Clio vs MyCase: how they compare in 2026

Clio is an eighteen year old practice platform with an AI workspace built on top, and Clio frames it that way: its marketing says the 18 year foundation now powers its legal AI. Clio Manage, Grow, Draft and Accounting are conventional software, and the entry tier is sold on practice management, not models. Clio Work is built around AI and sold as a separate product with its own trial, and Grow AI and Manage AI sit inside the older modules. Remove the models and the system 400,000 professionals use to run their firms still works.

MyCase is a fifteen year old practice management system with an AI layer added, and the vendor is open about which is which. Cases, contacts, calendars, documents, time entry, invoicing, trust accounting and the client portal are conventional software and make up the whole Basic tier, which has no AI at all. 8am IQ appears at Pro (Writing and Document Assistants) and Advanced (adding Case and Discovery Assistants), priced into the tier rather than sold separately. Remove the models and the system a firm runs its practice on is untouched.

Two sources ground the AI, and no accuracy figure is published. Clio's pricing page says the AI is grounded in the firm's matters and cites its sources. Its home page says the AI works from matters, clients, filings, messages and financial data, combined with over a billion legal documents across 100+ countries, the vLex library Clio bought in June 2025. That is a described retrieval method over identifiable sources, and the subprocessor list backs it up by naming a vector database provider. No accuracy measure is published, and the Terms cut against any implied one. Clause 14.2 says Themis does not review Output for accuracy or completeness and that Output may be incomplete or inaccurate. Clause 17.2 says the same of the legal Materials, disclaiming accuracy, completeness and currency. Clio publishes an accuracy resource at /resources/ai-for-lawyers/ai-accuracy-legal/.

Grounding is real, documented and described in mechanical terms. Case Assistant answers questions across a case's documents, notes, calendar events, invoices, transactions, tasks, case fields, portal messages, texts and call logs, and the vendor says every answer includes a source you can trace and verify before acting. The Terms set out the retrieval method: a case's documents and data are converted into a vector database by an embedding process, case by case, and then retrieved by the language model. The vendor says it runs proprietary metrics to measure accuracy and detect hallucinations, and limits the surface to preset prompts for each task. None of that measurement is published. The metrics are proprietary, no figure, test set or error rate appears, and the Terms say output may contain errors, omissions or inaccuracies with no warranty of accuracy.

Human review is a marketing commitment that Clio's contract makes binding, but there is no finer structure. Clio's pricing page says the firm reviews and approves everything before it reaches a client or court. Terms clause 14.2 turns that into a duty on the subscriber. It must use AI Services and Output only with human oversight, and review Output for accuracy, completeness, fitness and compliance with legal, regulatory and professional requirements before using it. Clause 14.4 leaves the subscriber in full control of how AI Services are set up and presented. Missing: no modes or thresholds are described, and nothing says what the product does on its own versus what it waits to be asked.

Nothing runs unattended, and the vendor says so directly: data is never stored or analyzed passively and is processed only when a user asks a question. Control sits at two levels. At firm level, the account owner manages a firm wide AI setting, and turning it off removes access for every user; the Terms make the firm responsible for setting it in line with its own policies and professional obligations. At user level, 8am IQ follows existing permissions, so a user cannot reach anything through it they could not already open. Review is built into the output through source citations, and the Terms require human review, saying output may not replace professional judgment. No thresholds or escalation path are published, but the product is a query tool a user invokes, not an agent, so routing back to a human hardly arises.

One named firm comes with a figure and period, alongside platform numbers with no method. King Law is named on the home page with a 275% increase in revenue over four years, credited to visibility and tools across the firm. Named people appear with their firms: Angela Lennon at Koenig | Dunne and Danielle Harvey-Jacob at Harvey-Jacob Law. Platform figures are 400,000+ legal professionals, 130+ countries and 300+ integrations. Nothing is dated, and no method is given for the King Law figure. A rating of 4.7 from 12,000+ reviews comes from directories, and Clio's own comparison page is marketing.

A named firm with a figure, and portfolio metrics with a stated method. Vi Nanthaveth of Nanthaveth & Associates, PLLC is on record describing a move from meeting three or four people a day to fifteen. The headline metrics carry a method footnote. The figure of 64 billable hours recovered per year comes from an analysis of anonymized MyCase customer data for firms using the Smart Time Finder feature, averaging 5.3 hours a month. The ROI calculator's revenue figure is built from that number plus the user's own inputs and is labeled an estimate, not a guarantee. Nothing is dated, the other testimonials use first names only and read like review site extracts, and the 37% caseload figure has no stated basis.

Confidentiality commitments are real at Clio, but privilege is never addressed. Terms clause 4.2 binds Themis and its vendors and hosting partners to keep Content strictly confidential and not use or disclose it outside the agreement. Clause 21.3 says only Themis, for strict business reasons, may access and transfer Content, only to provide the Service, with reasonable efforts to notify the subscriber first. Clause 14.6 says using AI Services grants no right to use confidential information to train general large language models. The security page says AI data is encrypted and processed in the customer's region, AI tools process in real time without storing or reusing data, and outputs are generated only for the user who asks. Missing: any express treatment of privilege or work product, on a platform holding the whole matter file, and any documented separation between matters within a firm.

The training question is answered in the agreement, not on a marketing page. Part III says 8am does not use Customer Content or IQ Content to train or fine tune any large language model or other generative AI model, its own or a third party's, and that the substance of inputs and outputs is never used to update model weights. Retention is specific: the models used for 8am IQ may keep IQ Content for up to thirty days, and case data in the vector database is deleted automatically after thirty days of inactivity. Separation follows the platform's existing permissions: 8am IQ cannot reach any record the user cannot already open, and the vendor says safeguards prevent exposure between customers. What is missing is any express treatment of privilege and work product, for a system that indexes a firm's whole case file.

Clio covers every part of the advice question, all in its contract. The top of the Terms says in bold that Themis is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, through the Service or otherwise. Clause 12.1 adds that the Services, Output or Materials create no attorney client relationship. The Service is only for legal professionals and those they supervise, with a named exception for academic access. Clause 14.2 addresses competence and supervision, requiring human oversight and making the subscriber review Output against professional body requirements and fiduciary rules. Jurisdiction limits are stated three ways. The Service is for North America with separate EMEA terms, Materials are limited to the account's country, and clause 2.16 warns that one code base serves all jurisdictions, so subscribers must set and check their own. Clause 14.4 covers clients: firms must tell their own users about the use of AI, the nature and limits of AI responses, and any human oversight.

A full treatment, and all of it sits in the agreement rather than a footer. The vendor states plainly what it is not. Part I says 8am does not give legal or accounting advice and is not engaged in the practice of law. Part III says 8am IQ does not give legal, accounting or other professional advice and that output may not replace professional judgment or human review. Use is scoped by jurisdiction: the Platform is for legal, accounting and other client based professionals in the United States and Canada. Competence and supervision are addressed. Using 8am IQ to practice law without authorization, or to give legal advice without a qualified person reviewing it, is expressly prohibited. The customer must use the Platform in line with the professional conduct rules of its profession, and the firm wide AI setting gives the account owner a way to enforce that. The disclaimer also recommends consulting qualified counsel on compliance. Disclosure to clients does not arise, since 8am IQ is an internal tool for firm staff, not an agent that faces clients.

AI principles are public, but not the process behind them. An AI Principles page, attributed to Chief Technology Officer Jonathan Watson, sets out five commitments: AI as collaborator, transparency of AI actions, high quality data, relentless refinement and uncompromising security. Bias appears once, as a claim that diverse, top quality data minimizes it, not as anything measured. Nothing names a person or committee accountable for the AI, describes testing before a feature ships, or discloses any evaluation result. The one trace of testing is indirect: the subprocessor list names Braintrust Data as an AI analytics, evaluation and testing provider across five products. That shows a testing pipeline exists, not a published regime a buyer could examine.

A published framework with real substance, and no results behind it. A dedicated 8am IQ Usage Policy is incorporated by reference into the Agreement, a governance document rather than a marketing page, and the vendor publishes principles for building AI in legal technology. The mechanism is described: proprietary evaluation metrics to measure and monitor accuracy and detect hallucinations, preset prompts for each task to make accurate answers more likely, and a commitment to continued testing. The firm wide AI setting gives governance a control. What is missing: no person or committee is named as accountable for the AI, no testing before release is described in terms a buyer could audit, no evaluation result is disclosed, and nothing addresses uneven output across matter types, practice areas or populations.

Every element but one is covered in clear terms. Incident practice is contractual: clause 5.5 requires Themis to report any event it reasonably believes is unauthorized access to, disclosure of, use of or damage to Content within 72 hours, and clause 5.6 sets cooperation, investigation and mitigation duties. Deletion has a period: 90 days to retrieve Content after termination, after which all Content is permanently deleted. Escrowed data is held six months under a separate escrow agreement the customer controls. Subprocessors are published in full and dated. Clause 21.3 limits Themis access to strict business reasons, with advance notice. Encryption, geographic redundancy and at least annual third party penetration testing are stated. The gap is retention during the term. No period is published for AI inputs and outputs, and clause 14.6 lets deidentified, aggregated Content and Output be kept for quality improvement without limit.

The policy is substantive across most of the ground; the subprocessor list is the notable gap. Retention is stated in numbers: thirty days at the language model layer, and thirty days of inactivity before embedded case data is deleted automatically, with the embedding run again on next use. Encryption is 128 bit SSL in transit and 256 bit AES at rest. Access control works through permissions each user inherits. A security and privacy whitepaper is published at an open link, and a trust center exists at trust.8am.com. Incident practice appears in the Terms, but one sided: the customer must report a data incident within twenty four hours to a named security address, while 8am keeps sole say over whether and how individuals or regulators are notified. Not found: any subprocessor list, or any statement of where data is hosted.

Liability terms run both ways at Clio, but stop short of AI output. Clause 11.1 excludes liability generally but carves out breaches of confidentiality, security and managed backup, so those duties stay live. Clause 11.2 caps liability at the total paid in the six months before the claim, and does not apply that cap to the indemnity. Clause 13.2 gives the subscriber a real indemnity on two grounds: third party intellectual property claims against the Service, and claims arising from Themis breaching its own confidentiality or security duties. Exceptions are listed in 13.3. None of it reaches AI output. Clause 13.2(a) excludes Output from the intellectual property indemnity, clause 14.2 provides Output as is, and clause 12.2 disclaims any warranty on results. No insurance position is published.

The terms are specific and readable, and point entirely one way. Total liability is capped at the net fees 8am earned in the three months before the event behind the claim, and all indirect, incidental, special, consequential and punitive damages are excluded. The Platform is provided as is and with all faults, and 8am expressly refuses to warrant that information, data or AI output will be accurate, complete, reliable or compliant with law. Part III adds an AI exclusion: 8am is not liable for any damages from errors or inaccuracies in output or from relying on it. The only indemnity runs from the customer to 8am, and claims must be brought within one year. There is no indemnity for the customer, no warranty on output and no insurance position.

Integrations at Clio are documented in breadth, not depth. It lists 300+ integrations in an app directory, runs a developer hub and partner program, and treats API access as a governed feature in clause 3.9. API use is bound by the agreement, heavy use may lead to suspension after a reasonable attempt to warn, and access may be changed or ended. Clause 18 says third party services are not Services under the agreement, carry no warranties, indemnities or service commitments from Themis, and may be replaced, disabled or limited at any time without notice. That is honest about where the boundary sits. But nothing published says what any integration moves, in which direction, or what a firm must set up.

There are real integrations, named partners and public developer documentation, short of described depth. The pricing matrix lists more than 70 integrations at Pro and an Open API at Advanced, and names connected tools in the feature comparison: Google, Outlook, Microsoft Office, QuickBooks, Zapier, LawToolBox for court rules calendaring, and Smith.ai. Payments run through LawPay in the same platform, and Desktop Drive syncs files both ways between a user's desktop and MyCase. A public developer site at developers.8am.com has a quickstart guide and API reference that an implementer can use. What each integration moves, in which direction and what a firm must set up is not described on any page read. The dedicated integrations page was not opened and may say more.

Residency is set out in detail, with no tenancy model. Hosting options cover the European Union, Australia, the United States and Canada, with five regional site versions, a separate EMEA instance at eu.app.clio.com with its own terms, and separate North American and EMEA agreements. Processing is distinguished from storage. The security page says all data used by the AI is encrypted and processed in the customer's own region, naming US, Canada, EMEA and APAC. The subprocessor list gives a data location for every provider, including each AI processor, and names infrastructure by provider and product. Missing: the tenancy model is not stated anywhere, and nothing says whether residency options vary by plan.

The service is clearly delivered from the cloud, but neither tenancy nor residency is published. No tenancy model is stated, and no data residency region is offered or named. The nearest thing to a location statement describes who the product is for, not where it is hosted: the Terms say the Platform is for professionals in the United States and Canada. Nothing separates where data is processed from where it is stored, and no hosting provider is named on any page read, though the force majeure clause refers generally to failures of cloud hosting providers. The trust center at trust.8am.com was not opened and may say more.

Clio states the coverage period of its SOC 2 report and gives customers a contract right to it. The trust center at trust.clio.com says the 2025 SOC 2 Type II report was issued for 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025. The security page says Clio completes annual SOC 2 Type II and SOC 1 Type II examinations, with both reports in the trust center. Clause 5.4(d) obliges Themis to provide a SOC 2 or SOC 3 report, or a comparable description of security measures, within thirty days of a subscriber's request. At least annual third party penetration testing is stated, and Clio's help center names Deloitte as the independent auditor, though for the earlier Type I engagement. Three details are missing: the trust services criteria are not listed, the auditor for the current Type II is not named, and the penetration testing firm is described only as a leading cybersecurity firm. Clause 5.4(d) also requires signing an agreement with the report's third party provider.

Certification is stated and a trust center exists, without the details that would let a buyer test it. 8am says on the 8am IQ page that it is SOC 2 Type II certified and links the claim to the AICPA. It runs a trust center at trust.8am.com, linked from the footers of mycase.com and 8am.com, and publishes a security and privacy whitepaper at an open Google Drive link with no form, NDA or sales call. The Terms also commit to PCI-DSS compliance for payments. What is missing is the attestation detail: no auditor, trust services criteria, scope, coverage period or report date appears on any readable page. The trust center was not opened, so whether reports can be downloaded there is not known.

The AI providers behind each product, and where they run, are named, but not the models. The subprocessor list, last modified 20 August 2026, has an AI Service Providers table naming five AI processors, the products each serves and each one's data location: AWS Bedrock, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google Vertex AI and Microsoft Azure Foundry. They span Clio Manage, Grow, Draft, Work, Vincent AI and Clio Operate. The list also names Turbopuffer as the vector database, Braintrust Data for AI analytics, evaluation and testing, and Vapi for the Grow voice agent. So it is clear whose model handles a customer's content, per product, and where. Two gaps. The specific models are never named, only the providers. And the list page carries no commitment to notify customers of changes; the Themis Data Protection Addendum, under which the list is published, may hold one.

The architecture is described in detail, but the providers are never named. The Terms say 8am IQ runs on large language models and describe the pipeline: case documents and data are converted by an embedding process into a vector database, case by case, for retrieval by the model. They also say what the model layer does with the data: the models used for 8am IQ may keep IQ Content for up to thirty days, and that data will not be used to train any model. That is a real statement about what the underlying provider may retain. But no model or provider is identified. Claude appears in the Terms only to be excluded, in a clause saying third party services including Claude are not 8am AI features and are governed by the customer's own agreement with them. No subprocessor list and no commitment to notify customers of changes was found.

The entry tier has a public price and the rest are quoted. Clio's pricing page shows a starting figure of $49 USD per user per month and names four tiers, Starter, Core, Signature and Elite, with features described tier by tier and a bundle saving of over 15%. Above the entry tier, buyers get a custom quote, and large firms a separate process. The Terms show the published figure is not the whole cost. Clause 9.5 lists setup fees, implementation charges and Metered Features fees as separate, nonrefundable items. Clause 9.6 gives buyers of setup or professional services sixty days to start them or lose them. None of those amounts is published. The tier names have changed again, and third party trackers still show the previous set.

A buyer can price this for a whole firm without talking to anyone. All three tiers have published rates at both billing frequencies: Basic $50 annual or $60 monthly, Pro $100 or $120, and Advanced $130 or $150, all in US dollars per user per month, with the annual saving shown for each. The unit is explicit, and the FAQ repeats that the rate depends on the number of active users. A full feature comparison shows what each tier includes, including which AI assistants sit where. Implementation is covered: guided implementation, training and support carry no extra cost, and there is no long term contract and no setup fee. Add-ons are priced too: MyCase Accounting at $39 per user per month and LawPay with no monthly fee. Even AI overage has a rate: $30 for 5,000 more Discovery Assistant pages, against an allowance of 5,000 pages per user per month pooled across the firm. A ten day trial needs no card.

Coverage is wide, with limits drawn by geography rather than function. Sixteen practice areas have their own pages, from bankruptcy and criminal law to intellectual property and real estate. Pages also cover four firm sizes, from solo to enterprise and large firms, and seven roles. In house counsel and government law each have a page. The Terms state real limits, about where rather than what. The Service is scoped to North America, with separate EMEA terms, and Materials are limited to the country tied to the account. Clause 2.16 warns that one code base serves all jurisdictions, so the subscriber must set and check its own settings. Nothing says which practice types the product handles poorly.

Segment and practice coverage are described in substance, and the limits are only partly drawn. Six practice areas have their own pages (criminal defense, family, immigration, bankruptcy, personal injury, and trust and estate) with a further index behind them, and the product is aimed throughout at small and midsized firms. One real limit is stated, and it is jurisdictional: the Terms scope the Platform to legal, accounting and other client based professionals in the United States and Canada, and a separate clause covers use by the US Government. Practice depth shows in features such as conflict check tracking, statute of limitations deadlines, trust balances by case and court rules calendaring. No firm size segments are published, in house and government legal departments are not addressed as buyers, and nothing says which practice types the product handles poorly.