CaseMark vs Depositions by Filevine: how they compare in 2026
Each turns a deposition into usable work product quickly, but one arrives with the deposition and the other with the record. Depositions by Filevine books the proceeding. A firm schedules a remote deposition online, gets a Zoom link at once, and a vetted digital reporter attends. An AI transcript draft follows within 90 minutes, synced to the video. Summaries come in narrative, page and line, or custom topic form, each linked back to the transcript, and the whole proceeding is billed as one line item. CaseMark starts from a record the firm already holds. A lawyer uploads transcripts, medical records or filings, and CaseMark drafts summaries, chronologies and other documents with each statement cited to its page. Structured Summaries are bought one at a time with no subscription, and Workspace adds chat, research and custom agents across a matter. The two also differ on client data, since CaseMark rules out training on it while the Parrot terms behind Depositions by Filevine allow it. A firm that needs depositions taken will look at Depositions by Filevine. A firm or reporting agency that already holds transcripts will look at CaseMark, which drafts the work product and cites every page.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
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.
The service at the center is remote court reporting: scheduling, a Zoom proceeding and a vetted digital reporter on every deposition. AI runs through the rest of it. Speech recognition produces the transcript draft in real time and within 90 minutes after the proceeding, synced to the recording. Models that Depositions by Filevine describes as proprietary and custom trained for legal work write the summaries, and semantic lookup finds related testimony and exhibit images by meaning. An AI assistant, powered by OpenAI, helps with case work. The scheduling, recording and reporter service would still run without the models, while the standalone summary service is AI throughout.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
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.
Every summary links each point back to the page and line it came from in the source transcript, and clicking a point in the recording finds the same spot in the text. Depositions by Filevine presents the links as the way to verify factual accuracy and context. Transcript drafts are described as highly accurate and summaries as accurate, with no error rate, test set or comparison published. The terms say AI output can contain errors, misstatements or omissions and should be vetted by a lawyer before use.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
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.
A human digital reporter attends every proceeding, and a dedicated human resource is included in every booking. The AI drafts the transcript and summaries; nothing runs on a client matter without the firm reviewing it. The terms require that output be reviewed or vetted by a lawyer licensed in the relevant subject and jurisdiction, and say no output is legal advice. Review happens in the platform: summaries link to the transcript, the transcript is synced to audio and video, and users can highlight, annotate and tag. How a rough AI draft becomes the certified final transcript, and who checks it, is not described.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
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.
Three attorneys are quoted by name and firm: Aaron Warner of Warner & Fitzmartin, Jacqueline Halpern of Halpern, Santos & Pinkert, and Adam Rossen of Rossen Law Firm. Rossen says the platform saves money on transcripts. In client survey figures, 79% of clients say its technology features helped them win a case, 91% say their teams are more efficient, and firms save 32% on average, with no sample or method given. Bar associations, law firms and Fortune 500 insurance carriers are named as user types without naming them.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
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.
The terms of Parrot Tech, Inc., last updated 15 January 2025, give Parrot and its affiliates a broad license to customer data. Section 7.4 lets Parrot use inputs, customer data and outputs to train and improve its own and its affiliates' AI models. Inputs include deposition recordings, exhibits and transcripts. Data used that way does not have to be deleted or returned when the agreement ends. The privacy policy says the outside AI vendors Parrot uses, such as Anthropic and OpenAI, are restricted from training on or retaining customer data. Recordings and documents move under AES 256 encryption with chain of custody tracking. Nothing published addresses privilege or work product, or separates one matter from another inside an account.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A 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.
The terms say no communication or output from Parrot, whether produced by software, a person or both, is legal advice. Customers must not rely on output as formal legal advice and must have it reviewed by a lawyer licensed in the relevant subject and jurisdiction, and they remain responsible for decisions made with it. The product is sold to attorneys, insurance claims teams and court reporting firms. Depositions by Filevine says its transcripts comply with federal and state law and are admissible in court, and its reporters are licensed professionals. No position is published on supervision duties or on the ethics of using AI drafts in litigation.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
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.
No AI governance policy, testing method, accountable owner or disclosure about uneven transcription quality across speakers, accents or audio conditions is published. The models behind summaries are described only as custom trained for legal needs.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
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.
The privacy policy, dated 15 January 2025, lists the kinds of service providers that receive personal information, including hosting, customer support, email and AI providers such as OpenAI. It keeps personal information for as long as its purposes and legal duties require. The terms let Parrot keep a copy of data received through the service and keep records at least as long as the law requires. Data used for training does not have to be deleted at termination. Recordings and documents travel under AES 256 encryption on FIPS compliant servers with chain of custody tracking. No named subprocessor list, retention period for recordings and transcripts, or breach notice practice is offered.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The 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.
The terms are governed by Florida law. Each party's total liability is capped at the greater of $1,000 or the fees the customer paid in the six months before the event, and lost profits, data, revenue and indirect damages are excluded. The service and software are provided as is, with no warranty of accuracy, and Parrot disclaims liability for actions taken on its output. Customers indemnify Parrot for breaches of the license and data sections and for unlawful use.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
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.
Depositions run on Zoom. Booking returns a Zoom link at once, and an exhibits management Zoom app lets counsel upload exhibits during the proceeding and keep them private until presented. Dates sync to the user's calendar with automatic email reminders. Summaries, highlights and notes download as editable Word files, and an API lets other legal software generate deposition summaries at scale. Transcripts from other providers can be added to the platform and found alongside its own. A link from deposition data into Filevine's case management platform is not described on this route.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
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.
The service is hosted on what it calls FIPS compliant servers, with recordings and documents encrypted in transit. The hosting provider, the region where recordings and transcripts are stored and processed, and the tenancy model are not stated.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
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.
The site describes the service as compliant with SOC 2, HIPAA and HITECH standards, and the summary service as running on infrastructure that is SOC 2 and HIPAA certified. No auditor, report type, coverage period or way to request a report is given, and the security link on the site leads to Filevine's own security page rather than to material for this service.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The 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.
The privacy policy names Anthropic and OpenAI as generative AI vendors used alongside Parrot's own technology, and says the AI assistant is powered by OpenAI. Summaries run on models described as proprietary and custom trained for legal needs. Which models handle transcription and summaries, where they run, and whether customers are told when a provider changes are not stated.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
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 proceeding is billed as one line item that includes audio, video, three summary formats, clip cutting and annotation, which Depositions by Filevine calls all inclusive pricing. The deposition summary service is sold on its own by upload, and API and enterprise plans are offered on request. No rate per proceeding, per page or per summary is published.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
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.
The service is built for attorneys and support staff at plaintiff firms, for insurance carriers handling depositions and examinations under oath, and for court reporting firms. Coverage is remote depositions and related proceedings in the United States, with depositions scheduled on one day of notice. Medical record summaries extend it to personal injury and claims work. Practice areas beyond litigation and claims, and work outside the United States, are not described.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The content section of the terms of service, updated 1 October 2026, licenses uploaded data to CaseMark only to provide the service. It states that CaseMark does not use customer data to train its AI models or sell it to third parties. The security page repeats that CaseMark never trains models on customer data, and the trust center adds that summaries and conversations are not shared with AI providers for training. Conversation threads are kept only to give context to follow up questions in a session. The terms make any feedback a user sends CaseMark's property and name no carve out for aggregated or deidentified data.
Section 7.4 of the Parrot Tech, Inc. terms, last updated 15 January 2025, lets Parrot use inputs, the rest of customer data and outputs to train and improve its own and its affiliates' AI models. That use includes labeling and model training. Inputs include deposition audio and video, exhibits and transcripts. No opt out is offered, and data used this way need not be deleted at termination. The privacy policy restricts outside AI vendors such as Anthropic and OpenAI from training on customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The terms set retention at 30 days, after which customer data is deleted, and enterprise customers can arrange longer retention. CaseMark also keeps data for the length of an agreement and destroys it at the end of that period or on request. Users can delete any file with a trash icon, which also removes its chat, and conversation threads can be deleted at any time. Workspace also keeps a persistent memory of facts across conversations, users and matters.
At the model layer, the case.dev gateway describes zero retention agreements with major providers, while CaseMark notes that Anthropic now keeps data from its newest models for 30 days.
The terms let Parrot keep a copy of all data received and stored through the service and keep records at least as long as the law requires, with no fixed period. Depositions are described as accessible forever in the platform. The privacy policy keeps personal information as long as its purposes and legal duties require.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Workspace keeps its own permission model. Owners and admins assign roles, share each matter with read or write permission, and give support staff Document Manager seats limited to files. Custom agents are scoped to the organization, a matter or one person, and every user action is logged. On case.dev, a matter owner can grant another organization scoped access to a single matter and revoke it later. Vaults on case.dev can be grouped, with API keys scoped to one group.
In Source, a firm targets each delivery to an organization, group or individual and manages its clients' users and groups. Where a firm allows it, clients add their own files to a matter and share selected ones back.
Depositions are kept in one place per account, and any colleague can be given access to the history. Nothing published describes separating cases or matters, or limiting access within a firm's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The privacy policy, updated 1 October 2026, says CaseMark may share information in response to legal process, including lawful requests by public authorities. The information it covers includes personal information inside the files customers upload. Personal information may also go to subsidiaries, affiliates and service providers bound by confidentiality terms. Neither the policy nor the terms of service say whether the customer is told about such a request.
The same policy says a sale of the business would never disclose the private customer data uploaded to the platform, and that an account assigned to an authorized reseller comes with notice to the customer.
The privacy policy lets Parrot use and disclose personal information to comply with laws, lawful requests and legal process, including subpoenas and requests from government authorities. It may also share information with law enforcement where it believes in good faith that is appropriate. No commitment to notify the customer is made.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Summaries and Workspace answers draw on the files a customer uploads. For legal research, case.dev draws case law from CourtListener's database of about 10 million opinions. It adds federal court dockets, SEC EDGAR filings, and United States patent and trademark records from the USPTO. Patent lookups cover applications and granted patents, and trademark lookups run against the USPTO's status system. Deep Research in Workspace runs research in several phases and returns memos with linked sources. CaseMark does not say on what terms it uses these sources.
The product works on the customer's own recordings, transcripts and exhibits and does not retrieve primary law, so no legal source collection is described.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
case.dev's citation service confirms that a cited case exists in CourtListener and returns verified, not found or multiple matches, with the case name, court, decision date and parallel citations. The result carries no record of how later courts treated the case, such as reversal or overruling. Other endpoints parse Bluebook components from text and pull every citation from a document at a web address. The documentation tells builders to verify a source before citing it.
Summaries cite pages and lines of the deposition transcript rather than case law, and the product makes no claim to check legal authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Workspace answers and summaries cite their sources, so each statement can be followed back to the record, and deposition summaries embed the full transcript beside the summary. Source drafts exhibit indexes only from exhibits introduced, marked or admitted in the transcript, and it attaches warnings to the clip ranges it proposes. The case.dev privilege service returns a review recommendation for ambiguous documents. No behavior is described for a question that the uploaded record cannot answer.
Nothing describes what the summaries or the AI assistant do when testimony is unclear or a question cannot be answered from the record. The terms say AI output may contain errors or be incomplete.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming CaseMark or case.dev. CaseMark's products summarize depositions, medical records and other case files for litigation teams and court reporters.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Depositions by Filevine or Parrot. The product transcribes and summarizes depositions and does not draft legal citations.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
An October 2025 customer story on Chock Barhoum LLP cites American Bar Association Rule 1.1 on competence in relevant technology. It quotes partner Sarah Tuthill-Kveton's view that refusing to use AI could itself be an ethics violation. The same story presents SOC 2 Type II audits and HIPAA compliance as the answer to confidentiality concerns about AI. No ethics opinion is tied to a CaseMark feature.
No bar opinion, ethics rule or professional guidance on AI use is engaged. The terms require that output be vetted by a lawyer and say it is not legal advice.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Each customer gets a monthly one page report of hours saved and deliverables produced. A September 2026 post built on one such report says much of the saved time at an insurance defense firm would otherwise have been billed to a carrier. It adds that a firm getting hours back must choose whether to bill them elsewhere, take on more matters or hire fewer people. The same post says a major insurance carrier will require AI on matters across its defense panel of about 300 firms from January 2027, and that CaseMark is on that carrier's list.
Workspace bills a flat fee per user or per firm. Source lets a court reporting firm set its own client price for each summary or clip it sells. No guidance on fee treatment or client disclosure is published.
Depositions by Filevine cites 32% average cost savings across client firms and says attorneys can take more depositions in a day and start case work on the rough draft at once. Plaintiff firms are among its buyers. It publishes nothing on how firms bill clients for AI summaries or disclose AI work, and deposition costs are not described as passed to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
SIG Lite 2024 and CAIQ questionnaires, penetration test summaries and attestation letters are available on request. The trust center releases the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a HIPAA statement through a request form. CaseMark states it acts as a processor of the customer data it handles. Its trust center FAQ answers common questionnaire items on hosting, retention, deletion, single sign on and the API. Employees and contractors sign confidentiality agreements, and new hires pass background checks. No subprocessor list is published.
No subprocessor list or disclosure pack is published. The privacy policy names Anthropic and OpenAI among its AI vendors and describes other providers by category.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Every summary cites page and line or source page, Workspace answers carry Bates citations, and users choose the model that runs a task. The platform logs every user action and system event. On case.dev, a matter's history of work items, decisions and notes exports as JSON, CSV, TSV or JSONL, up to 10,000 entries a request. Logs take manual notes as well, and exports are offered for audits and evaluation pipelines. Source records whether each delivered file has been viewed, downloaded or discussed by the client. No single export brings these together for one document.
Nothing describes a record of which parts of a transcript or summary were produced by AI, or support for disclosing AI use to a court. Depositions by Filevine says its transcripts comply with federal and state law and are admissible in court.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose CaseMark if
- You already have the transcript. CaseMark drafts deposition summaries, medical chronologies and hearing summaries from records you upload, with each statement cited to its page.
- You want training on client data ruled out. CaseMark states that customer data is encrypted, isolated and never used for training, and reports a SOC 2 Type II audit.
- You run a reporting or litigation support firm. CaseMark Source packages transcripts and exhibits and runs a branded portal where your clients order summaries.
Choose Depositions by Filevine if
- You need the deposition taken. Depositions by Filevine schedules remote proceedings on a day's notice, sends the Zoom link at once and puts a digital reporter on every one.
- You want the rough draft fast. An AI transcript draft arrives within 90 minutes, synced to the recording, so case work can start the same day.
- You want one charge per deposition. Each proceeding includes audio, video, three summary formats, clip cutting and annotation as a single line item.
In summary
CaseMark
CaseMark, based in Portland, Oregon, turns a litigation record into cited work product. Structured Summaries sells deposition summaries, medical chronologies and hearing summaries one at a time. Workspace gives litigation teams chat, research and more than 880 workflows across a matter's files, and Source serves court reporting and litigation support firms with a branded client portal. According to the AI Legal Index, CaseMark runs on its own case.dev platform of 18 services and states that customer data is never used for training. It reports more than 7,000 attorneys and customers.
Depositions by Filevine
Depositions by Filevine, formerly Parrot and now part of Filevine, is a remote deposition service and platform for attorneys, insurance carriers and court reporting firms. Each booking includes a digital reporter, audio and video, an AI transcript draft within 90 minutes and summaries linked back to the transcript. According to the AI Legal Index, it is sold under Parrot Tech, Inc. terms whose section 7.4 lets the company use inputs, customer data and outputs to train its own and its affiliates' AI models. Its deposition summaries are also sold on their own by upload and through an API.
Questions buyers ask
Does each write deposition summaries?
Yes. Depositions by Filevine generates narrative, page and line, and custom topic summaries hyperlinked to the transcript, and sells them on their own by upload. CaseMark drafts deposition summaries with each statement cited to its page, and lets the user set the audience, side and purpose before it drafts. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does either take the deposition?
Depositions by Filevine does. It books remote depositions and examinations under oath and assigns a digital reporter. CaseMark works from transcripts and records supplied to it, and its Source product serves the reporting firms that take them. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does each say about training on client data?
CaseMark states that customer data is never used for training. The Parrot Tech terms behind Depositions by Filevine let the company use inputs, customer data and outputs to train its own and its affiliates' AI models, and the deposition recordings and transcripts count as inputs. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Is a summary billed per document or per proceeding?
CaseMark sells Structured Summaries one at a time from $25, with no subscription, and Workspace per user. Depositions by Filevine bills each proceeding as one line item and publishes no rate. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Depositions by Filevine relate to Filevine's own software?
It was Parrot until Filevine bought it, and it is still sold on its own site under Parrot's terms. Filevine's case management platform carries separate deposition tools, including Depo CoPilot. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
CaseMark is independent. Depositions by Filevine is owned by Filevine, Inc. and sold by Parrot Tech, Inc. A published roundup of CaseMark alternatives lists Parrot, now Filevine, beside it. Neither vendor reviewed this page.