Harvey vs Legora vs CoCounsel Legal: the three way comparison in 2026
Three products, one grid, and the head to head that keeps getting asked three ways. On the fifteen graded axes Harvey and CoCounsel Legal each sit in the top two bands on twelve, Legora on nine, and the honest reading of that gap is that it measures what each vendor is willing to publish rather than what its software can do. Where they part company is more useful than the totals. Harvey documents its integrations and its AI governance to a depth nobody else in the category matches. CoCounsel Legal is the only one that publishes evidence a committee could audit and the only one whose research carries a licensed citator in the output. Legora is the only one that will show you the contract, and the allocation of loss inside it, before anyone has booked a demo. Each of the three has something the other two keep behind a sales conversation, which is why no single score was ever going to settle this and this page does not try. It sets out where they separate, where they agree, and the questions none of them answers in public.
Counted from the live records, not typed. A lead can be an A over two Bs or a C over two Ds; the scoreboard below says which.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure; Practice Systems Integration Depth.
Operational and Outcome Evidence; Commercial Transparency; Firm and Practice Coverage.
AI Liability and Recourse.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice; Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour.
The scoreboard
All fifteen axes, three columns, graded from public sources on the same grid every vendor in the index gets. Hover a grade for what the letter means on that axis. The notes behind each letter are further down, grouped by where the three separate.
Eight readings of the grid, with the records beside each one
Each reading was written against the grades on the verification date and checks that the relationship it describes still holds before it displays. If a record moves, the reading is withheld and the notes stand on their own.
Measured against asserted
This is the axis where the index asks a vendor to show its working, and two of the three brought the workbook. Harvey and CoCounsel Legal both sat the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, an independent benchmark scored against a measured lawyer baseline, and both publish their own evaluation frameworks on top of it, BigLaw Bench and CoCounsel Bench. The figures live on the evaluator's own site, so a buyer can check them without taking anyone's word for anything.
Legora publishes no measurement, no framework and no description of how retrieval works. Third party directories describe a citation verification capability, and the index does not grade directories. Read the gap as a disclosure gap rather than a capability finding. The day Legora publishes a number, the record is corrected and redated, not upgraded as a courtesy.
One more thing separates the two A grades from each other. CoCounsel Legal is the only one of the three whose output carries a licensed citator: KeyCite flags shown beside the authority and used by the research agent to route around questioned or overruled cases. Harvey's A rests on measurement, and whether the authority it returns is checked for subsequent history is not addressed in public material. A measured hallucination rate and a good law check are different questions, and only one of the three answers both.
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.
Independent measurement exists and the vendor's own disclosure is substantial. Harvey Assistant participated in the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, a third party benchmark against a measured lawyer baseline, and was evaluated across six tasks scoring between 65.0 and 94.8 percent, surpassing the lawyer baseline on five of the six, with 94.8 percent on document question answering at 24.7 points above baseline and 77.8 percent on scanned and messily formatted court transcripts at 24.1 points above baseline, all at sub minute response times.
Those figures sit on the evaluator's own site and are checkable without reference to any vendor claim. The vendor's own disclosure: BigLaw Bench with task categories and grading rubrics on a public repository, measured hallucination rates and source scores by model, a hallucination defined as a factual claim disprovable against a source of truth with reasoning errors tracked separately, and output linking to the specific document passages supporting each assertion.
The citator and refusal questions are measured by their own signal rows on this record rather than counted again here, consistent with how the legal research vendors on this index are graded. Two limits recorded rather than deducted for: the February 2025 study measured task accuracy rather than citation validity or hallucination rate specifically, and this vendor did not participate in the later Vals study that measured citation authoritativeness. The full BigLaw Bench dataset also sits behind a direct request rather than open publication.
Grounding is claimed in vendor material, which describes reliable and verifiable answers and cells linked to their source. Searched the vendor site, blog, newsroom and trust center on 29 Aug 2026 and located no published accuracy measurement, no evaluation framework, no hallucination rate and no description of the retrieval method. Third party directories describe a citation verification capability, which is not vendor material and does not move this axis.
Grounding is described rather than asserted: the research agent identifies key legal concepts, selects Westlaw tools including KeyCite, the Key Number System and annotated statutes, runs multiple search cycles and synthesises a structured result. Output grounds to primary authority the reader can open, with inline citations, a Sources tab carrying direct links and highlighted excerpts, and KeyCite validity flags shown with the authority.
A citation level verification feature, Deep Research Verify, is published, prompting guardrails restrict output to human validated content rather than the open internet, and all of it sits under a named published framework. Measurement is independent. CoCounsel participated in the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, a third party benchmark against a measured lawyer baseline, and scored between 73.2 and 89.6 percent across four tasks, each exceeding the lawyer baseline by more than 10 points, with a 79.5 percent average that was the highest of any participating vendor and a top score of 77.2 percent on document summarisation.
Those figures sit on the evaluator's own site and the vendor also publishes them on its legal blog, so a buyer can reach them from either direction. The vendor separately publishes CoCounsel Bench, its own evaluation framework, under which experienced attorneys reviewed performance across 50 complex tasks each estimated at six lawyer hours, reporting that the product produced a stronger response than the expert written reference answer on nearly 40 percent of them.
Two limits recorded rather than deducted for: the February 2025 study measured task accuracy such as document question answering and summarisation rather than citation validity or hallucination rate specifically, and this vendor did not participate in the later Vals study that measured citation authoritativeness.
Who plugs into what, and who wrote it down
Integration is the part of a legal AI purchase where announcements are most often mistaken for documentation. All three name iManage. Only Harvey documents each connection at the level an administrator needs, what it moves, in which direction, what has to be configured and what it does not support, and its iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration rather than middleware.
CoCounsel Legal has a wide surface, including its parent's HighQ and Legal Tracker, Icertis for contracts and an MCP connection that lets a lawyer reach it from a separate AI client, which is a forward looking piece of plumbing. Legora has a real iManage partnership working through iManage APIs and a Word add in for drafting and redlining. Neither publishes implementer level detail, so both sit one band down.
The detail that should decide it for a firm with walls: Harvey is the only one of the three whose public material says retrieval respects the permissions a firm already runs, following existing NetDocuments permissions and honouring iManage ethical walls, with admin documentation for syncing the firm's own walls provider. Legora and CoCounsel Legal both name the same document systems, and neither addresses in public whether a user can retrieve a document they could not otherwise open.
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.
HarveyDocumented native integrations with iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and OneDrive, Google Drive, Box, Microsoft Word, Outlook, EDGAR and PitchBook, plus an MCP connector library. Help center articles describe what each integration moves, in which direction, what an admin must configure, and what a given integration does not support. The iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration with an embedded web extension rather than third party middleware.
LegoraReal and named integrations: an iManage technology partnership working through iManage APIs with an announced expansion, SharePoint, Box, a Microsoft Word add in for drafting and redlining, Outlook, EDGAR, and import from virtual data rooms and contract lifecycle systems. The vendor is explicit that it integrates with document management systems rather than replacing them. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: implementer level documentation describing what each integration moves, in which direction, and what an administrator must configure, which is what the A bar asks for.
CoCounsel LegalReal and documented integrations, short of implementer level depth. Named connections span document management with iManage, NetDocuments and SharePoint, Microsoft 365, the parent's own HighQ collaboration platform and Legal Tracker, contract lifecycle through Icertis, plus DeepJudge, Supio and Smokeball, and a Word add in carrying a personal clause library. An MCP integration lets a lawyer reach the product from a separate AI client without switching platforms, which is a genuinely forward integration surface.
Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: documentation describing what each integration moves, in which direction, and what an administrator must configure.
What it costs, and who pays when it is wrong
Three products, zero published prices. The index would call that a finding if it were not also the industry standard. What separates them is the shape of the silence. CoCounsel Legal publishes its tier structure from the main navigation, Essentials through Legal with segment variants, and third parties report a configurator that returns a figure for firms up to ten attorneys before routing larger firms to sales. That configurator's subdomain blocks automated access, so no vendor published number is recorded and the grade is rebuttable in either direction with one screenshot. Harvey and Legora publish no page, no rate, no unit and no tier.
On liability the order reverses. Legora is the only one of the three that publishes its allocation of loss: general terms in EU and US versions with numbered liability clauses, aggregate caps that apply across the subscriber and its affiliates, and a separate cap of 100,000 Euro on beta features. A buyer can read who bears the loss before a sales process begins. On the Harvey and CoCounsel Legal records the index located no published indemnity scope, liability cap, warranty on output or insurance position at all. CoCounsel publishes a named responsible AI framework that speaks to accountability as a design principle, and a fiduciary framing with no published liability position is exactly the shape this axis exists to record.
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.
HarveyChecked the vendor home page, the platform and product pages, the help center and the trust center on 29 Aug 2026. No pricing page, no published rate, no stated unit of charge and no published tier structure located. Access to pricing runs through a demo request, which is sales gated and earns no credit. Third party per seat estimates exist in trade coverage but are not vendor published and do not move this axis.
LegoraSearched the vendor home page, product pages, newsroom and legal pages on 29 Aug 2026. No pricing page, no published rate, no stated unit of charge and no published tier structure located. The only commercial entry point is a demo request, which is sales gated and earns no credit. Several independent third party pricing analyses state the same, and one reports a consumption based tier that was not located on the vendor site.
Third party per seat estimates are not vendor published and do not move this axis. Note that the vendor does publish its general terms openly, which is transparency of terms rather than of price and is graded on the liability axis instead.
CoCounsel LegalThe shape is visible and the number is not. Tier names and feature splits are published and reachable from the main navigation: CoCounsel Essentials, Westlaw Advantage with CoCounsel Essentials, Practical Law Dynamic Tool Set with CoCounsel Essentials, and CoCounsel Legal, each with its own plans and pricing page and segment specific variants for law firms, corporations and government. Third party analyses report that the pages run a configurator returning a figure for firms up to ten attorneys and route larger firms to a sales quote.
The configurator could not be verified directly on 29 Aug 2026 because that subdomain blocks automated access, so no vendor published figure is recorded here and this grade rests on the tier structure being public while the number was not confirmed. The unit of charge is per user per month by third party report rather than vendor statement. Rebuttable in either direction with one screenshot of the configurator.
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.
HarveyChecked the vendor site, its published legal pages including the security addendum and the subprocessor FAQ, and the trust center on 29 Aug 2026. No published indemnity scope, liability cap, carve out, warranty or insurance position located. Commercial terms appear to be reached through a negotiated enterprise agreement rather than published.
LegoraA real published position, which is uncommon here. General terms and conditions are published openly in EU and US versions and carry numbered liability clauses, aggregate caps that apply across the subscriber and its affiliates, a separate cap of 100,000 Euro on beta features, and a carve out concept the terms call an Enhanced Claim. A buyer can read the allocation of loss before entering a sales process. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: indemnity scope for third party claims arising from output, any warranty on output, and any insurance position, so the full picture is short of an A.
CoCounsel LegalSearched the product page, the AI hub, the trust center, the corporate terms of use and the segment plans pages on 29 Aug 2026. No published indemnity scope, liability cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position was located for this product. Commercial terms are reached through a negotiated subscription agreement. The Fiduciary-Grade AI framework speaks to accountability as a design principle rather than to who bears the loss when output is wrong, and a fiduciary framing without a published liability position is exactly the shape this axis exists to record.
Proof it worked somewhere
Every vendor in this market has customer logos. The question the index asks is whether anyone could check the claim behind them. CoCounsel Legal is the only one of the three that publishes named customers with figures and an assessable method: Justly Prudent reporting five times return on investment and a doubling of litigation capacity, Brinks on outside counsel spend, and a commissioned Forrester Total Economic Impact study dated 2026 whose commissioned status is disclosed on the page. Aggregate figures arrive with the population stated.
Harvey states 700 plus customers across 58 plus countries and publishes attributed quotes, including Blank Rome on the iManage integration and a Burges Salmon selection story. Legora states more than 1,000 customers across 50 plus markets and a Grant Thornton UK forensic investigations story. Both are real evidence and both stop short of a dated outcome figure with a method a reader could assess, which is the whole difference between a B and an A here. Treat every customer count on this page as vendor stated; these three compete for the same accounts.
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.
HarveyNamed customers appear in vendor material with attributed quotes, including Blank Rome on the iManage integration and a published Burges Salmon selection story. Vendor states 700 plus customers across 58 plus countries. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: dated outcome figures with a stated method a reader could assess, which is what separates this from an A.
LegoraNamed customers appear in vendor material, including a published Grant Thornton UK forensic investigations story, and the vendor states more than 1,000 customers across 50 plus markets. Additional named users including Cleary Gottlieb, Goodwin, Linklaters, White and Case, Dentons and Barclays appear in vendor recruiting material. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: dated outcome figures with a method a reader could assess, which is what separates this from an A.
CoCounsel LegalNamed customers, dated, with figures and an assessable method. The vendor publishes individual case studies naming Justly Prudent, reporting five times return on investment and a doubling of litigation capacity, and Brinks on reducing outside counsel spend, alongside a commissioned Forrester Total Economic Impact study dated 2026, which is a published methodology an outside reader can assess and whose commissioned status is disclosed on the page.
Also publishes aggregate figures with the population stated, including 2,700 corporate customers using the CoCounsel family and a 61 percent reduction in time to draft correspondence. Deeper than anything else on the index so far on this axis.
The paperwork, and whether you can download it
If your security team scores vendors by what it can actually pull, this section decides the shortlist. Harvey holds ISO 42001 with a published Statement of Applicability, AIUC-1 certification conducted by a named accredited body and described as validating adversarial testing, EU AI Act conformity listed separately, and a trust portal where the reports sit behind a self serve request rather than a sales call. It is the strongest AI governance position on the index, not only in this triangle.
Legora also holds ISO 42001, alongside ISO 27001 audited yearly and SOC 2 Type II, and it does the one thing the other two do not: it publishes its security measures annex openly, no gate, no form. What it does not do is name the auditor. CoCounsel Legal states SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 as maintained, but at parent company level rather than scoped to the product, with no attestation report, coverage period, audit scope or named auditor located and no route to request them without a sales conversation. Certified is not the same as checkable, and the grid grades checkable.
What none of the three publishes on this axis, so ask all three: any disclosure about uneven output across matter types, parties or populations, and a named individual who owns model governance. Bias, in other words, is certified around rather than tested for.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
HarveyPublished on the trust centre, publicly and without a request: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification, the international standard for AI management systems, accompanied by a published Statement of Applicability, which is the document identifying which controls apply and why and is therefore a published scope rather than a bare badge. Alongside it, AIUC-1 certification, an AI specific assurance standard, conducted by Schellman, which the vendor states is the first accredited AIUC-1 certification body, and which the vendor describes as validating adversarial testing and its AI security programme specifically.
EU AI Act conformity is separately listed. The trust centre carries a dedicated AI section with AI Governance, AI Monitoring and AI Overview items, and an AI Acceptable Use Policy sits in the published policy set. ISO 27701 for privacy information management and an IRAP attestation are also held. Two independent AI specific certifications, one of them adversarially tested, with published statements of applicability and a named accredited certifier, is the strongest AI governance position on this index, ahead of the other A grades on this axis, each of which rests on ISO 42001 alone or on a single certification plus a framework document.
One gap remains and is recorded rather than waived: no disclosure was located as of 29 Aug 2026 about uneven output across matter types, parties or populations, so bias specifically is still unaddressed, and no named individual owner of model governance was located.
LegoraHolds an ISO 42001 certification covering its AI management system, independently audited with ongoing surveillance, and publishes what the certification covers: how AI is designed, deployed, supervised and monitored, with human oversight and structured governance named as the operating principles. That is a published governance framework with real substance and independent validation, which is rare in this market. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a named internal owner of AI governance, published pre release testing results for model behaviour, or any disclosure about uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.
CoCounsel LegalA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner. The vendor publishes a named standard it calls Fiduciary-Grade AI with a buying framework attached, describes a dedicated research organisation of more than 1,000 specialists, states a figure for annual responsible AI investment, and answers a direct published question on bias: prompting guardrails restrict output to a clearly defined and limited set of human validated content rather than the open internet.
That is a stated mechanism, not a principles page. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a named internal owner of model governance, published pre release testing results, or any disclosure of uneven output across matter types, parties or populations. The bias answer describes a content restriction rather than testing for disparate output.
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.
HarveySOC 2 Type II attestation and ISO 27001 certification with the auditor named as Schellman, renewed annually, and the 2026 cycle announced publicly. Penetration testing and red teaming partners are named as NCC Group and Bishop Fox. Certified under the EU US Data Privacy Framework. A live trust portal at trust.harvey.ai carries the current reports. Reports sit behind a portal request rather than an open download, which is a request flow rather than a sales call.
LegoraThree current independent certifications, ISO 27001:2022 audited yearly, SOC 2 Type II, and ISO 42001 for AI management, with a public trust center at security.legora.com carrying a resources section and a data flow diagram, plus security whitepapers and a security measures annex published openly with no gate at all. The open publication of the security annex is full credit rather than a request flow. The certifying auditor is not named in located material, which is the one thing a peer in this category does publish.
CoCounsel LegalCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence. SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 are stated as maintained, ISO 42001 is referenced for the AI management system, FedRAMP In Process status is published for Westlaw and Practical Law with authorization stated as an investment goal for this product, and a corporate trust center publishes the information security management framework. What is missing is what a reader can actually pull: no attestation report, no coverage period, no audit scope, and no named auditor was located as of 29 Aug 2026, and no route to request the reports without a sales conversation was located either.
Certifications are also stated at the parent company level rather than scoped to this product, which is the distinction a buyer's security team asks about.
Where the AI stops, or does not
All three will tell you a lawyer is in the loop. None of the three will tell you where the loop is. Harvey documents the review surfaces: inline links from assertions to source passages, role based permissions, conditionals in the workflow builder and admin level governance. CoCounsel Legal, rebuilt as an agentic experience in August 2026 on Anthropic's Claude Agent SDK, shows its plan before it executes and returns work product with citations the reader can open. Legora states human oversight as a governing principle and covers it in the abstract through its ISO 42001 certification without describing the mechanism, which is why it sits a band lower.
The shared gap is the one that matters most as these products become agents. Not one of the three publishes the threshold at which an agent stops and hands the matter back to a lawyer, what the vendor commits to when an agent is wrong, or what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. A product that always answers is not the same as a product that knows when not to, and nothing any of the three has published tells you which one you are buying.
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.
HarveyStates in published material that the product is designed to assist lawyers rather than replace them and that it is built to make verification easy. Review surfaces are real and documented: inline links to source passages, role based permissions and conditionals in the workflow builder, and admin level workspace governance. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: the threshold at which an agent stops and hands back to a lawyer, or what the vendor commits to when an agent is wrong.
LegoraHuman oversight is asserted as a governing principle in vendor material and is covered in the abstract by an ISO 42001 certification of the AI management system. What is not published is the mechanism: where the review point sits, what an agentic workflow does on its own, at what threshold it stops, and what a supervising lawyer must approve. Searched the vendor site, blog and trust center on 29 Aug 2026. Oversight appears as a stated principle rather than a described control.
CoCounsel LegalA real published commitment with documented review surfaces, short of the full control structure. The vendor states that its AI is built with human oversight at its core, publishes a Fiduciary-Grade AI framework built around transparency and accountability, and the product is described as showing its plan before executing: it interprets a request, builds a matter specific plan, and returns work product with traceable citations the reader can open and check.
Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: the threshold at which an agent stops and returns to a lawyer, and what the vendor commits to when an agent is wrong. The August 2026 shift from structured skills to a fully agentic experience makes the missing threshold more material than it would have been a year ago.
Who it is for, where it runs, and what sits underneath
CoCounsel Legal is the only record on the entire index that separately addresses firms under ten attorneys, firms over ten, corporations, government including courts, prosecutors and public defenders, and academic use across more than 200 law schools, with a tier table showing exactly where each plan's content stops. Harvey describes large law first and expands from there. Legora describes large firms, in house teams and cross border work as a strength. Neither states the boundaries, meaning which firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for, and that is what the A asks for.
On deployment, Harvey states processing in the EU and Switzerland or Australia for customers who need it and says the same applies to its subprocessors. CoCounsel Legal publishes residency controls, a country by country rollout and FedRAMP In Process status for the Westlaw and Practical Law layer beneath it. Legora states flexible storage options and publishes no region list, tenancy model or processing location.
The model question, which the index tracks as a prompt of its own because buyers keep asking it, splits the same way. Harvey names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Cloud, AWS and Microsoft in a published subprocessor list with a diagram of model access through Bedrock and Vertex AI. CoCounsel Legal names Anthropic's Claude Agent SDK as the architecture of the current release and OpenAI and Google as partners in a published FAQ, without saying which model serves which task. Legora names nobody. None of the three commits in public to telling customers before the supply chain changes, and one of them re platformed within the past year, so that is not a hypothetical.
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.
HarveyDescribes its segments with substance: large law firms first, expanding into corporate legal departments and professional services, with 700 plus customers across 58 plus countries and practice coverage spanning litigation, transactional diligence, regulatory and tax. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a statement of the boundaries, meaning which firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for, which is what the A bar asks for.
LegoraSegment coverage is described with substance: large law firms, in house legal departments, and professional services including a published forensic investigations customer story, spanning more than 1,000 customers across 50 plus markets with multi jurisdiction and cross border work as a stated strength. Practice coverage spans review and diligence, research, drafting and investigations. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: any statement of the boundaries, meaning which firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for.
CoCounsel LegalWho the product serves is documented precisely, across more segments than any other record on this index. Published navigation splits law firms under ten attorneys from firms over ten attorneys, and separately addresses corporations, government including courts, prosecutors, public defenders, city attorneys and law enforcement, and academic use across more than 200 law schools. Practice area coverage is enumerated with its own pages spanning business and commercial, civil litigation, criminal defense, family, labor and employment, mergers and acquisitions and personal injury.
The limits are stated structurally rather than in prose: the tier table shows exactly which content each plan reaches, so a buyer can see where coverage stops.
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.
HarveyStates processing in the EU and Switzerland or Australia for customers with data localization requirements, and states that this applies to subprocessors as well. Tenancy is multi tenant with logical workspace separation and enforced role based access. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: where data is stored as distinct from where it is processed, and what changes between tiers.
LegoraThe claim is made and the detail is not published. Vendor material states flexible storage options matched to data sensitivity, and separate EU and US contract documents indicate region specific arrangements, with the technical team in Sweden operating under GDPR. Searched the vendor site, the security pages and the published legal documents on 29 Aug 2026 and located no list of available regions, no tenancy model, and no statement of where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.
CoCounsel LegalDeployment is stated clearly with partial residency detail. The vendor publishes data residency controls that keep information within required geographic boundaries, operates a rollout sequenced by country across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, and holds FedRAMP In Process status for the underlying Westlaw and Practical Law products with stated investment toward authorization for this one.
Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: the list of available regions, the tenancy model, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.
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.
HarveyPublishes a subprocessor list naming model and infrastructure providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Cloud, AWS and Microsoft, alongside a subprocessor update FAQ and a security diagram showing model access through Bedrock and Vertex AI. States zero data retention and ephemeral processing at the model providers. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a published commitment to notify customers before the model supply chain changes, as distinct from an FAQ describing a change that has already happened.
LegoraVendor material refers to how it implements, supervises and evolves AI without identifying what sits underneath. Searched the vendor site, the trust center, the published general terms, the data processing agreement and the security measures annex on 29 Aug 2026 and located no named model provider, no subprocessor list and no commitment to notify customers when the supply chain changes. Third party sources describe a multi model approach running on Microsoft Azure, which is not vendor material and does not move this axis.
CoCounsel LegalThe supply chain is partly disclosed and the disclosure is unusually specific. The vendor names Anthropic's Claude Agent SDK as the architecture of the current release, names OpenAI and Google as third party AI partners in a published FAQ, and states the contractual position imposed on them. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: which model serves which task, where the models run, a maintained subprocessor list for this product, and any commitment to notify customers before the model supply chain changes.
That last gap is material here because the product was re architected onto a different vendor's agent framework within the past year.
Where the three agree, and why that is not the same as settled
Four axes read identically across the three, and identical is not the same as settled. All three take an A on AI Centrality because the models are the product: remove them and CoCounsel Legal reverts to Westlaw and Practical Law, which its parent sells separately, and the other two revert to nothing. All three take a B on privilege and confidentiality, held off an A by the same two gaps: none addresses attorney client privilege or work product handling directly in public material, and matter level segregation is either undocumented or, in Harvey's case, delegated to the firm's own document system walls.
All three take a B on data stewardship, each one artifact short. Harvey has no published incident notification practice, Legora no current named subprocessor list, CoCounsel Legal neither a list for this product nor a stated breach practice. And all three take a C on professional responsibility, the axis a lawyer might expect these vendors to care about most. Each sells squarely to licensed professionals and each says the product assists lawyers rather than replacing them. None publishes a position on the advice line, on competence and supervision duties, or on jurisdiction limits. Three vendors, one sentence between them.
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.
HarveyThe models are the product. Assistant, Vault, Knowledge and Workflow Agents are all generative systems, and there is no underlying document or workflow system that would stand without them. Vendor material describes every module in model terms.
LegoraThe models are the product. The workspace is AI native rather than a document system with a model attached, and every surface the vendor sells, review, drafting, research and workflows, is a generative capability. Remove the models and nothing remains to sell.
CoCounsel LegalThe artificial intelligence is the product. CoCounsel Legal exists only as a generative and agentic layer, rebuilt in 2026 on an agent framework so it plans, reasons and executes multi step legal work. Remove the models and there is no product, only the underlying Westlaw and Practical Law content, which the parent sells separately as its own products.
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.
HarveySubstantive published commitments: no training on customer data by default, a contractual prohibition on model providers training, zero data retention enforced on model providers, logical workspace separation, role based access, ethical wall sync with the firm's own walls provider, and processing in the EU, Switzerland or Australia. Two gaps keep this off an A. The security page defines customer data as uploaded documents and customer content as queries and responses as separate contractual terms, so the no training commitment reads plainly on one and not on both.
Attorney client privilege and work product handling is not addressed directly in located public material as of 29 Aug 2026.
LegoraSubstantive published commitments, and unusually for this market they sit in openly published contract documents rather than only on a trust page: general terms and conditions in EU and US versions, a data processing agreement, and a security measures annex covering least privilege access, personnel confidentiality obligations, authorization controls and retention on customer instruction. The security page states the vendor will not use customer data to train or fine tune models.
Two gaps hold this off an A. Attorney client privilege and work product handling is not addressed directly in located material, and matter level segregation between users is not documented.
CoCounsel LegalSubstantive published commitments, and unusually the answer is given directly in a published FAQ rather than implied. The vendor states plainly that customer content and prompts are not used to train or improve the product or the underlying models, that third party model partners including OpenAI and Google are contractually prohibited from training on customer data, and that systemic controls turn off those third parties' abuse monitoring so there is no human access to customer data.
Also publishes a zero retention API architecture and data residency controls. Two gaps hold this off an A. Attorney client privilege and work product handling is not addressed directly in located material. Matter level segregation is not documented on the vendor's own pages, although the product is matter centric by design.
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.
HarveyPublishes retention under customer control with documented vault retention triggers and deletion timelines, role based access control, logical workspace separation, encryption in transit and at rest, and a current named subprocessor list with an update FAQ. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a published incident and breach notification practice, which is the remaining element of the A bar.
LegoraThe published security measures annex covers access on a least privilege and role based model, centrally stored logs traceable to unique usernames with security logs retained at least 12 months, data integrity signing, personnel background checks and confidentiality agreements, and retention set by customer instruction. The published data processing agreement commits the vendor to assist with the customer's own breach notification obligations, so incident practice is addressed.
ISO 27001:2022 is audited yearly. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a current named subprocessor list, which is the remaining element of the A bar.
CoCounsel LegalSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground. SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 maintained, ISO 42001 certification referenced for the AI management system, a zero retention API architecture published, data residency controls, 24 hour security monitoring and threat detection, corporate identity management integration, and a corporate trust center carrying the information security framework. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a current named subprocessor list for this product, and a stated incident and breach notification practice.
The two named model partners are disclosed in the AI FAQ rather than in a maintained subprocessor list, which is the remaining element of the A bar.
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.
HarveyOne sentence in a security blog post states the product is designed to assist lawyers rather than replace them. Checked the vendor site, security page, security addendum and help center on 29 Aug 2026 and did not locate a published position on the advice line, on competence and supervision duties, or on jurisdiction limits. The intended audience is unambiguously lawyers and legal departments, which is why this sits at C rather than lower.
LegoraThe intended audience is unambiguously lawyers, firms and in house teams, and vendor material describes the product as working with lawyers rather than replacing them. Searched the vendor site, the published acceptable use policy, the general terms and the blog on 29 Aug 2026 and located no published position on the advice line, no treatment of competence and supervision duties, and no statement of jurisdiction limits.
CoCounsel LegalThe claim is made and the documentation is not published. The product is sold squarely to licensed professionals, is distributed to more than 200 law schools and 120,000 law students, and the vendor's framing is that the system works at the level of a senior associate under professional supervision. Searched the product page, the AI hub, the trust center and the legal blog on 29 Aug 2026 and located no published position on the advice line, no treatment of competence and supervision duties, and no statement of jurisdiction limits.
The senior associate framing is a capability claim rather than a professional responsibility position, and for a product marketed to students it is the place a position would matter most.
The twelve legal signals, three columns
The signals are recorded rather than graded, because "does this vendor train on my client's data" has an answer, not a letter. Read across three columns they sort into three piles: the ones where the three say the same thing, the ones where one of them says something the other two do not, and the ones where all three say nothing.
All three state in policy that they never train on customer content, and none of the three has that commitment located in a published agreement; Legora publishes its terms openly and the prohibition was searched for there and not located. All three let the customer set the retention window, and none publishes a default period or a zero option for its own storage, so you can set the window without knowing what it is until you do. All three publish time savings and none publishes a word on how that time should appear on a bill, which the index reads as the whole market’s blind spot rather than theirs.
Only Harvey addresses ethical walls in public, by inheriting the permissions of the document system it connects to. Only CoCounsel Legal shows a licensed citator with the authority it returns. On outside counsel readiness Harvey carries the most complete pack on the index, CAIQ and SIG questionnaires, data flow and network diagrams and the statements of applicability behind each certification, available without a request; CoCounsel Legal names its model providers in a FAQ; Legora publishes its terms openly but routes document access through a request. Harvey and CoCounsel Legal each publish parts of a court disclosure record, audit logs and source links on one side, research logs with KeyCite flags on the other, and neither exports model, sources and human verification together; Legora publishes nothing located. The corpus question gets three different shapes of answer: Harvey names LexisNexis inside a subprocessor list, CoCounsel Legal owns Westlaw and Practical Law outright with more than 1,200 attorney editors, and Legora names twelve jurisdictions and the Qura acquisition. None states a licence basis or an update cadence.
None of the three says what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. None of the three says what happens when a government or a litigant asks it for your data, and none publishes a transparency report. None of the three engages a named ethics opinion, not ABA Formal Opinion 512 and not a state bar; two make a general reference to professional standards and one makes none. For products sold only to lawyers, that is a quieter room than you would expect.
One court record touches the three, and it is on the page because the record exists, not because the index concludes anything from it. In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions the Fifth Circuit sanctioned appellate counsel in February 2026 over fabricated quotations in a brief; the products counsel identified as the possible source were named by the court as Casetext and vLex, and Casetext is the brand CoCounsel Legal descends from. The court's findings were about counsel's conduct, failure to verify and evasive responses to the show cause order, and it made no finding about either product's own output. No record naming Harvey or Legora was located in the tracker searched.
What happens to client material once it enters the product, and what the vendor has committed to in writing.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Read the three records
The vendor security page states that by default it never trains on customer data and that it contractually prohibits model providers from training on customer data. A subprocessor FAQ states customer data is never used to train models unless explicitly authorized by both the customer and the vendor. The same page defines customer data as uploaded documents and customer content as queries and responses as separate contractual terms. No matching term was located in a published agreement as of 29 Aug 2026.
The vendor home page and security page both state that customer data is not used to train or fine tune any AI models. The vendor publishes its general terms and conditions and its data processing agreement openly, and a training prohibition was searched for in those documents on 29 Aug 2026 and not located, so the commitment as recorded rests on the security and marketing pages rather than on a located contract term. The full agreement text was not read end to end.
A published FAQ answers the question directly and in the negative, stating that user content and prompts are not used to train or improve the product or the underlying models, and that third party AI partners including OpenAI and Google are contractually prohibited from using customer data to train their models. The vendor also states it has established controls to turn off those third parties' abuse monitoring so there is no human access to customer data.
The commitment as located sits on a public FAQ and trust page. No matching term was located in a published customer agreement as of 29 Aug 2026, and the subscription agreement is not published.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Read the three records
The security page states that customers determine what data to upload, how long it is retained, and whether it can be shared internally, and help centre documentation covers configuring vault retention settings including triggers and deletion timelines. That is retention configured by the customer inside the product, which is the strongest form of the control this value describes. Recorded at customer controlled rather than the top value because no zero retention setting for the vendor's own storage was confirmed in public material as of 29 Aug 2026, and no default period is published, so a customer knows they can set the window without knowing what it is before they do. Zero data retention is stated separately as a requirement imposed on model providers, which is a different layer.
Section 17 of the published security measures annex, dated 31 Jan 2025, states that during the term of the data processing agreement personal data is subject to the retention requirements the subscriber instructs from time to time, and that after termination or expiry clause 11 of that agreement governs. Retention is therefore customer instructed and the commitment sits in a contract document rather than a policy page, which is the contractual form of control this value describes and is enforceable in a way a policy page is not.
Recorded at customer controlled rather than the top value because no retention period is published and no zero retention setting was located as of 29 Aug 2026. Also on the same document and worth factoring in as a retention floor: subscriber environments are logically separated at all times, and full production backups are taken every four hours.
The vendor publishes a direct answer in a product FAQ: retention of user content and prompts is customised to the customer, set at the organisation account level with the support of a client manager, and the vendor deletes in accordance with the customer's own retention policy. Users can additionally delete their content and prompts in the product at any time. That is real customer control over the window. Two qualifications keep it below the top value and are worth a buyer's attention: no retention period is published, so the window is whatever the customer negotiates rather than something disclosed in advance, and setting it runs through a client manager rather than an administrator control the customer operates alone.
The separately published zero retention statement covers the model provider API layer rather than the product's own storage.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Read the three records
Help center documentation states the product follows existing NetDocuments permissions, that a user sees only the cabinets, matters, folders and files they can already access, and that the product does not expand or modify permissions. The iManage integration is documented as a direct OAuth connection that respects iManage permissions and ethical walls. Separate admin documentation covers connecting, syncing and monitoring the firm's own ethical walls provider.
Searched the vendor site, the iManage partnership announcement, the security page, the published security measures annex and the trust center on 29 Aug 2026. No vendor material was located addressing whether retrieval enforces document management system permissions at query time per user, or how ethical walls and matter level segregation are handled. The security annex documents least privilege access for vendor personnel, which is a different question. A partner case study describes per query authentication, which is not vendor material.
Searched the product page, the AI hub, the corporate trust center, the legal blog and the published integration announcements on 29 Aug 2026. Integrations with iManage, NetDocuments and SharePoint are named, and corporate identity management integration is stated, but no vendor material was located addressing whether retrieval enforces source system permissions at query time per user, or how ethical walls and matter level segregation are handled.
A third party review refers to granular roles and ethical walls, which is not vendor material and was not treated as evidence.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Read the three records
Checked the security page, the published security addendum and the subprocessor update FAQ on 29 Aug 2026. No located term or policy addresses government or law enforcement requests for customer data, and no transparency report was located.
Searched the published EU and US general terms and conditions, the data processing agreement, the security measures annex and the acceptable use policy on 29 Aug 2026. No clause addressing government or law enforcement requests for customer data was located, and no transparency report was located. This records a search that did not surface the clause rather than a reading of the full agreements end to end.
Searched the product page, the AI hub, the corporate trust center and the corporate terms of use on 29 Aug 2026. No clause addressing government or law enforcement requests for customer data was located for this product, and no transparency report was located. Noted for a future reader: a commitment to inform the customer of third party data access requests, audited under ISO 27701, was located on the trust center for a different Thomson Reuters product line, ONESOURCE Pagero. It was not treated as covering this product and does not support a value here.
Where the law comes from, whether it is still good law, and what the product does when it does not know.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Read the three records
The published subprocessor material identifies RELX and LexisNexis as a source provider behind an Ask LexisNexis feature, alongside web search providers, and product material refers to premium legal databases and curated public sources. The identification appears in the subprocessor list rather than a coverage page. No licence or rights basis, jurisdiction list or update cadence for the primary law corpus was located as of 29 Aug 2026.
Research coverage is described by jurisdiction, reported at twelve, and the vendor announced the acquisition of Qura, a Stockholm legal database covering case law, legislation and regulation, which it is extending to larger markets. What is not identified is the corpus itself: which publishers or public sources the law comes from, the licence or public domain basis for each, and the update lag. Searched the vendor site, newsroom and product pages on 29 Aug 2026.
The corpus is named consistently and prominently: output is grounded in Westlaw and Practical Law, both proprietary databases the vendor owns and sells separately, maintained by attorney editors, with the editorial population stated at more than 1,200 full time attorney editors. Vendor material is explicit that the system draws on this content rather than scraping the public internet. The rights basis is ownership rather than a stated licence, and no update cadence or lag for the underlying corpus was located as of 29 Aug 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Read the three records
Checked product pages for the research module, the help center and the subprocessor material on 29 Aug 2026. A LexisNexis sourced research feature is documented, but no public material was located addressing whether authority returned by the product carries a treatment signal or is checked for subsequent history.
Searched the vendor site, product pages, newsroom and blog on 29 Aug 2026. No vendor material was located addressing whether authority returned by the product carries a treatment signal, whether subsequent history is checked, or whether any commercial citator is licensed. A third party directory describes a citation verification capability, which is not vendor material and was not treated as evidence.
Treatment signals come from KeyCite, the vendor's own named commercial citation service, and appear with the authority. Vendor engineering material states that reports carry inline citations, KeyCite flags and excerpts, and that the research agent uses KeyCite warnings to flag questioned or overruled cases and adjusts its strategy accordingly. Separate vendor material describes the system recognising red and yellow validity flags and factoring them into its analysis rather than only displaying them. First value on this signal in the index that rests on a licensed commercial citator.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Read the three records
The vendor publishes measured hallucination rates and describes how hallucinated claims are detected and scored. Checked that research material, the product pages and the help center on 29 Aug 2026 and did not locate published material describing an explicit no answer or abstention path when the product cannot ground an answer.
Searched the vendor site, blog, newsroom and trust center on 29 Aug 2026. No published material was located describing what the product does when it cannot ground an answer, whether an explicit no answer path exists, or whether any confidence or grounding signal is exposed to the user.
Searched the product page, the AI hub, the legal blog, the engineering blog and the trust center on 29 Aug 2026. Vendor material describes transparent research logs, step by step reasoning, an audit trail and prompting guardrails that restrict output to a defined set of validated content. None of that states what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. No explicit no answer or abstention path was located, and no confidence or grounding score exposed to the user was located either.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Read the three records
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of 29 Aug 2026. Instrument searched: the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which tracks court decisions worldwide involving AI generated hallucinated content and records the AI tool implicated where it is known. Also checked published sanctions summaries from Norton Rose Fulbright covering 2026 and two vendor maintained trackers.
The entries located name filers, and in some rows other products, rather than this one. This is a statement about the public record on the date shown and not a clearance, and it is bounded by what that database covers.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of 29 Aug 2026. Instrument searched: the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which tracks court decisions worldwide involving AI generated hallucinated content and records the AI tool implicated where it is known. Also checked published 2026 sanctions summaries and secondary sanctions trackers. The entries located name filers, and in some rows other products, rather than this one.
This is a statement about the public record on the date shown and not a clearance, and it is bounded by what that database covers.
A court record exists in which a predecessor brand of this product is mentioned. In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 25-20086, the Fifth Circuit sanctioned appellate counsel $2,500 on 18 Feb 2026 after a reply brief was found to contain 16 fabricated quotations and 5 further misrepresentations of law or fact. The court's findings address counsel's conduct: failure to verify, and evasive and misleading responses to the show cause order, which the court treated as conduct unbecoming under FRAP 46(c).
The products counsel identified as the possible source were named by the court as Casetext and vLex, described as generative AI products. Casetext is the brand Thomson Reuters acquired in 2023 and no longer sells under its own name; this record is filed here because CoCounsel is the surviving product. The court made no finding about either product's own output. Instrument also searched: the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin.
The obligations that attach to a lawyer rather than to software, and whether the vendor has engaged with them in public.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Read the three records
Published material refers in general terms to aligning with the high standards expected of legal work and to designing the product so that verification is easy. Checked the blog, resource pages and help center on 29 Aug 2026 and did not locate engagement with any named ethics opinion, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 or state bar guidance.
Searched the vendor site, blog, newsroom and resource pages on 29 Aug 2026. No engagement with any named ethics opinion was located, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state or national bar guidance. The vendor publishes substantial governance and certification material, which addresses its own AI management system rather than the professional responsibility obligations its buyers are bound by.
Searched the product page, the AI hub, the legal insights hub, the legal blog and the published Fiduciary-Grade AI material on 29 Aug 2026. The vendor publishes a substantial named framework and a buying guide addressed to professional standards in general terms, and markets a responsible AI position to courts and government. No engagement with any named ethics opinion was located, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state bar guidance.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Read the three records
Vendor material offers impact and return on investment resources framed around what the product does for a firm or business, and the help center documents usage analytics dashboards and reporting APIs. Checked those surfaces on 29 Aug 2026 and did not locate a per matter record of AI assisted work intended for fee purposes, or any published guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment.
Vendor material is framed around speed and volume, describing analysis of thousands of documents in minutes and teams moving faster. Searched the vendor site, blog and legal pages on 29 Aug 2026 and located no per matter record of AI assisted work intended for fee purposes, and no published guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment.
Vendor material leads with time compression and quantifies it: a 61 percent reduction in time to draft correspondence, a customer story reporting a task that took an hour completed in five minutes or less, and a commissioned return on investment study. Searched the product page, the AI hub, the legal blog and the customer stories on 29 Aug 2026 and located no per matter record of AI assisted work intended for fee purposes, and no published guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment. The savings figures are published without anything on the client's side of the equation.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Read the three records
The trust centre's published inventory is the most complete outside counsel readiness pack on this index. Available without a request, as named items: a Data Processing Addendum, a Business Associate Addendum, a Data Subject Requests item, completed self assessment questionnaires in three standard formats being CAIQ v4.0.3, SIG Core and SIG Lite, a Data Flow Diagram, a Network Diagram, a HIPAA report, a report titled Security and Privacy of Customer Data, and a Security Welcome Packet.
A Subprocessors section is published as a standing part of the trust centre. Sensitive documents sit behind a self serve access request with a bulk download option. Compliance items are listed individually and include statements of applicability for ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001, which tell a client's reviewer what each certification actually covers. A firm answering a client AI clause could assemble a complete response from this without a sales conversation.
One limitation recorded honestly: the subprocessors list renders client side and its contents were not retrieved in this pass, so the section's existence is established rather than the identity of the subprocessors in it.
Read against the artifacts this signal turns on, the picture is mixed and the value understates one half of it. Openly published with no gate and forwardable to a client today: general terms and conditions in EU and US versions, a data processing agreement, a security measures annex and an acceptable use policy. Not located as of 29 Aug 2026: a current subprocessor list, any statement of which model providers see client content, and any client facing consent or notification pack. The trust center carries a resources section that routes document access through a request.
A published FAQ names the third party model providers that may process customer content, OpenAI and Google, and states the contractual prohibition imposed on them, which is the substance of a model provider disclosure and is available with no agreement in place. A corporate trust center publishes the information security framework. What was not located as of 29 Aug 2026 is a maintained subprocessor list for this product, and any client facing consent or notification pack a firm could forward to its own client. Recorded at the model provider disclosure level rather than the full pack.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Read the three records
Published material documents audit logs as a default enterprise control, inline links from assertions to the specific source passages behind them, and usage analytics available through a dashboard and APIs. Checked those surfaces on 29 Aug 2026 and did not locate a per document export covering model used, sources retrieved and human verification together.
Searched the vendor site, product pages and published legal documents on 29 Aug 2026. Partner material describes citations being preserved when work is exported to Word, and the security annex documents security logging traceable to unique usernames, which is an infrastructure control rather than a record of AI assisted work. No per document record covering model used, sources retrieved and human verification was located.
Several elements of a disclosure record are available and documented. Vendor material states that each research report includes transparent research logs with verifiable citations and step by step reasoning, that sources are hyperlinked with highlighted excerpts in a dedicated tab, and that KeyCite validity flags appear with the authority, which together evidence what was retrieved and its status. Two elements are missing: the model used is not identified per output, since the vendor states the system is model agnostic across multiple providers, and no per document export covering model, sources and human verification together was located as of 29 Aug 2026.
The questions all three leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favour any of the three. Take these into all three conversations and ask each side the same question.
None. Nothing on the graded grid is dark on all three, which tells you who these three are: the best documented vendors in the category. It does not tell you the grid is clean, which is what the next list is for.
- AI Liability and Recourse · only Legora publishes anything to check
- Commercial Transparency · only CoCounsel Legal publishes anything to check
- Third Party Request and Subpoena NoticeIf someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
- Refusal and Uncertainty BehaviourWhat does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
- Client Data in Training · Never, in policy only
- Prompt and Output Retention · Customer controlled, no zero option
- Billing and Fee Posture · Savings claims only
Which one fits
Three short lists, each resting on a record above. If none of them describes your firm, the grid still does; put the three side by side with a fourth in the builder.
Choose Harvey if
- The tool has to live inside iManage, NetDocuments or SharePoint on day one and honour the walls you already run. Harvey holds the only A on integration depth in the category and is the only one of the three whose public material says retrieval follows the document system's own permissions.
- Your governance review wants the AI itself certified, with the scope published. ISO 42001 with a Statement of Applicability, AIUC-1 with adversarial testing, and EU AI Act conformity listed, all on a trust portal that answers a request without a sales call.
- You are answering a client's outside counsel guidelines this month. Harvey's trust centre inventory, questionnaires, diagrams and statements of applicability, is the most complete pack on the index and can be assembled into a response today.
Choose Legora if
- You want to read the contract and the allocation of loss before the sales call. Legora publishes general terms in EU and US versions with numbered liability clauses and stated caps, a data processing agreement and a security measures annex, none of it behind a gate.
- Your matters run across jurisdictions and the working pattern matters more than the benchmark. Legora is built around a shared surface for the matter team and the AI, with Tabular Review linking every cell back to its source and cross border work stated as a strength.
- You are buying in Europe and want the data protection documentation written for that starting point rather than adapted to it, with an ISO 42001 certified AI management system already in place.
Choose CoCounsel Legal if
- Your research answers need to rest on licensed content with validity flags in the output. Answers ground in Westlaw and Practical Law, KeyCite flags appear beside the authority, and the research agent uses them to steer around questioned or overruled cases.
- You need to show a committee that this worked somewhere. Named case studies with figures and a commissioned Forrester study with a published method are more than either of the other two publishes on outcomes.
- Your buying group is not a large firm. CoCounsel Legal is the only record in the category that separately addresses firms under ten attorneys, corporations, government and academic use, and the only one of the three whose tier structure is public.
The three pairs, one at a time
Each edge of this triangle has its own page with a written verdict and the full records for its two vendors. This page reads the three at once; those read two in depth.
Harvey vs LegoraThis is the most watched head to head in legal AI and the grid does not treat it as a close one. Harvey sits in the top two bands on twelve of fifteen axes, Legora on nine, and the gap is concentrated in exactly the place a buyer should care about: what each vendor is willing to publish. Legora's product story is genuinely distinctive, a shared workspace where the matter team and the AI work in the same place, and it publishes its contract documents openly rather than hiding behind a trust page, which is rarer than it should be. But on citation accuracy it publishes no measurement, no evaluation framework and no description of its retrieval method, while Harvey submitted to an outside evaluator. On oversight, Legora asserts the principle and does not describe the mechanism. Harvey is the better documented vendor. Legora may still be the better tool for how your team actually works.
CoCounsel Legal vs HarveyThese two tie on the graded grid at twelve axes in the top two bands each, which is the highest score in the index and means the separation is not about quality. It is about what you are buying. CoCounsel Legal is an answer engine sitting on a corpus its parent owns, Westlaw and Practical Law, and it grades higher on who it serves and on proof that deployments worked: named customers with figures and a commissioned 2026 Forrester study whose method a reader can assess. Harvey is a workspace that reaches into the systems you already run, and it takes the only A on integration depth in this category, with the iManage connection documented at the level an administrator needs rather than announced. Both publish independently measured accuracy. Neither publishes what happens when the output is wrong.
CoCounsel Legal vs LegoraCoCounsel Legal and Legora both sell an AI workspace to law firms and in house teams, and this pair completes a triangle whose other two edges are already published. CoCounsel Legal sits in the top two bands on twelve of fifteen axes, Legora on nine. CoCounsel's advantage is measurement and evidence: it is one of the few products in this index whose accuracy has been measured by an independent evaluator, scoring between 73.2 and 89.6 per cent across four tasks in the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, and it grounds output in Westlaw and Practical Law with KeyCite validity flags shown alongside the authority and used by the research agent itself. Legora's advantage is documents. It publishes its general terms in EU and US versions, a data processing agreement and a security measures annex openly with no gate, holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system alongside ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, and states retention as instructed by the subscriber. On the CoCounsel record the index located no published liability position at all.
Questions buyers ask
Harvey vs Legora: which is better for a law firm?
Harvey is the better documented vendor, in the top two bands on twelve of fifteen axes against Legora's nine, with independently measured accuracy, implementer level integration documentation and the strongest AI governance position on the index. Legora is the better vendor to read before a sales call, publishing its general terms, data processing agreement and security annex openly with a stated allocation of loss, and its shared workspace may fit a cross border matter team better. The gap is a disclosure gap, not a capability finding. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 29, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Harvey vs CoCounsel: how do they compare?
They tie on the graded grid at twelve axes in the top two bands each, so the separation is about what you are buying. CoCounsel Legal is an answer engine on a corpus its parent owns, Westlaw and Practical Law, with KeyCite validity flags in the output, the only public tier structure of the three and the only outcome evidence with a published method. Harvey is a workspace that reaches into the systems a firm already runs, with the only A on integration depth in the category and retrieval that honours the firm's own document permissions and ethical walls. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 29, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
CoCounsel vs Legora: how do they compare?
CoCounsel Legal sits in the top two bands on twelve of fifteen axes and Legora on nine. CoCounsel's advantage is measurement and authority: independently benchmarked accuracy, a licensed citator shown with every authority, and named customers with figures. Legora's advantage is documents: openly published contract terms with numbered liability clauses, an ISO 42001 certified AI management system and a security measures annex with no gate. CoCounsel publishes no liability position at all; Legora publishes no accuracy measurement at all. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 29, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which is best, Harvey, Legora or CoCounsel Legal?
None of them is best across the board, and the grid does not produce a single score on purpose. Harvey leads outright on two of the fifteen axes, CoCounsel Legal on three and Legora on one, with the three level on four. Choose on the axes that matter to your matters: integration depth and AI governance point to Harvey, corpus, citator and auditable evidence to CoCounsel Legal, contractual disclosure and a European starting point to Legora. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 29, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Harvey, Legora and CoCounsel Legal all leave unpublished?
None of the three addresses third party request and subpoena notice or refusal and uncertainty behaviour in public material. None publishes the threshold at which an agent stops and hands work back to a lawyer. None states a position on attorney client privilege or work product handling directly. On the governance records, none discloses testing for uneven output across matter types or parties. Ask all three the same questions. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 29, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does the AI Legal Index compare three vendors at once?
From public sources only, on the same fixed grid applied identically to every vendor in the index, read across three columns rather than two. The counts on this page are computed from the live records at the moment it renders, and each written reading checks that the grade relationship it describes still holds before it displays. None of the three vendors pays for inclusion, placement or a grade, and none reviewed this page before it published.
Three cautions specific to this page. CoCounsel Legal is Thomson Reuters, which also owns Westlaw and Practical Law, so the content its answers rest on and the product selling those answers have one owner. That is a strength for grounding and a concentration risk for a firm already buying research from the same publisher, and it is worth pricing as one relationship rather than two.
Legora's lower grades on citation accuracy, oversight, deployment and model supply chain record what could not be located in public material on the dates shown, after checking the vendor site, blog, newsroom, trust centre and published contract documents. They are disclosure findings, not capability findings, and the record is corrected and redated the day the material appears.
All three compete for the same accounts, so every customer count above is vendor stated. None of the three was told in advance and none reviewed this page.
No vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and none reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.