CaseMark vs Steno: how they compare in 2026

C
CaseMark profile
S
Steno profile
Last verifiedOctober 12, 2026

Steno is a court reporting company that builds its own software, and CaseMark is a software company that equips court reporters. A firm books Steno for reporters, videographers, interpreters and remote depositions, can defer the cost until settlement with DelayPay, and gets its transcripts in a Firm Dashboard with Clio and Litify integrations. Steno's AI transcript analysis answers questions across depositions, writes custom summaries and finds contradictions between witnesses. CaseMark sells no reporting services. Its summaries, chronologies and Workspace work on transcripts from any source, and its Source platform lets independent reporting agencies sell the same kind of AI work product to their own clients. For a law firm, the choice turns on whether the reporting relationship and the analysis should come from one vendor. Steno bundles them and prices its services through its team, while CaseMark publishes its software prices, from a $25 summary to a $100 Workspace seat. A plaintiff firm booking many depositions and managing case costs will find Steno's package convenient, and a team using several reporting agencies will find CaseMark easier to keep across all of them.

At a glance

Category
CaseMarkLitigation & eDiscovery
StenoLitigation & eDiscovery
Founded
CaseMarkNot published
Steno2018
Headquarters
CaseMarkPortland, Oregon, United States
StenoLos Angeles, California, United States
Last verified
CaseMarkOct 12, 2026
StenoOct 12, 2026

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.

CaseMark
AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Steno
CC on AI CentralityArtificial intelligence is present but peripheral: a feature layer on a product whose value stands without it.

Transcript Genius is included with no extra charge and no usage limit, and the home page markets it as free with all Steno depositions. Customers pay for the services underneath: court reporting, videography, interpreters, remote and hybrid depositions, equipment rental, conference rooms and DelayPay. Without the AI, all of those remain, along with Steno Connect for Zoom and the Firm Dashboard. The terms reserve the right to change Transcript Genius's price or limit a person's use of it at Steno's sole discretion. The deposition business runs without the AI.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Steno
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

Every Transcript Genius answer carries a clickable page and line citation into the transcript, shown side by side with the source, and Steno's FAQ says human verification is a simple click away. Summaries carry the same linked citations. Where a firm has ordered Text to Video Sync, a citation opens the deposition video at that moment, so a user can hear the tone of the testimony as well as read it. Lookups combine exact wording and meaning across the firm's transcripts. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation, error rate or comparison is published, despite a marketing claim of unparalleled accuracy. The agreement says AI is not perfect and may make mistakes, and disclaims any warranty of accuracy, completeness, truthfulness, timeliness or suitability for outputs. Checks against legal authority do not apply, since the tool reads deposition transcripts, not law.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Steno
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

The terms say Transcript Genius uses AI with no human oversight to question transcripts and other case documents. Its outputs are research aids, not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the record. No one at Steno checks an answer before it appears, and the user must check it against the record. The product supports that check with page and line citations on every answer, a side by side transcript view, and video sync to the cited moment. Customers must switch AI features on in the Dashboard. Only final ordered transcripts can be questioned, not drafts. The tool shows no sign of uncertainty and offers no way to report a wrong answer.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Steno
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

Five quotes carry a name, title and firm. They come from a partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi, a director at Ivie Mcneill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, a paralegal at Citron & Citron, an attorney at Gamliel Law and an attorney at Burneikis Law. The Burneikis Law attorney is also the subject of a Transcript Genius customer story, which describes time saved without saying how much. No quote has a number or date. Trade coverage of the beta reported an average saving of two to four hours per case, a figure Steno does not state itself.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Steno
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

Content is not accessed or viewed except as the customer authorizes, as needed to perform, as the agreement and privacy policy provide, or as law requires. Steno commits to physical and technical safeguards consistent with SOC 2. The customer keeps copyright in its Content and grants only a revocable license to provide the Services, plus a carve out for aggregated, deidentified use to improve them. Data shared with Steno's model providers is not used as broader training data, and the product page adds that transcripts and conversations never train the AI and that AI partners keep nothing after a session. Backups may cover entire proceedings, including parts considered off the record, which in a deposition can include exchanges counsel treat as privileged. A backup will not be shared without a valid subpoena that is not objected to, or a court order. Nothing describes a wall between matters, and the Dashboard is built to query all of a firm's depositions at once.

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.

CaseMark
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Steno
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

The AI section of Steno's terms says AI tools are research aids and are not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the underlying record. The general disclaimer adds that content is informational only and is not advice of any kind; it does not replace professional advice, including legal advice, and users must get independent advice before acting. Users must be eighteen or older and represent they are competent. No bar or ethics authority, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, is named on any product or policy page, and no jurisdiction limit is stated. Steno's blog has an item titled as covering ABA and state ethics guidance on AI.

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.

CaseMark
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Steno
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

The terms say Transcript Genius runs without human oversight and that its model providers do not train on the data. They also disclose internal AI use for drafting messages, support triage, software development and routine work, under agreements that bar those providers from training on the data. The trust center publishes bias disclosures for BrightHire and Criteria, two tools used in hiring, and notes AI features in Rippling recruiting; none of them covers Transcript Genius. No responsible AI principles, accountable owner, testing regime or model documentation exists for the product, and the terms let Steno change the AI platform behind Transcript Genius at any time at its sole discretion. How the tool handles accents, dialects and interpreted testimony is not described, though it analyzes spoken testimony and Steno also books interpreters.

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.

CaseMark
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Steno
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

Retention is in the customer's hands: uploaded documents, recordings and other materials are kept until the customer tells Steno to delete them. On the model side, AI partners do not keep data after a Transcript Genius session. The conversation thread is kept only to give follow up questions context, is not shared, and can be deleted by the user. Steno commits not to access or view Content outside four named cases. It holds a SOC 2 Type II report and a HIPAA addendum, and publishes a data processing addendum (DPA) that applies where law requires. The DPA commits Steno to notify the customer promptly once a security breach is confirmed, to keep a current subprocessor list available on request, and to give notice of new subprocessors where privacy law requires. The terms name Stripe and Bill.com for payments but not the model providers. Steno publishes its controls for encryption, access, background checks, penetration testing and disaster recovery testing.

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.

CaseMark
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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.

Steno
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

The terms cap Steno's liability for any damages related to the agreement, for any cause, at $100, and more than one claim does not raise the limit. No exception to the cap is named. Indirect, consequential, exemplary, incidental, special and punitive damages are excluded, suppliers carry no liability, and the customer gives Steno a broad release with a California Civil Code 1542 waiver. Disputes go to mandatory individual arbitration before the AAA in Los Angeles, with a class action waiver and a thirty day opt out. An AI disclaimer provides outputs as is and with all faults, with no warranty of accuracy, completeness, truthfulness, timeliness or suitability, and the customer bears all risk of using them. The only indemnity runs from the customer to Steno, and no insurance is mentioned.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Steno
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

Clio and Litify integrations have their own pages, listed in the main navigation under Technology and Integrations. Steno Connect for Zoom runs the deposition inside Zoom, with exhibits uploaded, shared, numbered and annotated in the meeting. The terms add linking of Google and Microsoft accounts and a general provision on exporting information to connected third party services. What the Clio and Litify integrations move, and what a firm must set up, is not described. No API or developer documentation is offered, and no document management, electronic billing or court filing system is named.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Steno
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

Where data is held is not stated. The product is a browser dashboard with a Zoom app, and the terms say materials are stored on Steno's systems under its security protocols. No cloud provider, region or tenancy model is named. Content does pass to outside model providers for Transcript Genius, and those providers do not keep it after a session. The privacy policy, updated 9 October 2026, says Steno is headquartered in the United States, uses service providers in other countries, and may move personal information across borders. The DPA allows cross border processing of personal information only where privacy law is met and a lawful transfer mechanism is in place.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Steno
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

The trust center offers a SOC 2 Type II report for the control period 1 February 2025 to 31 January 2026 and a HIPAA addendum dated 31 January 2026, both through a request access form. According to the Transcript Genius page, SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA standards cover all data in the platform, and Steno's AI partners meet them too. The terms commit to safeguards in line with SOC 2 policies. Controls across infrastructure, organizational and product security are shown, including encryption, background checks and penetration testing, along with a responsible disclosure policy. No auditor is named on the public pages.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

Steno
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

The terms of use, effective 10 September 2026, say Transcript Genius is built mainly on large language models from outside providers that Steno has vetted and holds under contract. Data shared with those providers is not used as broader training data. The trust center adds that customer data is not stored with the AI provider, and the beta terms describe zero data retention agreements with Steno's model vendors. No provider or model is named, and the trust center's subprocessor page lists none. Steno may change the AI platform behind Transcript Genius at any time at its sole discretion, with no promise to notify. A separate paragraph says Steno's internal AI use runs under agreements that bar providers from training on data.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

Steno
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

Transcript Genius has no extra charge and no usage limit, though Steno may change that at its sole discretion. Canceling a court reporter or videographer after 4pm on the business day before a job can cost up to $400. Interpreter cancellation runs from 48 hours to 30 days ahead depending on dialect, and the fee may be the interpreter's full charge. Invoices more than 30 days late accrue interest at the lesser of 1.5 percent a month or the legal maximum. DelayPay defers case costs until settlement. Reporting and video rates come from a rate card sent on request, and a firm can negotiate them. Any quote is a nonbinding estimate, and the firm is liable if the invoice is higher. Rates for reporting work are not listed.

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.

CaseMark
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Steno
CC on Firm and Practice CoverageCoverage is claimed broadly, for all firms or all practice areas, without evidence that the breadth is real.

The buyer is litigation teams at law firms, with deferred payment aimed at contingency and plaintiff practices, and the terms expect firm administrators to manage users such as legal assistants and paralegals. Transcript Genius accepts third party transcripts in text and PDF as well as Steno's own, so a firm can analyze depositions taken by opposing counsel. Steno claims to handle anything from single depositions to complex matters with many parties. No list of states or jurisdictions where Steno can staff a proceeding is published on the product pages or in the terms. The only geographic signs are a navigation entry for California litigation support and a Nevada firm registration in the footer. No practice area is named as served or excluded.

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?

CaseMark
Never, in the contract

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.

Steno
Never, in the contract

The AI section of the terms of use, effective 10 September 2026, says data shared with outside model providers through Steno is not used as broader training data. A separate paragraph on internal AI use says Steno's agreements with model providers ensure they do not train on data given to them. The product page says transcripts and conversations are never used to train the AI, and the privacy policy, updated 9 October 2026, says Steno does not use information to train AI models. The Content license also lets Steno use customer Content on an aggregated, deidentified basis to improve the Services.

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

CaseMark
Customer controlled, no zero option

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.

Steno
Customer controlled, no zero option

Retention sits with the customer. Materials uploaded through the Dashboard, Steno Connect for Zoom or a third party integration are stored until the customer asks for deletion. On the model side, AI partners keep no data after a Transcript Genius session. A conversation is saved in a thread so follow up questions have context; the thread is not shared, and the user can delete it. No period is set for threads the user keeps.

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

CaseMark
Own model, documented

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.

Steno
Not addressed

Transcript Genius is marketed on questioning all the depositions in a firm's Dashboard at once. Filters by case, attorney or witness narrow the results but do not restrict who can see what. Access control works at firm level. A designated Administrator keeps the list of End Users and removes people who should no longer have access, and Steno disclaims liability if that list is wrong. Matter level permissions, and whether the AI would respect them, are not described.

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

CaseMark
Disclosure addressed, notice absent

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.

Steno
Disclosure addressed, notice absent

In certain jurisdictions the terms let Steno record remote depositions for backup, including portions considered off the record. Such a recording is not shared without a valid subpoena to which no party objects, or a valid court order. Nothing commits Steno to telling the customer that a demand has arrived or to resisting it. For Content generally, the terms allow access as required by law, with no notice attached. No transparency report is offered.

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

CaseMark
Sources named, basis unstated

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.

Steno
Not addressed

Transcript Genius works on the deposition transcripts of the customer's own matters, whether made by Steno's reporters or uploaded by the firm. No body of law or licensed content sits behind it. The customer keeps copyright and other rights in the Content it submits, and Steno takes only a revocable license to provide the Services. Only final, ordered transcripts can be questioned, not drafts or unordered ones; Steno says this protects the court reporters' work, and it means the text analyzed is a certified record.

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

CaseMark
Not addressed

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.

Steno
Not addressed

Transcript Genius reads deposition testimony, not legal authority, so there is no point of law to check for later history, and no citator is claimed. The check that does apply is whether an answer or summary matches the transcript, which Steno handles through design, with every answer cited to a page and line and shown beside the source. No measure of how often answers are correct is published.

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

CaseMark
Not addressed

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.

Steno
Not addressed

Nothing on the Transcript Genius page, the home page or in the terms of use describes what the tool does when the transcript does not support the question. No way of declining to answer, confidence indicator, threshold, or behavior for ambiguous testimony or a contradiction that does not exist is published. The terms admit the risk in general. They say AI is not perfect and may make mistakes, give outputs no warranty of accuracy or completeness, and state that the tool runs with no human oversight.

Every answer is cited to a page and line with the transcript alongside, so a user can check any claim, but is not told which claims the system was least sure of.

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

CaseMark
None located

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.

Steno
None located

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 Steno or Transcript Genius. Transcript Genius answers questions about deposition testimony with page and line citations into transcripts the customer already holds, not citations to legal authority.

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

CaseMark
Named guidance addressed

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.

Steno
Named guidance addressed

Brief, Steno's blog, carries a post dated 1 April 2025 titled Legal AI: ABA & State Legal Ethics Guidance on Artificial Intelligence. It discusses ABA Formal Opinion 512, Texas State Bar Opinion No. 705 of February 2025 and Kentucky Bar Association opinion KBA E-457, and lists the guidance state by state. The Transcript Genius page, the home page and the terms of use cite no professional conduct authority. The terms take a professional position without citing a source: AI outputs are research aids, not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the record.

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

CaseMark
Savings claims only

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.

Steno
Savings claims only

Time savings run through the product pages: hours of transcript review reduced to minutes, summaries generated in minutes instead of hours, and hours saved on every case. No per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes is offered, and no guidance covers how a firm should treat or disclose AI assisted analysis when billing a client. Transcript Genius carries no additional charge, so there is no separate technology cost to pass through. DelayPay defers court reporting costs until settlement.

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

CaseMark
On request only

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.

Steno
On request only

The data processing addendum, effective 3 March 2025, commits Steno to keep an up to date list of subprocessors available on request and to give notice of new ones where privacy law requires. The trust center's subprocessor page lists none. The terms of use name Stripe and Bill.com as payment processors and describe the model providers behind Transcript Genius only as vetted third parties under contract. The SOC 2 Type II report and HIPAA addendum come through the trust center's request access form, while the DPA, the privacy policy and the terms are public.

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

CaseMark
Partial record

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.

Steno
Partial record

Every Transcript Genius answer cites a transcript page and line, is shown beside the source, and can open the synced video at the cited moment. Nothing says questions, answers or the acceptance of an answer are logged for export. No export exists for an AI use disclosure or a certification of verification, and no template or guidance is published for a court's standing order. The terms do not name the models behind Transcript Genius and let Steno change the AI platform at any time, so the model behind an earlier answer may not be knowable later.

What neither one publishes

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.

Signals neither addresses in public material
  • Good Law Verification
  • Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

Which one fits

Choose CaseMark if

  • Your depositions come from many reporting agencies. CaseMark works on any transcript you upload and sends summaries back in Word or hyperlinked PDF.
  • Medical records are half the record. CaseMark builds cited medical chronologies, including in your firm's own format.
  • You run a reporting agency yourself. CaseMark Source gives an independent agency the production tools and branded AI catalog to compete on technology.

Choose Steno if

  • You want reporting and analysis from one vendor. Steno books the reporter, videographer and interpreter and puts the transcripts and AI analysis in one Firm Dashboard.
  • Case costs need to wait for settlement. Steno's DelayPay defers court reporting costs interest free until the case resolves, without tying the price to the recovery.
  • Your firm runs on Clio or Litify. Steno connects its dashboard to both.

In summary

CaseMark

CaseMark, from CaseMark AI, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, sells AI deposition summaries, medical chronologies and a matter Workspace that work on transcripts from any reporter. Its Source platform equips court reporting firms with certification, packaging, clips and a branded client portal. According to the AI Legal Index, CaseMark names the OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and in house models on its case.dev gateway. About two thirds of its inference runs on open weight models it hosts in the United States.

Source: AI Legal Index, 2026

Steno

Steno, from Steno Agency, Inc. of Los Angeles, is a court reporting and litigation support company that pairs a national network of reporters, videographers and interpreters with its own software. The Firm Dashboard holds a firm's transcripts and invoices, Steno Connect runs remote depositions in Zoom, and DelayPay defers costs until settlement. According to the AI Legal Index, Steno's AI transcript analysis answers questions across one or many depositions, writes custom summaries and finds contradictions between witnesses, on transcripts from any source.

Source: AI Legal Index, 2026

Questions buyers ask

CaseMark vs Steno: which suits a plaintiff firm?

Steno suits a plaintiff firm that books many depositions and wants court reporting, deferred payment and AI transcript analysis from one company. CaseMark suits a firm that wants AI summaries and medical chronologies on transcripts from any reporter, with published prices and no reporting services attached. 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 provide court reporters?

Steno does, through a network of certified court reporters, videographers and interpreters, with remote depositions in Zoom. CaseMark does not provide reporters. Its Source platform sells production software to independent court reporting firms instead. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Can each analyze several depositions together?

Yes. Steno's AI answers questions across one or many depositions and finds contradictions between witnesses. CaseMark Workspace chats across a matter's files, and Source lets a reporting firm's clients question up to 50 transcripts in one matter. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Do they connect to practice management systems?

Steno integrates its Firm Dashboard with Clio and Litify. CaseMark's Workspace lists practice management connectors as coming soon, while its case.dev platform offers a Clio Manage connector for developers. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

How do they charge?

Steno prices court reporting and litigation services through its team and offers DelayPay to defer payment until settlement. CaseMark publishes per summary and per seat prices for its software, with Teams, Enterprise and Source quoted. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Disclosure

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.

Steno Agency, Inc. of Los Angeles names no parent company, and CaseMark AI, Inc., a venture backed company in Portland, Oregon, has none. Steno sells court reporting services alongside its software; CaseMark sells software only. Neither vendor reviewed this page.

Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 430 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 14, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746