Casefleet vs Everchron: how they compare in 2026

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 AI layer is extensive and the agreement itself establishes that it is severable. EC:AI spans eight named capabilities across two groups, Matter Intelligence and Document Intelligence, and the vendor describes it as its proprietary AI suite built for litigation, investigations and arbitration. Against that, the customer agreement defines AI Products as the optional, opt-in components of the Services that utilise artificial intelligence technologies, and section 7.1 begins by stating the customer may opt in. A subscriber who never opts in still receives the product Everchron built and sold from 2016: the case chronology, the master file, witness profiles, transcript management and designations, full-text search and the Relativity integration. That is the same severability finding the pricing table produced on another record in this pull, arriving here through the contract rather than the price list, and it is a stronger form of the evidence because opt-in status is a term rather than a packaging decision. The AI is a substantial, well-developed layer on a platform that stands without it. Checked 7 September 2026.

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 is documented as a design principle and the limitation is disclosed in the contract, with no measurement anywhere. The vendor devotes a named section to it: EC:AI keeps its work connected to the materials behind it, and 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 linking every response to the supporting material, drafted facts carry links to their supporting sources, and transcript summaries are tied to their page-line excerpts and to the transcripts themselves. The hallucination disclosure is unusually direct because it sits in the agreement rather than a help page: section 7.3 states in terms that use of the AI Products may result in incorrect output that does not accurately reflect reality, that the customer must evaluate the accuracy of any output including by using human review, and that output may contain hallucinations and may be inaccurate. Naming the failure mode in a contract is rarer than naming it in marketing. What is absent is any figure a reader could test: no accuracy rate, no test set, no evaluation, no error taxonomy and no described retrieval method beyond the citation link. Grounding to primary legal authority does not bite on a fact management product and is counted neither way. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

All four limbs of the top band are published separately, and the record is stated limb by limb because the grade is rare. What the system runs alone: agentic chat plans the work, gathers the right context, reviews the record and carries out as many steps as the question requires before assembling a cited response, and extraction and summarisation run in bulk across uploads and imports. What constrains it: EC:AI is opt-in at the organisation level, configurable matter by matter with administrators able to enable or disable it for each matter, and gated by granular permissions determining which users can access its features; scope is directed per request to the full matter, a filtered set, selected items, specific documents, or related materials such as families and exhibits. How a lawyer checks it: the user can see the plan, the sources reviewed and the steps taken, with clickable citations linking every response to the supporting material, and generated content is labelled as AI-generated throughout the matter. The route back to human judgement: drafted facts are presented for accept or reject with the vendor stating that the team decides what belongs in the chronology, the user can refine scope and continue with follow-ups while remaining in control of the analysis, and the agreement requires the customer to evaluate accuracy including by human review. Visible intermediate reasoning is the limb most vendors omit, and publishing the plan and the steps taken is what separates this from a review gate alone. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

A named customer without figures, which is the middle band precisely. The vendor publishes a case study on its own blog for Bennett Bigelow and Leedom, a named law firm, and states that since entering the market more widely in 2016 the platform has been adopted by numerous AmLaw firms and litigation boutiques. Vendor material describes its customer base as including AmLaw 100 firms, top litigation boutiques and corporate counsel. Founder provenance is stated and is relevant to credibility on this axis: the founders practised 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, no adoption number, no time saved, no matter volume and no outcome. The case study is the only named deployment located, and no dated result with a method a reader could assess accompanies it. Aggregator and directory profiles carrying employee counts and funding status were seen and are excluded as sources under the evidence rule, so nothing from them is graded, and the seed's supplier robustness flag S-R3 concerning undisclosed funding is a supplier screening test rather than an index criterion and bears on nothing here. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Privilege is named expressly in the agreement, which most records fail, 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, whether or not marked, and expressly brings customer content, protected health information and personally identifiable information inside it. Section 4.2 binds both parties not to disclose or use it outside the delivery of the Services and requires protection at least as protective as a party's own confidential information and never less than commercially reasonable care. Section 1.5 leaves the customer owning its content. Access controls are real, with single sign-on via SAML, multi-factor authentication by TOTP application, an organisation settings panel, and matter-level provisioning. The clause that holds this below the top band is section 4.5, and it belongs on the record rather than in a footnote: Everchron states it acts as a neutral vendor with no duty to review cases for conflicts of interest, that it shall at no time be required to perform a conflict of interest review or seek any waiver, and, in the same clause, that the customer agrees Everchron may have access to its confidential information and the confidential information of other parties using the Services. On a litigation platform where opposing parties may both be customers, that is a disclosed limit a buyer should weigh. Work product is not named anywhere. Checked 7 September 2026.

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 real published position on advice versus tooling, short of the full treatment. Section 4.4 is direct: while the Services support customers in the legal industry, at no time does Everchron work under or at the direction of any counsel using the Services, at no time is there an attorney-client relationship between Everchron and any party, and no information provided in or through the Services is legal advice. Section 4.5 adds a framing that is unusual and useful to a litigator: Everchron provides the Services as an independent contractor and neutral vendor, does not represent any party in any matter supported by the Services, and shall at no time be deemed an expert witness or consultant of any subscriber or party. That last point matters in litigation, where a vendor's status can itself become discoverable. The supervision dimension is present through the AI section, which requires the customer to evaluate the accuracy of any output including by using human review. What is absent is jurisdiction. Nothing names where the product is intended to be used or what limits apply, no bar or conduct authority is referenced, and no guidance is offered on what a lawyer must still do to discharge competence and supervision duties when an agent runs multi-step work across a matter. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

No governance disclosure was located. There is no AI policy, no responsible AI or ethics statement, no governance framework, no bias or fairness discussion, no model evaluation or testing description, no named internal owner for AI decisions, and no alignment claim to any framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The gap should be read against what the vendor does publish, so that it is not mistaken for general silence. Everchron publishes a detailed account of how a user controls EC:AI, covering organisation-level opt-in, matter-level enablement, per-user permissions, scope selection, visible plans and steps, and provenance labelling. That is governance of use, and it is credited on autonomy and on data stewardship where it belongs. None of it is governance of the models: nothing describes how they are chosen, assessed before release, monitored in production, or tested for differential performance across the kinds of material a litigation record contains. Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the EC:AI page in full, the Terms of Use in full, the privacy notice, the published business associate agreement reference, the homepage and the complete site navigation.

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.

Control over exposure is the strong half and the handling of content inside the AI is the weak one. On the credit side, the AI is off unless chosen: EC:AI is opt-in at organisation level under the product material and, under the agreement, AI Products are defined as optional opt-in components, with administrators able to enable or disable them per matter and permissions determining which users reach them. That is a real containment architecture rather than a promise, and it lets a firm keep a sensitive matter outside the AI entirely. The content licence in section 1.4.1 is granted for the sole purpose of providing the Services, section 4.6 confines the vendor's own improvement use to de-identified data about usage such as document types and tag counts, and section 1.5 leaves ownership with the customer. Security is described with an independent element: the web application and network infrastructure undergo security audits and testing by an independent security firm, alongside SAML single sign-on and TOTP multi-factor authentication. What is missing is the AI-specific data account. Nothing states what happens to content while EC:AI processes it, whether it leaves the vendor's environment, whether any provider outside Everchron receives it, or how long anything derived from a request persists. Section 12.1 acknowledges contractors, third-party vendors and hosting partners generically and names none. And the licence in 1.4.1 extends to improving the Services over content itself, which is broader than a pure purpose limitation. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Nothing establishing recourse survives the agreement's own drafting. Section 8.2 disclaims all warranties expressly, including any warranty that results obtained from the Services will be accurate or reliable, and provides the Services and output on an as-is and as-available basis. Section 7.3 states that output is provided as is and that Everchron shall not be liable for any damages a customer or third party alleges to incur as a result of or relating to any output. Section 9.1 goes further than the usual formulation by excluding direct damages, not merely indirect, incidental, special and consequential ones, before capping total cumulative liability at fees paid in the six months preceding the event. There is no uptime commitment, no service credit and no cure period, and the trial offering is stated to carry no service level agreement at all. The one apparent counterweight does not hold on reading: section 10.2 has Everchron indemnify the subscriber for claims arising out of Everchron's breach of its warranties under section 8.2, but section 8.2 is the disclaimer clause and contains no warranties to breach. That is recorded as what the document says rather than as an inference about intent, and a buyer should read it before relying on the indemnity. Disputes go to mandatory individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles with a class action and jury trial waiver, subject to a thirty-day opt-out by email. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

One integration, and it is the one that matters most for this product class. Relativity has a dedicated page in the product navigation and the vendor describes integration with both RelativityOne and Relativity Server, positioning the platform as bridging the gap between e-discovery and litigation management. For a fact management tool that sits downstream of review, Relativity is the practice system a buyer would ask about first, and naming both the cloud and server editions is a meaningful distinction rather than a logo. An application programming interface exists, established from the agreement rather than from documentation: section 6.3 reserves the right to suspend access for excess use of an API by a user. Single sign-on via SAML supports integration with a firm's identity management. What holds this below the top band is breadth and documentation. No document management system, practice management system, billing system or court filing system is named anywhere, the Relativity integration page was not opened in this pass so the depth of the connection is not established first-party, and no public API documentation was located in the site navigation. The row is named as amendable on that page. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Neither limb is stated, which is what the band requires, and the one residency-adjacent statement runs against the buyer. Amazon Web Services is named as the infrastructure, with the vendor pointing to AWS's own risk management and recurring compliance assessments. That identifies the host and nothing more. No region, data centre location or residency option is published, no commitment restricts where content sits, and no tenancy model is stated: nothing describes whether the service is single-tenant, pooled or configurable, and the matter-level access provisioning that does exist is an access control rather than a separation architecture. The privacy notice addresses location directly and in the permissive direction, stating that unless otherwise instructed by the customer, Everchron and its subprocessors may process personal information globally, and may transfer it from the European Economic Area to another country outside it. That is a disclosure, and it tells a buyer that global processing is contemplated rather than constrained. No self-hosted or private deployment option was located. A status page is published for service availability, which is operational transparency rather than a residency or tenancy commitment. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Real controls including an independent testing claim, and no certification or portal of any kind. The site has no security page: the full navigation was established across several pages and covers features, solution, in-house, blog, about, careers, press, support and status, with terms, privacy and cookies in the footer. What security material exists sits on the homepage and is specific in one respect that matters: the web application and network infrastructure undergo security audits and testing by an independent security firm. The firm is not named, no report is published and no date is given, so the claim is real but unverifiable from outside. Alongside it are single sign-on via SAML, multi-factor authentication using a TOTP application, and an organisation settings panel for security configuration. A business associate agreement is published in full for customers handling protected health information, which is a genuine artifact rather than an offer to negotiate one. What does not exist is attestation: no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no certification of any kind, no auditor named, no penetration test report and no trust centre or document portal. The AWS compliance material the vendor points to is the hosting provider's and is not credited here. Nothing unsupported is badged, which is why this does not sit lower. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Nothing about the models is disclosed. No model is named, no version or family is given, no provider is identified, no inference route is described, and no subprocessor list, data processing agreement or trust centre exists where such a list might sit. The only characterisation anywhere is the phrase proprietary AI, used once on the product page. That asserts ownership rather than describing provenance: it does not say whether the models were built in house, adapted from open weights, or licensed and run on Everchron infrastructure, and an unsupported adjective is not a supply chain disclosure. The agreement acknowledges third parties only in the most general terms, with section 12.1 noting that Everchron may use contractors, third-party vendors and hosting partners to provide the Services and the necessary hardware, software, networking and storage, which is not AI-specific and names no one. Amazon Web Services is named as the host and has been credited on deployment; naming an infrastructure provider says where software runs rather than whose model reads a case file, and counting it twice is the error this axis most often invites. The contrast within this record is worth stating: the vendor publishes an unusually complete account of how a user controls the AI and nothing at all about what the AI is. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. The absence is a finding about the site rather than a limit on the researcher: the full page inventory was established across several fetches and the navigation carries 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 route on the site resolves to Schedule a Demo. The agreement confirms the position rather than relieving it. Section 3.1 conditions access on payment of any applicable fee as further described in Everchron's fee schedule, and the definition of Documentation includes applicable fee schedules, so a fee schedule exists as a contractual artifact and is not published. What the agreement does publish is billing mechanics rather than price: subscriptions are charged automatically to a card on file, monthly fees are payable in advance and renew automatically, annual fees are payable in advance on the anniversary, fees and pricing are subject to change on notice, all fees are non-refundable with no credit for partial periods or downgrades, and a free trial period exists whose length is set by the vendor and is not stated. None of that tells a buyer what the product costs or how it is metered, and no unit is named anywhere: not per user, not per matter, not per volume. Checked 7 September 2026.

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.

Two buyer surfaces and real depth in one kind of matter, short of practice-area coverage. The product navigation carries a Solution page and a separate In-House page, so law firms and corporate legal departments are addressed distinctly rather than lumped together, and the vendor describes rolling the platform out to an entire firm or to specific practice areas, which acknowledges the practice-group dimension of a firm sale. Depth is claimed where it counts for this product: the master file is described as built to handle the largest case files on the most complex matters including multi-district litigation with numerous parties, and the platform is positioned for cases of all sizes in the United States and worldwide. The AI page widens the frame beyond litigation proper, naming litigation, investigations and arbitration as the matter types EC:AI was built for, and collaboration is described as extending to co-counsel, local counsel and experts as well as the firm's own team. What holds this at B is that coverage is by matter type and buyer type rather than by practice area: no employment, criminal, personal injury or other subject-matter page exists, no jurisdiction breakdown is published, the interface is English only, and the governing law and venue are Californian. The Solution and In-House pages were not opened in this pass and are named as the artifacts that would refine this row. Checked 7 September 2026.