AI is 140 dollars, with a 22 percent discount for annual payment. A plan comparison table sets out what each tier includes. Every metered component has a stated unit and overage rate. Optical character recognition is one dollar per hundred pages after 3,000 free pages per billed user per month, and transcription is six cents per minute after three free hours. Document intelligence is one cent per page after 12,000 free pages, and storage is ten dollars per gigabyte per month after five included. AI credits cost one tenth of a cent each after 100,000 free credits per billed user per month. The agreement says credits are allocated monthly, do not roll over, vary in consumption by feature, cannot be refunded and can be capped by the customer. Enterprise, for twenty or more users, is a custom quote. The HIPAA business associate agreement carries an unstated fee, bulk uploads above 1,000 files a day are quoted upfront, and Enterprise data migration is unpriced.

No pricing is published at any level, not even the unit of charge. The navigation covers features, solution, in house, blog, about, careers, press, support and status, with terms, privacy and cookies in the footer; there is no pricing page, and every commercial link leads to Schedule a Demo. The agreement confirms this. Section 3.1 makes access conditional on paying any fee in Everchron's fee schedule, and Documentation is defined to include fee schedules, so a fee schedule exists but is not published. The agreement does publish billing mechanics. Subscriptions are charged automatically to a card on file, monthly fees are paid in advance and renew automatically, and annual fees are paid in advance on the anniversary. Fees and pricing can change on notice, all fees are nonrefundable with no credit for partial periods or downgrades, and a free trial exists whose length Everchron sets and does not state. None of this says what the product costs or how it is metered, and no unit is named: not per user, per matter or per volume.

Practice coverage is broad and set out page by page. 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 as well as by subject. The vendor says it serves both plaintiff and defense firms, and two free tools support practice work: a litigation deadline calculator and a statute of limitations lookup by state and claim type. Further pages address individuals handling their own matters, such as VA disability claims, disability appeals, small claims, custody documentation, insurance disputes and estate settlement. The limits are a single jurisdiction and a thin firm dimension. Everything is United States practice, the agreement is governed by Georgia law with exclusive jurisdiction in Fulton County courts, and no international coverage is claimed. On firm size, the only published signal is that Enterprise starts at twenty users, and no segment statement, firm size breakdown or named practice is published.

There are two buyer surfaces and real depth in one kind of matter, but no coverage by practice area. The navigation has a Solution page and a separate page for in house teams, so law firms and corporate legal departments are addressed separately. Everchron describes rolling the platform out to a whole firm or to specific practice groups. The master file is described as built for the largest case files on the most complex matters, including multidistrict litigation with many parties, and the platform is positioned for cases of all sizes in the United States and worldwide. The AI page names litigation, investigations and arbitration as the matter types EC:AI was built for, and collaboration extends to other counsel on the case, local counsel and experts. Coverage is described by matter type and buyer type, not practice area. There is no employment, criminal, personal injury or other subject page, no breakdown by jurisdiction, the interface is in English only, and governing law and venue are Californian.