CaseMark vs Dodonai: 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.

Every function a customer pays for is model output. Deposition summarization, medical chronology construction, OCR of scanned records including handwriting and tables, extract and draft agents, and semantic ediscovery that finds evidence by meaning rather than keyword make up the platform. Pricing charges by pages processed, with multipliers by process type, so the bill tracks inference directly. Without the models, what remains is a document store with a lookup box. Dodonai's FAQ calls it an AI document processing platform built for legal professionals.

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.

Deposition summaries carry page and line citations, so each point leads back to the transcript location it came from, and the transcript product adds automated Bluebook citations and an assistant that works over the full text. Chronologies and extracts carry page citations against the source document as well. Section 3(d) of the terms says that, given the probabilistic nature of machine learning, the services may produce incorrect output that does not reflect real people, places or facts. It tells customers to evaluate accuracy, including by human review. Dodonai claims its output is on par with a skilled human reviewer. No accuracy figure, test set or method 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.

Dodonai treats AI output as draft work product. Its Safety and Trust page says the customer's team verifies source citations, facts, dates and current legal authority before any use or release. Automated source links, the page adds, do not replace citator checks or the firm's own research and supervision. Page and line citations give the reviewer the path back to the source, and every action is logged. The custom agents sold through AI Managed Services go further. They draft and never send, attorneys authorize every action that leaves the firm, and an agent that is not confident asks instead of guessing. Inside the App, no threshold at which processing stops for review and no route after a wrong summary is described.

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.

One quotation is published, from a commercial litigator identified only as Ben, saying that on the first day Dodonai summarized every deposition transcript in a case in seconds, saving hours of work and client costs in the hundreds. No organization is named, and there is no logo strip, case study or customer count. The litigation cost page claims a 300 page deposition summary that costs $1,500 to $7,500 from a service vendor costs under $10 in Dodonai, with no customer or method behind the figure. Comparison pages for deposition and chronology software are Dodonai's own category content.

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.

Section 3(e) of the terms says both parties acknowledge that content may include confidential and privileged information and that Dodonai will use all reasonable efforts to keep it confidential. It goes on to state that both input and output are attorney work product and that Dodonai shares a common interest with its users. Workspaces are isolated for each client, case data is siloed, access is role based and every action is logged. Under section 3(c), Dodonai works only with LLM partners that disclaim using the content to improve their own services and delete customer data after a reasonable time, 30 days for OpenAI. Dodonai may use customer data to improve its own services only where the customer opts in. No retention period applies to Dodonai's own storage, and OpenAI is the only partner named.

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.

Dodonai's Safety and Trust page calls AI output draft work product and puts verification of citations, facts, dates and current authority on the customer's team before use or release. The same page walks through ABA Formal Opinion 512, mapping the duties of competence, supervision and confidentiality onto AI use, and offers the agent audit trail as support for supervision. The terms do not say the services are not legal advice, and they name no jurisdiction limit. Section 3(e) calls input and output attorney work product and asserts a common interest with users. The audience reaches beyond lawyers, with material for paralegals, court reporters, IME companies and IME doctors, and section 1 sets the minimum user age at 13, with parental permission under 18.

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.

Section 3(d) of the terms acknowledges the probabilistic nature of machine learning and the chance of incorrect output, and section 3(b) explains that output may not be unique across users. The Safety and Trust page sets out a safety layer for the custom agents. Citations are verified against Westlaw, Lexis or the primary source, the opinion text sits beside each summary, attorneys authorize every outbound action, and an audit trail records what each agent saw, produced and changed. No one inside Dodonai is named as accountable for model behavior, no evaluation before release is described for the App, and no testing results are published. Nothing addresses bias or uneven output across injury types, record types or patient populations.

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.

Data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, from the moment documents leave the browser. Workspaces are isolated for each client, access is role based and every action is logged. Section 5(a) of the data processing addendum lists the required security measures across personnel, facilities, hardware and software, storage and networks, access control, monitoring and logging, breach detection, incident response and encryption. Section 5(c) requires notice of any personal data breach by Dodonai, its LLM partners or anyone acting for it without undue delay, and section 8 returns or deletes customer data on termination or reasonable request. No retention period for Dodonai's own storage during the term is published, and no subprocessor list names more than OpenAI.

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.

Section 7(b) of the terms provides the services as is and disclaims every warranty, including that the services will be accurate or error free or that content will stay secure and unaltered. Section 7(a) runs one way: the customer indemnifies Dodonai, and no indemnity is given to the customer, intellectual property claims included. Section 7(c) caps aggregate liability at the greater of twelve months of fees or $100 and excludes indirect and consequential damages, loss of data included. No insurance is stated, and the customer carries the loss when output is wrong.

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.

Dodonai works on files a team uploads, and its case management and document management pages present it as a processing layer beside the systems a firm already runs rather than a connected one. No document management, case management, email, word processing or signature product is named, and there is no integrations page or developer documentation. Section 2(c)(iv) of the terms refers to extracting data through the API as permitted, so an API exists, and the enterprise tier lists custom integrations without detail.

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.

Each client gets an isolated workspace, with case data siloed, role based access limiting what team members see, and every action logged. That separates customers from each other. No region, country, hosting provider or processing location is published for the App, and the terms say only that the services may be used in geographies Dodonai currently supports. Custom deployments from AI Managed Services can run in the customer's own cloud account or Dodonai's, with hosting location, model processors and retention set in a blueprint for each build.

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.

Dodonai states SOC 2 coverage and HIPAA compliance in its hero, its security section and its platform description, with a business associate agreement on request. The Safety and Trust page invites customers to request report information confirming the covered system, reporting period and access conditions. Section 1(i) of the data processing addendum commits Dodonai to cooperate with audits where the law requires, or else to share a summary of third party audit results. The claim does not say Type I or Type II. No auditor, scope, observation period or report date is published, there is no trust portal, and penetration testing is not mentioned.

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.

Section 2(c) of the terms requires customers to follow the terms and policies of any LLM partner used for processing, OpenAI included, and links OpenAI's policy pages. Section 3(c) limits Dodonai to LLM partners that disclaim using content to improve their own services and delete customer data after a reasonable time, 30 days for OpenAI. Section 1(g) of the data processing addendum commits to notice of any additional LLM partner and gives fifteen days to object on reasonable data protection grounds. Dodonai can then decline the partner or offer an alternative, among four cure options, and the customer may terminate with a refund of prepaid fees if the objection is not resolved within thirty days. No model is named, OpenAI is the only partner identified, and where inference runs is not stated.

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.

Four tiers are published. Billed annually, $300 buys 4,800 credits a year ($25 a month), $600 buys 24,000 ($50 a month) and $1,000 buys 120,000 ($83 a month), with a custom enterprise tier above them. A page is defined as about 400 tokens of text, and a table sets the cost per page at each volume by process type, with standard summaries running from 6.3 cents down to 0.8 cents. Custom summaries use credits at twice the standard rate and advanced analysis at three times, while OCR and transcription cost nothing on any tier. All nine capabilities come with every plan, without seat fees or feature gates, and enterprise adds custom integrations, service level guarantees and dedicated onboarding. A free trial of seven days and 100 pages opens from a sign up form, and section 4(c) of the terms promises fourteen days' notice before a price rise.

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.

Six practice areas each have their own page: personal injury, medical malpractice, mass tort, product liability, workers' compensation and disability benefits. Eight use cases have pages too, including medical record review, IME reports, demand letters, expert witness preparation, contract review extraction and litigation cost management. Six industries are addressed separately, reaching past law firms to court reporters, IME companies, IME doctors and medical record retrieval businesses. The practice areas sit almost entirely on the plaintiff side. No firm size or segment is stated, in house and government use are not addressed, and nothing says which matter or document types the product does not handle.