CaseMark vs Cloud Court: how they compare in 2026

Deposition summaries come in analysis, index, page and line, and narrative formats, and CaseMark says a 200 page transcript comes back in under two minutes. Medical chronologies list each provider by date with diagnoses, ICD codes, medications and vitals. A firm can send examples of its own chronology format and get it back as a one click template. Workspace adds chat across a matter's files, Deep Research, custom agents, persistent memory across conversations and matters, and Overtime Mode, which keeps researching and drafting after the first prompt. Tabular Analysis turns hundreds of documents into one table with a CSV or Excel export. In Source, models draft exhibit indexes, propose clip ranges from a plain language description of the testimony and answer questions across up to 50 transcripts. Insight Pass sits in front of every summary. It reads the selected sources, asks three or four questions about audience, side, purpose and detail, and hands a plan to the drafting models. Quick Actions run one click summarize, research, timeline, organize and find tasks, and Organize proposes a file structure and naming for a matter. Workspace usage is metered in money against a monthly allowance, and larger tasks consume more of it.

Gibson ingests deposition and trial transcripts in common formats and extracts topics and keywords from them. It pulls every question and answer pair on a topic across any number of depositions, and can narrow the set to adverse witnesses, aligned witnesses or a witness type such as fact, expert or corporate. Reports and dashboards then drill down to the specific passages behind each result. A single run can cover one current hearing or more than 100 past transcripts. Typical questions are how witnesses testified on a topic, which answers conflict with their past testimony, which questions taking counsel asked before and how often defending counsel objected. The same pass collects objective measures of each deposition, such as objections by type, answer length and the questions each attorney asked. Depositions can be compared against benchmarks, and recurring witnesses, experts and opposing counsel are profiled across matters. Users tag testimony and build their own taxonomies, and reports can filter on those tags. Gibson also helps pick the most effective expert, damages or 30(b)(6) witness and flags what a witness should expect under questioning. According to the privacy notice, the AI products handle natural language processing, text analysis, document generation and insights. Cloud Court's CEO writes that the company holds both generative and non generative AI and has favored non generative methods for testimony.

Deposition summaries cite page and line and come as Word files or hyperlinked PDFs that open at the testimony. Every medical chronology entry cites its source page. Answers in Workspace's Explore view carry Bates citations, and Deep Research returns a synthesis with linked citations and a source list the user can review. After any summary, Interrogate lets a user ask follow up questions across the whole deposition or record set, with each answer linked to the supporting page. For research beyond the customer's files, case.dev's citation service matches each cited case against CourtListener's database of about 10 million opinions. It returns verified, not found or multiple matches, with the case name, court and decision date. No accuracy figure is published for any output. The terms warn that output may not reflect people, places or facts accurately and must be reviewed before anyone relies on it.

Gibson's output is drawn from the transcripts themselves. Topic results are the question and answer pairs found in the record, and every report drills down to the content instances behind it, so a lawyer reads the testimony rather than a paraphrase. Testimony on a topic can be exported across witnesses. Views run from a global picture to a single passage, and testimony can be compared across witnesses, files and other indices. In a February 2024 post, CEO Michael Okerlund explains the preference for non generative AI with an example of ChatGPT placing quotation marks around words the Federal Rules of Evidence do not contain. The post concludes that lawyers should prefer ignorance to error. No accuracy measure for topic extraction or for generated reports is published.

In Source, the exhibit index starts as a draft that the court reporter edits, matches to matter files and approves. Clip ranges proposed from a plain language request come back with the matched testimony, a confidence value and warnings, and a clip is cut only once approved. The reporter keeps sole authority over the certified transcript, and Source prepares what surrounds it. Summaries can be aimed before drafting through Insight Pass, and every output links back to its sources. CaseMark describes a chronology as an organized starting point whose dates, statements and conclusions still need confirming against the underlying records. At the platform layer, case.dev tracks each unit of agent work as a work item that a person approves or blocks with a stated reason. Its privilege detection service returns a review recommendation, calling for attorney review, on ambiguous documents. Two modes run with no person in the loop. Overtime Mode keeps researching, drafting and revising after the first prompt, and the Operator handles recurring tasks it has learned through email, Microsoft Teams and text messages. Neither has a stated limit on what it may do unattended.

Gibson produces reports, dashboards and drill downs that litigators read and act on. It does not file, draft for filing or act in a matter by itself. Its pages frame the product as artificial intelligence working with human intelligence, with Gibson taking on tedious work while lawyers handle higher level thinking. During a deposition, the team can work in the platform with remote colleagues and look up its witness kit as testimony unfolds. Customers can use the standard reports and visualizations or have Cloud Court's team customize their views. That team of ten includes a litigation project manager and a data migration analyst. The privacy notice lists AI document generation among the functions of its AI products. No review step is described for the documents Gibson generates.

Ogletree Deakins, Nelson Mullins and Pathway are named as users of CaseMark's platform, and CaseMark counts more than 7,000 attorneys among its users. Fortz Legal Support, a Michigan court reporting and litigation support firm, ran one deposition through several summary vendors alongside peer agencies before choosing CaseMark. After one summary for a client, that client's partner asked for summaries of every remaining deposition in the case, and Fortz now sells summaries as a service. A September 2026 post reproduces one month's usage report from an unnamed mid sized insurance defense firm, for 12 August to 11 September. It shows 38 practitioners working 98 litigation matters, 155 deliverables, 1.25 million pages loaded and 841 attorney hours saved, for a flat $3,500 a month. CaseMark values those hours at about $106,000 on the firm's blended rates and calls that an assumed value. A medical malpractice insurer is described as saving $5 for each $1 spent across 300 panel firms in 36 states. The solutions pages quote results such as 90 percent less document review time for small firms and $11,500 in average savings per case for insurers, without a basis. In the Chock Barhoum LLP story, two weeks of document review shrank to minutes. The partner it features, Sarah Tuthill-Kveton, is also CaseMark's Chief Legal Officer.

Five deployments are described without naming the customer. A firm in multidistrict litigation analyzed more than 300 historical deposition transcripts, and an insurer reviewed hundreds of examinations under oath after a disaster and recovered millions on fraudulent claims. A federal agency used Gibson against repeat plaintiffs and reports smaller settlements and more dismissals. Antitrust litigators analyzed more than 140 depositions taken by aligned counsel, and one organization built a knowledge base of depositions and trials spanning decades. Quotes come from a litigation associate and a partner at unnamed large firms. The associate says Gibson spares days of reading through hundreds of files and 20,000 pages of testimony. The EDRM added Cloud Court to its Trusted Partner Network in July 2023. Elevate named it in June 2024 among the companies it partners with to serve its customers, and Hire Counsel appears among its partners. At Cloud Court's January 2025 conference, which drew 100 registrants, Bill Childs, formerly of 3M and Solventum, described how tools like Cloud Court's had helped his team with testimony. None of these customers is named, and no result carries a figure beyond these counts.

Training on customer data is ruled out in the terms, and the security page says documents, transcripts and work product remain the customer's. Under the terms, the customer keeps ownership of uploaded data and any interest in the output. Inside a firm, each matter is shared with read or write permission, and a Document Manager seat covers file work without chat or billing access. Custom agents are scoped to the organization, a matter or one person. CaseMark describes the platform as tenant isolated with no commingling of customer data, and Enterprise adds dedicated compute and isolated inference pools. Model providers sign BAAs with CaseMark, and the case.dev gateway serves Anthropic's models from a zero data retention workspace. CaseMark says the architecture itself protects privilege, through tenant isolation, encryption and audit trails. No published policy covers privilege or work product in what the models see or produce.

Safeguarding customer data is the stated focus of Cloud Court's security program, with controls for confidentiality, availability and security mapped to the SOC 2 criteria. The privacy notice says personal information handled by its AI products follows that notice and Cloud Court's agreements with third parties. The terms of service, which cover the website and purchases made through it, treat contributions posted to the site as non confidential and license them to Cloud Court for any purpose. No customer agreement for Gibson is published.

A No Legal Advice clause in the terms says CaseMark does not practice law, that text from its AI tools is for information only, and that no attorney client relationship forms. Users must be 18 or older and may not present output as written by a person. The service is offered only to people in the United States, and personal data covered by the GDPR may not be uploaded without CaseMark's consent. The products are sold to lawyers, paralegals and litigation support staff rather than to the public. Medical chronologies are described as built for legal team review and not as a substitute for medical or legal judgment. No published material sets out how the product supports a lawyer's supervision of the work it produces.

Gibson is sold to litigators, in house legal teams, government agencies and insurers. Its pages pose strategic questions it helps answer, from which expert to put up to whether to settle or fight. The company was founded by litigators and in house counsel, and its CEO is a former litigator and general counsel. Neither the terms nor the product pages say anything about legal advice.

A September 2026 post by CEO Scott Kveton sets out what CaseMark weighs when it chooses a model provider. The factors are retention, the reach of a BAA, training terms a provider can change, and dependence on one vendor. In July 2026 CaseMark signed the Open Weights and American AI Leadership letter. Its CEO argued that a model a vendor hosts itself cannot be withdrawn, repriced or quietly retuned under a customer. The agent layer is open to inspection. Linc, CaseMark's terminal agent, is MIT licensed and built on the open source pi agent framework. Its legal skills follow an open standard published through agentskills.legal, and custom skills a firm commissions are portable to other platforms. No results from testing its summaries or models are published.

The stated position is a design choice. For testimony, Cloud Court favors non generative AI over generative tools, because a wrong answer stated with confidence costs a lawyer more than a gap. Its pages describe AI as having advantages and limitations and set Gibson up to work alongside lawyers rather than replace them. The security program includes a documented risk management policy, continual risk assessments and a formal risk register, with the detail held in the SOC 2 report. Since January 2025 it has run three CLE events on legal AI, the latest in May 2026, and its blog announced in April 2024 that the EDRM had formed a Testimony Evidence Reference Model project. No testing method or result for Gibson's extraction or reports is published.

Customer data is kept for 30 days or for the length of the agreement, then destroyed through a process CaseMark says follows ISO standards. Users can delete a file and its chat themselves, and deletion on request is also offered. Access follows least privilege, with user roles, SAML single sign on and multifactor authentication required on every account. Every user action and system event is logged. Data is encrypted with 256 bit AES at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. External penetration tests run every year, vulnerability assessments every quarter and dependency updates daily. Staff pass background checks and annual security training. CaseMark publishes more than 130 security controls with their status, among them disaster recovery plans tested each year and cybersecurity insurance. A public status page reports uptime and outages, and payments run through Stripe. No commitment on breach notice to customers is published.

Product systems and data run in Microsoft's United States data centers, never in Cloud Court's offices. Employees reach production only through Microsoft Entra with device validation and multifactor authentication, day to day access is limited to engineering, and standing administrative access is restricted. Code is reviewed, tested and scanned before release, and new code passes through a separate QA environment segmented from production. Staff in the United States pass background checks, acknowledge the information security policy and take security and phishing training each year. A vendor management program reviews third party providers, and company laptops run full disk encryption and endpoint detection. The privacy notice keeps personal information no longer than 12 months after an account ends, and the terms describe routine backups. Security incidents are reviewed by the security team and handled with affected customers as each case requires. No subprocessor list or notice deadline is published.

The terms of service, last updated 1 October 2026, cap CaseMark's total liability at $100, and more than one claim does not raise the cap. Lost profits, lost data and indirect damages are excluded. The service is provided as is, with warranties of accuracy and noninfringement disclaimed, and any warranty the law requires lasts 90 days. CaseMark's suppliers carry no liability under the same clause. The indemnity runs from the customer to CaseMark, covering use of the service, uploaded data and breaches of law or of the terms. No indemnity runs the other way, and wrong output carries no remedy. Enterprise customers sign a separate agreement on top of these terms, and that agreement is not published.

Terms of service last updated 27 March 2025 govern the website and purchases made through it. They provide the site as is, disclaim all warranties, and exclude direct, indirect and consequential damages. Liability is capped at the lesser of fees paid in the six months before a claim or $10,000. Users indemnify Cloud Court against third party claims arising from contributions, use of the site or breach of the terms, and the terms disclaim liability for lost or corrupted user data. Minnesota law governs, and most disputes go through at least 30 days of informal negotiation before binding arbitration. Nothing in them addresses liability for wrong output.

Inside Workspace, files arrive by upload and leave by download or by saving back to the matter. CaseMark's own comparison with Harvey lists practice management connectors as coming soon in the product. The case.dev platform underneath publishes connectors in depth. Clio Manage is generally available. It imports matter documents, communications and tasks into a vault and exports work product to a CaseMark Output folder in Clio. Two way sync keeps documents from each side separate and halts on conflicting edits instead of overwriting either. Google Drive needs enablement and Box is in preview, and change detection, rate budgets and reconnection are set out for each provider. Developers reach the platform through an API with SDKs for TypeScript, Python and Go, a command line tool, signed webhooks and an MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot. Source exports the litigation support formats that trial software reads, including MDB, PTX, LEF and SBF.

Gibson takes deposition and trial transcripts in common formats, uploaded by the customer. Its dashboards and reports are configurable, and aligned parties can work in the same interface. Court reporting agencies are invited to partner on a direct pipeline from their transcripts into the platform, which Cloud Court says its clients have asked for. Its patent portfolio covers automated deposition transcription, remote proceeding capture, speaker identification and evidence linkage. No connection to another system is described.

Customer data sits in AWS and Azure in the United States. The trust center adds that it can be stored in other countries when a customer needs that. CaseMark hosts its open weight models in the United States. Isolation rises by tier. The standard service isolates each tenant, and Enterprise adds dedicated compute and isolated inference pools. Sovereign Legal AI on case.dev offers CaseMark Core on a dedicated GPU cluster, dedicated instances of frontier models, or a managed deployment inside the customer's own AWS, Azure or Google Cloud account. The processing location for closed models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google is not stated. When OpenAI is down, the gateway routes requests to Azure or Bedrock.

Gibson is offered as software as a service through purpose built web applications. Its product infrastructure resides in Microsoft's data centers in the United States. Cloud Court relies on Microsoft's audited controls for physical and infrastructure security and points customers to Microsoft's Service Trust portal for those reports. Code moves through a separate QA environment before production, and the hosted service is updated continuously, with major changes announced in the app. Gibson runs only as this hosted service.

A SOC 2 Type II report and HIPAA compliance are stated. The trust center, built on Vanta, lists the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a statement of HIPAA compliance as documents released through a request form. The same center shows more than 130 controls across infrastructure, organizational, product and internal security, each with its status. The report itself, with its auditor and period, sits behind that request form.

A SOC 2 Type I examination was completed as of 16 October 2023, and a SOC 2 Type II report followed in April 2024. Cloud Court commits to a SOC 2 Type II audit every year covering security, availability and confidentiality, and offers the report on request from its security page. The report, with its auditor and period, is released on request.

The case.dev gateway offers CaseMark's own Core Large, Core Titanium, Core Mini and Embed V1 models. It also offers OpenAI's GPT-6.1 Sol, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5, and Google's Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.8 Flash. Workspace lets a user pick from more than 100 models, with a cost multiplier shown for each. By its CEO's account, about two thirds of CaseMark's inference runs on open weight models, and its embedding service runs a self hosted open weight model. Anthropic's models are off by default in Workspace and are switched on for firms that ask. Insight Pass uses a reasoning model to plan each report and lighter models to draft it. No commitment covers telling customers when a model or provider changes.

Both generative and non generative AI are in use, with non generative methods favored for testimony. Patent filings with an earliest priority date of 28 April 2017 describe probabilistic language modeling, matter specific language models and machine learning that ranks legal documents. The privacy notice says AI processing runs under agreements with third parties. No model or third party provider is named.

Summaries are sold one at a time with no subscription, at $25 for a legal summary. A medical chronology costs $25 plus $0.01 a page, capped at $100 for one record set of up to 25,000 pages. Transcription costs $5 an hour with a $5 minimum. Workspace starts with a free trial for one user with $5 of usage and no card. Pro is $100 per user a month with $100 of included usage, billed monthly with no annual term. Work beyond the allowance draws on prepaid on demand usage at a 30 percent premium, capped by a team spend limit. Document Manager seats are $20 a month, and a BAA plan starts at $200 per user a month with two custom workflows per firm. Teams, for two to ten users, and Enterprise are quoted. So is Source, which is priced on the certified packages, workflow runs and clips a firm produces. The case.dev developer platform passes model costs through at provider rates and opens with $10 of free usage.

Each product page ends in a consultation request. The terms of service accept card payment, describe recurring subscription charges billed through an online account, make purchases non refundable and let a customer cancel at the end of the paid term. Payments are in United States currency, and prices may change at any time. Resellers, referral partners, software alliances and legal service providers are invited to sell alongside the company. No price is published for Gibson.

Workspace is sold to solo and small firms, mid sized firms and Am Law scale teams, with in house teams named among its intended buyers. Source serves court reporting and litigation support firms. The solutions pages cover litigation, personal injury, corporate, regulatory and compliance, real estate and family law, plus insurance carriers on the defense side. The workflow library follows that spread, with 663 litigation, 279 transactional, 182 regulatory, 139 corporate and one family law workflow. Record types include depositions, medical records, pleadings, contracts, recordings, and trial, hearing, arbitration and mediation transcripts. Service is limited to the United States, and the Clio connector supports only Clio's United States region. CaseMark's own comparison names bulk review at Vault scale and the breadth of research sources as areas where Harvey is stronger. CaseMark runs monthly Workspace training, with a recorded session aimed at insurance defense. Government buyers are not addressed.

Four buyer groups are named. Law firms use Gibson in large volume and business critical cases, class and mass tort matters, antitrust, serial litigation against the same parties and deposition training. Corporate legal departments use it for pattern litigation, serial plaintiffs and oversight of outside counsel. Government agencies build testimony knowledge bases on repeat plaintiffs and experts, and insurers analyze examinations under oath and track attorney, firm and witness performance. Gibson handles depositions, trial transcripts and other hearings, and court reporting agencies are invited to partner. The work is aimed at matters with many depositions or a long history of testimony. Cloud Court places it in new attorney onboarding, motion and brief drafting, settlement and mediation, witness preparation and trial outlines. By its own definition, testimony intelligence work follows or overlaps eDiscovery and comes before deposition designations. No jurisdiction is named and no limit on matter type or size is stated.