Casepoint vs iCONECT: how they compare in 2026
The buyer decides between Casepoint and iCONECT more than the feature list does, though each runs discovery review for agencies, corporations and law firms. Casepoint is built for the public sector as much as for litigation. It holds FedRAMP Moderate and High authorizations, ISO 27001 and Department of Defense Impact Levels 5 and 6, and its suite covers legal hold, investigations and public records requests beside eDiscovery. Its AI carries the Casepoint IQ name, with CaseAssist, IQ Assist and agents. iCONECT has built review software since 1999 and sells eDiscovery beside a breach response product for extracting personal data. It installs on a customer's own servers, in its own cloud, through hosting partners or as SaaS on Azure, with continuous active learning and Oversight in standard licensing. Casepoint fits an agency that needs the highest authorizations and records requests in one system. iCONECT fits a firm or provider that wants review on its own infrastructure, with breach notification in the same platform.
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.
CaseAssist Active Learning learns from reviewers' decisions to put likely relevant documents first, and the vendor ties its claim of 95 percent faster identification to it. Generative features add chat over customer data, summaries and automatic classification. Without the AI, a full eDiscovery platform remains: legal hold, collection from Microsoft 365, Teams, Slack and Google Vault, processing of more than 600 file types, review, production, FOIA work and hosting at government authorization levels. The AI is bundled at no extra cost rather than sold on its own, and the vendor leads with security and unified workflow, with AI third.
Machine learning runs core review and breach response work on a document review platform that would still function without it. iCONECT's eDiscovery product is built around processing, an Elasticsearch index, deduplication, redaction and production. The models sit in several core capabilities: continuous active learning through Sentio technology; Oversight, which the vendor says is included in standard eDiscovery licensing and finds false negatives and false positives in reviewer tagging; AI email threading; and AI assisted identification and extraction of personal information in the cyber data mining product, where users can send documents to a model of their choice. Generative AI features listed on the eDiscovery and law firm pages add document summaries, classification by content or legal relevance, entity redaction, image description, transcription and translation. The vendor describes itself as a data intelligence AI platform, and in August 2026 announced an integration with eDiscovery AI that is still under development. Without the models, a full review and production system remains.
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.
Generative answers use retrieval augmented generation over the customer's own data, with source citations, so a reviewer can open the document behind an answer. The agreement names five limits of its AI: training data quality, errors from vague prompts, nuance and sarcasm in language, factual inaccuracy, and lack of common sense. No accuracy figure, recall or precision statistic, or validation protocol is published, and courts examine validation statistics for technology assisted review. The terms also bar customers from sharing benchmark results without written consent.
The Oversight post of 17 May 2024 says the tool reaches a level of precision once thought unattainable and helps teams rectify discrepancies, with no recall, precision, elusion or validation figures and no test set. The cyber data mining page says each extracted data element is linked through audit trails to its original source file, creating a defensible chain of custody, which lets a reviewer trace a notification entry back to the document. How the generative features are grounded is not described: whether a document summary cites passages, how classification by legal relevance is validated, or how automatic privilege redaction is confirmed. No error rate or statement on invented content is published.
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.
Casepoint states that its technology should amplify human judgment, not replace it, and the agreement commits to human in the loop AI features. Every generative feature is optional, and the customer controls adoption. Reviewers get source citations on generated answers, and transparency logs are said to record every AI decision. Active learning is supervised by design, since reviewers' own calls train it. The agreement also tells customers not to rely solely on output for anything with material consequences. No threshold at which a feature declines to answer, no behavior when the data does not support a result, and no route for reporting a wrong output is described.
The Oversight post of 17 May 2024 says a subject matter expert, attorney or experienced reviewer seeds a model with as few as fifty documents, and that Oversight reports tagging errors for the team to correct. The cyber data mining page lets a team define its criteria so that verification, whether manual or automatic, fits its needs, and says GenAI reviews are used where appropriate. The eDiscovery page says redaction, including of an entire document because of privilege, can happen automatically, and that document classification sorts documents by legal relevance automatically, with no review step described for either. Nothing states what the generative features may not be used for, when a person must check their output, or what happens when a classification or redaction is wrong. For the generative features, review is a setting the customer chooses.
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.
Casepoint names customers with named people and titles: Marriott International, Mayo Clinic, the West Virginia Office of Technology, Kramer Levin, Beveridge & Diamond, Larkin Hoffman and Lewis Roca. Lewis Roca, an Am Law 200 firm, is tied to a measured result: more than 90 percent less document review time from the analytics and AI. Other case studies report a 57 percent cut in discovery related costs at a Fortune 500 construction company, faster FOIA responses at a major defense agency, and a migration of up to a petabyte at a federal regulator. Casepoint states more than 250 government agencies and about 80 percent of federal agencies as customers. Most measured results name a category rather than a customer.
Releases on iCONECT's site record that ProFile Discovery selected the platform for its law firm and corporate legal department environments (26 January 2021) and that Everest Discovery launched a cyber breach response service built on it (27 January 2025), with a quote from Everest's owner and president; other releases name Pictera Solutions, Right Discovery and Iota Analytics as customers. The Why iCONECT page names NASA and the FDIC among users. The law firm page presents seven large matters, among them the Vioxx, Yasmin and Pradaxa litigation, Oracle v. SAP and the Columbia investigation, without naming the firm, iCONECT's role or a result. No case study with a measured result is published on the site.
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.
Casepoint's agreement defines confidential information to include attorney work product, attorney client privilege, personal data and health data. A separate AI clause makes AI inputs and outputs customer data and confidential information, limits their use to running the service, and commits AI features to enforce the customer's access and matter permissions. It also prevents retrieval across tenants or matters and logs administrative access. Casepoint staff may review AI inputs or outputs only for customer requested support or a security incident, with time limited, audited access. Remote support needs the customer's own enablement and multi factor authentication. Another clause gives Casepoint a transferable license over customer data and usage data to improve its products, and the AI clause carves out only AI inputs and outputs.
The only legal documents on the site are a terms of use (31 July 2024) and a privacy policy (June 2024), both written for the website. No customer agreement, data processing addendum or statement on training with customer documents is published. The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite SOC 2 certification, rigorous data protection and handling protocols and controlled access, and the SOC 2 Type 2 report on the SaaS platform covers the confidentiality criterion. The cyber data mining page lets users send documents to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google, and nothing published states what those providers may keep or use. The platform can be deployed on premises, which keeps documents in a firm's own environment, but nothing addresses privilege handling, segregation between matters, or what happens to documents sent to a model.
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.
Casepoint's agreement tells customers not to rely solely on any output, including AI output, for anything with material consequences or that affects anyone's rights. It makes the customer responsible for the completeness, accuracy and content of the results it relies on. Human in the loop is a stated commitment, and the vendor says technology should amplify human judgment. No bar or ethics authority is named, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, no jurisdiction limits are stated, and nothing addresses the duties of the reviewers who act on the output. The product has no consumer facing surface.
The terms of use say information on iCONECT's pages is distributed on the understanding that the authors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. That sentence governs website content, not the review platform. The product classifies documents by legal relevance, redacts for privilege and summarizes documents for law firms, corporations, public sector organizations and service providers, and nothing published states that its output is not legal judgment, that a supervising lawyer must review it, or how it fits a lawyer's competence and supervision duties. No ethics opinion or court decision on technology assisted review is named.
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.
Casepoint's AI framework, TRUST, has five principles, and its terms turn several of them into commitments. The terms limit how AI inputs and outputs may be used, restrict staff review of them, require AI features to respect the customer's access and matter permissions, and require logging of administrative access. Transparency logs are said to record every AI decision. Customers above a stated spend get an annual audit right over privacy and security controls. No fairness testing, testing regime or accountable owner is published, and nothing addresses whether review ranking can be uneven across custodians, languages or document types.
The platform page and a post of 10 May 2024 describe iCONECT's path as a responsible adoption of generative AI that enhances the platform without compromising data integrity or security. No person is named as accountable for model behavior, and no testing before release, evaluation results or principles are published. The SOC 2 Type 2 report covers information security controls and not the conduct of the models. Nothing addresses uneven output across languages and document types in classification by legal relevance or personal information identification. Users choosing between models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google for personal information identification are not told how iCONECT evaluated them.
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.
Casepoint commits to written notice within seventy two hours of a validated security incident, with updates on cause, mitigation, impact and remediation. On termination it exports all customer data in a common format within a seven day window, and states that copies may persist on backup media. Access controls include role based access, zero trust networking, encryption in transit and at rest, and no standing remote support access. Staff face ten year criminal background checks and OFAC screening. Disaster recovery plans are tested every year. The agreement promises a subprocessor list, and none is published.
The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite SOC 2 certification, regular security training and penetration testing, workstation and server security, data protection and handling protocols and controlled access, and the platform page cites encryption, access controls, regular security audits and adherence to GDPR and HIPAA standards. The SOC 2 Type 2 audit of the SaaS platform, completed on 22 September 2025 by A-LIGN, covers security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy. The cyber data mining page says ingestion, extraction, review and modification actions are logged with audit trails. The privacy policy (June 2024) covers the website and not data processed in the platform. No retention period, deletion commitment, breach notice timing, subprocessor list or statement on what model providers keep when documents are sent to them is published.
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 general cap is the fees paid under the relevant order in the six months before a claim. A higher cap of five times annual fees, plus direct damages, applies to confidentiality breaches, data breaches, gross negligence and willful misconduct. Personal injury, fraud and anything that cannot be excluded by law are carved out. Casepoint defends and indemnifies against claims that the software infringes a copyright in the United States or misappropriates a trade secret, with named remedies. The software is warranted to perform substantially as documented for sixty days, services are warranted as workmanlike, and uptime is committed at 99.5 percent with service credits. No warranty attaches to AI output, the agreement puts accuracy on the customer, and no insurance position is published.
No customer agreement, license terms or SaaS terms are published. The terms of use (31 July 2024, California law) disclaim liability for direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the website and its content; they do not govern the software. No indemnity, warranty, cap or allocation of risk is published for missed documents, wrong classifications, failed redactions or errors in personal data extraction, on a product used to decide what is produced to an opposing party and who is notified after a breach.
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.
Casepoint names connections into the systems where data lives: Microsoft 365, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Google Vault, collected in place without manual export, with more than 600 file types in processing. An API automates collection from those platforms. The MCP Server connects a customer's own approved AI systems to the platform. No iManage or NetDocuments integration is named, nothing covers matter management, ebilling or court filing, and no public API documentation is published. The terms restrict use of APIs Casepoint does not support.
iCONECT's release of 10 June 2021 says its Ligl integration, available then, lets organizations identify, hold, preserve and collect enterprise documents in Ligl, process and cull them, and push relevant documents to iCONECT for review. The cyber data mining page lets users send selected documents to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google. The partners page shows Microsoft, Nuix, LexisNexis, Sentio, Opus 2 and Heureka Software as technology partners, as logos without descriptions, alongside more than 25 hosting partners. An integration with eDiscovery AI was announced on 24 August 2026 as under development, with availability to follow. The platform page says iCONECT integrates with the most common applications in its three markets, without naming them. Nothing describes connections to a firm's document management, matter management or litigation support systems, and no integration documentation is public.
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.
Casepoint states three ways to deploy: hosted by Casepoint with 99.5 percent uptime, installed by the customer or a third party under named conditions, and separately certified government environments. SOC 1, SOC 2, SOC 3, ISO 9001, ISO 27001 and NIST apply to the commercial offering, and GovRAMP, FedRAMP Moderate and High and Department of Defense Impact Levels 4 to 6 to certain environments. Residency is committed for export controlled data, which stays in environments Casepoint controls in the United States, with no replication abroad and access only by American persons. No region list for the commercial offering, tenancy model, or split between where data is stored and where it is processed is published. A Canada government offering appears in the navigation with no residency statement.
The eDiscovery page offers on premises, hybrid, cloud and SaaS deployment. The post of 19 July 2024 on system architecture describes in house deployment, cloud deployment on Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, AWS or other providers, and hosting through iCONECT's network of legal service providers. The release of 23 August 2023 launching iCONECT SaaS says it runs on Microsoft Azure. A firm can therefore keep the platform and its documents on its own infrastructure. Not stated are where iCONECT's SaaS stores or processes data, which regions are available, and whether SaaS customers are separated at the tenant level. Nor is it stated where documents go when they are sent to a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google for personal information identification, or whether the generative features work in an on premises deployment.
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.
Casepoint holds fourteen certifications and authorizations, each explained on its security page. They are FedRAMP High and Moderate, Department of Defense Impact Levels 4, 5 and 6 with DISA authorities to operate, GovRAMP, SOC 1 Type II, SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3, the SIG questionnaire, ISO 9001:2015, ISO 27001:2022, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171 and the Data Privacy Framework between the EU and the United States. FedRAMP and DISA authorizations are assessed by third parties and listed by the authorizing bodies, so they can be confirmed without a sales call. The SOC 2 Type II is described as annual, covering all five Trust Services Criteria over twelve months. The agreement restates the set and says which apply to the commercial offering and which to certain environments. No auditor is named for the SOC or ISO work, and no report date is shown. Reports are available to customers on request.
iCONECT's release of 29 September 2025 says A-LIGN completed a SOC 2 Type 2 audit of its SaaS platform on 22 September 2025 covering security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy, and the home page carries an A-LIGN badge. No audit period is stated, no trust center is published, and the report is offered neither for download nor on request. The eDiscovery and law firm pages add regular penetration testing and security training, and the platform page claims adherence to GDPR and HIPAA standards without any certification behind them.
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.
Generative answers use retrieval augmented generation over the customer's own data. The agreement names machine learning, technology assisted review and large language models as the technologies in use. It commits Casepoint to license third party software properly, patch it, and keep a list of material third party components and subprocessors; that list is not published. No model, provider, version or inference location is named, and no notice is promised when a model changes. The separate MCP Server lets a customer connect its own approved AI systems.
The cyber data mining page lets users send selected documents for personal information identification to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google. The platform page says iCONECT integrated Sentio technology, which carries its continuous active learning, and acquired AI source code from Ayfie in 2021. Nothing published names the model behind document summaries, classification, image description, transcription or translation, states whether iCONECT or the customer holds the model provider relationship, says where those models run, or commits to notice when a model changes.
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.
The pricing page is titled Transparent Pricing and gives no price. It does publish the shape of the deal: a modular platform priced to the applications a customer takes, with no charge for products it does not use. The purchasable modules are named across the site, from eDiscovery and Legal Hold to FOIA, Casepoint AI and the MCP Server. The agreement adds billing mechanics. Fees are the greater of actual usage or the agreed cap, metered on data storage, processing and users. Terms run one year and renew automatically unless either side gives sixty days' notice. No rate, per gigabyte or per user figure, or starting price is published. The only route is a demo request.
The law firm page offers flexible pricing with monthly or annual terms, the Why iCONECT page describes predictable pricing through monthly and yearly plans, and the release of 23 August 2023 launching iCONECT SaaS describes Price Protect, which applies discounts automatically as data volume grows without renegotiating the contract. That points to data volume as a driver and term length as a choice, without stating the unit, the rate or what the generative features add. No price, rate per gigabyte, user fee or tier is published, and every route to a number runs through a demo request.
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.
By market Casepoint serves federal civilian, federal defense, state, local and education, Canada, and corporate enterprise. By team it serves corporate legal, government legal, FOIA and public records, audit and investigations, and IT and security, with a separate law firm page. Use cases include legal hold, investigations, litigation, eDiscovery, data subject access requests, third party subpoena responses, FOIA requests and congressional inquiries. It processes more than 600 file types from named sources. No excluded practice area, unsupported data source or volume limit is named on the platform, pricing or security pages or in the site navigation, and the Canada offering is not described.
The site addresses law firms, corporations, public sector organizations and service providers, each with its own page, across three products: eDiscovery, cyber data mining for breach response, and data governance. The law firm page covers litigation, investigations and responsive actions, the cyber data mining page covers breach notification work for incident response professionals, and the release of 24 August 2026 names law firms, corporations, legal service providers and public sector organizations as customers. Named users include NASA and the FDIC. What is not stated is which languages the generative features and personal information identification support, which privacy regimes the breach tools are built around beyond references to GDPR and HIPAA, and which deployment options carry the generative features.
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?
Casepoint will use AI inputs and outputs only to provide, secure and support the service, and not for product improvement, unrelated analytics or AI training without the customer's approval. AI inputs include prompts, questions, customer data and metadata sent to AI features. Two other statements bear on it. The AI strategy page goes further than the contract and says customer data is never used to train models. And another clause gives Casepoint a transferable license over customer data and usage data to improve its products, with only AI inputs and outputs carved out.
No customer agreement, license terms or data processing addendum is published, and no page states a position on training with customer documents. The terms of use (31 July 2024) and the privacy policy (June 2024) cover the website only. Oversight's matter model is seeded by the customer's own reviewers with its own documents, which is not vendor training, and the cyber data mining page lets users send documents to models from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google with nothing published on whether those providers may train on them.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The agreement treats AI inputs and outputs as customer data and confidential information, so prompts and results belong to the customer like anything else it uploads. On termination Casepoint exports all customer data in a common format, may delete its copies after delivery or seven days from notice, and states that backup copies may persist. No retention period during the term, separate lifecycle for prompts and outputs, or zero retention setting for AI use is published.
Nothing published states how long documents, extracted data, summaries or other AI outputs are kept, or when they are deleted, in the SaaS platform or by a model provider. The privacy policy covers website data only.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The agreement commits that AI features will enforce the customer's access controls and matter and workspace permissions, prevent retrieval across tenants or matters, and log administrative access to AI inputs and outputs. Casepoint is itself the system of record, so the AI works inside the platform's own permission model. Support access follows the same rules: no standing access, enablement only by the customer's administrators, access limited to the relevant matter, named staff with multi factor authentication, and audit logs for the customer.
Neither how the boundary is enforced technically nor how the commercial and government environments are kept apart is described.
Nothing describes walls between matters or teams, or how the generative features and continuous active learning are kept within a matter. The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite controlled access and the SaaS launch release mentions user setup and matter management, without describing how access is segregated.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The confidentiality clause allows disclosure under law, court order, subpoena or other compulsory process on three conditions. The receiving party must notify the other immediately and share the relevant documents on request. It must resist and limit the disclosure, including by lawful objection, protective orders and redaction. And it must cooperate with the other side's efforts to protect the information. A matching clause requires a government customer under FOIA or an open records law to give Casepoint notice and a chance to object before releasing its confidential information. No transparency report or disclosure statistics are published.
No published agreement addresses legal demands for customer data held in the platform. The privacy policy (June 2024), which covers the website, says iCONECT may disclose a website user's name, city, state, telephone number and email address to law enforcement on a verified request without a subpoena; it does not reach documents processed in the platform.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Casepoint works on documents the customer collects from its own systems, so there is no vendor assembled body of law, content license or data supplier to name. The agreement states that the customer owns all customer data, with Casepoint holding only a limited license to provide the service. Collection sources are named, including Microsoft 365, Teams, Slack and Google Vault.
iCONECT works on a customer's own documents and data and does not describe retrieval of case law or other legal sources; no outside body of legal sources applies.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Casepoint works on the customer's own collected documents, not primary law, so there is no cited authority to check and no citator is claimed. The related accuracy question for this product is validation of technology assisted review, and no recall, precision or elusion figure is published.
The product does not cite legal authority, so no check of subsequent history applies, and none is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing on the AI strategy, platform or security pages or in the full terms describes what the generative features do when the data does not support an answer. There is no abstention path, no confidence or grounding indicator for the user, and no statement of what a chat query shows when it finds nothing. The agreement tells customers that output has limits and should not be relied on alone, which allocates risk rather than describing behavior. Active learning ranks documents by predicted relevance, and nothing says how uncertainty in that ranking is shown.
Nothing published describes what the summaries, classification or personal information identification do when a document gives them no basis for an answer, or how low confidence is shown.
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 records no case naming Casepoint, and no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product appears in several independent 2026 sanctions trackers or trade coverage. Casepoint's generative features answer questions about collected documents rather than citing law, so a fabricated citation would not usually start here.
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 iCONECT. iCONECT reviews, classifies and redacts a customer's own documents for eDiscovery and breach response rather than drafting filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Casepoint's marketing promises defensible results, processes and chain of custody, and the agreement supports that with audit logging. No rule, standard or opinion is cited on the platform, AI strategy, pricing or security pages or in the full terms: not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 502(d), Sedona Conference commentary, ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar guidance.
The terms of use (31 July 2024) state that information on iCONECT's pages is distributed on the understanding that the authors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. The clause governs website content, not the review platform. No ethics opinion, bar guidance or court decision on technology assisted review is named on the product pages or in iCONECT's posts.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Casepoint publishes cost and speed claims: a 57 percent cut in discovery related costs, relevant data found up to 95 percent faster, time to insight cut by up to 83 percent, FOIA processing up to 75 percent faster, and lower outside counsel spend. The pricing, platform and AI strategy pages and the full terms describe no record of AI assisted work by matter for fee purposes and no guidance on how AI assisted review should show on a client's bill.
One named law firm customer says it looks forward to guidance on billing and cost recapture, which the vendor has not published.
iCONECT's pages claim savings without addressing billing. The eDiscovery page says AI email threading and deduplication reduce the dataset and that AI automations eliminate repetitive steps, the Why iCONECT page displays a counter for ROI savings delivered, and a customer release quotes Everest Discovery on reducing costs. The platform is sold to law firms and to service providers whose review charges reach clients, and nothing published addresses how AI assisted review is billed or disclosed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The agreement commits Casepoint to provide third party audits and its SIG questionnaire on request, to keep a list of material third party components and subprocessors, and to give customers above a stated spend a yearly audit right. A data processing agreement is referenced beside the security page. The fourteen certifications appear on the public security page, and the FedRAMP and Department of Defense authorizations can be confirmed with the authorizing bodies. No subprocessor list is published, despite the commitment to keep one, and no model provider is named.
No subprocessor list or disclosure material for a client's AI terms is published. The cyber data mining page names OpenAI, Microsoft and Google as model choices for one feature, which is not a list of the providers that process customer data, and the SOC 2 report is not offered for download or on request.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Transparency logs are said to document every AI decision, generated answers cite sources in the customer's data, administrative access to AI inputs and outputs is logged, and support access logs are made available to the customer. Chain of custody from preservation to production is the platform's central design. No model is named or versioned, so a filing could not say which system produced an output. Nothing says whether the transparency log can be exported for a standing order or certification, and no template exists for disclosing AI use to a court.
The cyber data mining page says ingestion, extraction, review and modification actions are logged with audit trails that link each extracted data element to its source file, creating a defensible chain of custody for regulatory inquiries and legal review. Oversight produces reports of tagging errors, and the law firm page lists reviewer productivity reporting. Nothing records which model produced a summary or classification, and no export for disclosing AI use or validating continuous active learning to a court is described.
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.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Casepoint if
- You work in or for a federal agency. Casepoint holds FedRAMP Moderate and High and Department of Defense Impact Level 5 and 6 authorizations, and says it is one of six SaaS companies authorized at Impact Level 6.
- Records requests sit with the same team as litigation. Casepoint FOIA, FOIAXpress and ATIPXpress handle public records and access to information requests beside eDiscovery and investigations.
- You want AI agents inside the review platform. Casepoint IQ adds agents, IQ Assist and CaseAssist, and Casepoint publishes an MCP server among its connectors and APIs.
Choose iCONECT if
- Review has to stay inside your own data center. iCONECT can be installed on a firm's servers or split across a hybrid setup. It also runs in the firm's own cloud account or as SaaS.
- Breach notification is part of the job. iCONECT's cyber data mining product finds and extracts personal information across a breached data set, with each item traced back to its file.
- Your reviewers want a second look at their coding. Oversight ships in standard eDiscovery licensing and reports likely tagging errors after an expert seeds it with a small set of documents.
In summary
Casepoint
Casepoint is an eDiscovery and data discovery platform for government agencies, corporate legal departments and law firms, covering legal hold, collection, review, production, investigations and FOIA response. Its AI runs under the Casepoint IQ name, with CaseAssist, IQ Assist, IQ Agents and an MCP server. According to the AI Legal Index, Casepoint holds FedRAMP Moderate and High, ISO 27001 and Department of Defense Impact Level 5 and 6 authorizations. Its pricing page explains how the bill is built without giving a figure.
iCONECT
iCONECT Development, LLC has built document review software since 1999 and sells it for eDiscovery, breach response and data governance to law firms, corporations, public sector bodies and service providers. Review runs on continuous active learning with the Oversight tagging check, and generative features summarize, classify, redact, describe images, transcribe and translate. According to the AI Legal Index, iCONECT can be deployed on premises, in a customer's cloud or as SaaS on Microsoft Azure, where a SOC 2 Type 2 report from A-LIGN covers the platform.
Questions buyers ask
Casepoint vs iCONECT: which suits a government agency?
Casepoint, on authorizations alone. It holds FedRAMP Moderate and High and Department of Defense Impact Levels 5 and 6. FOIA and records requests run in the same suite. iCONECT names NASA and the FDIC among its users and holds a SOC 2 Type 2 report for its SaaS platform, with no FedRAMP authorization. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one can a firm run on its own servers?
iCONECT, which supports on premises and hybrid installation as well as cloud and SaaS. Casepoint is delivered as a cloud service, including authorized government clouds. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does each package its AI?
Casepoint brands its AI as Casepoint IQ. CaseAssist ranks documents as reviewers code them, with IQ Assist and agents on top. iCONECT includes continuous active learning and Oversight in standard eDiscovery licensing and does not state what its generative features cost. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does either handle data breach response?
iCONECT does, through its cyber data mining product, which extracts personal information for notification and lets the team choose a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google. Casepoint's suite centers on discovery, investigations, legal hold and public records. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does neither publish?
A price. Casepoint explains how its bill is built and iCONECT offers monthly or annual terms with automatic volume discounts, and neither states a figure. Neither publishes recall or precision results for its ranking or review models. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 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.
Casepoint sells government case and records products such as FOIAXpress and eCASE beside its eDiscovery platform. iCONECT is made by iCONECT Development, LLC. Neither vendor reviewed this page.