CoCounsel Legal vs Learned Hand: how they compare in 2026

The 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.

The models are the product, which is the A band. Everything the vendor describes is model work: facts extracted, disputed issues mapped, arguments structured, analysis run against the procedural standard for the motion type, a first draft order generated with its citations, and every statement and citation checked against its source. The companion product, The Red Pen, is a model reading filed briefs and testing each citation for existence, pinpoint and whether the holding supports the proposition. Take the models away and what remains is an upload screen, a case management connection and an editor with a Word export; there is no conventional document or research product underneath that a court would buy on its own. Verified 18 September 2026.

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.

Grounding is real and described at the level of the sentence, with no measurement published, which is the B band. The home page states that every citation links to its source, every claim traces to the record, any statement can be clicked through to its source, and every citation is checked against its source automatically; the vendor's own release of 18 March 2026 adds that all outputs are hyperlinked to source material in the case file and that the platform runs multiple verification passes. That is the product checking its own output, and it is credited as such. The Red Pen's citation checks on filed briefs are not credited here: they test other parties' citations, and a tool's purpose is not evidence about its own accuracy. What keeps this off A is everything a reader would use to test the claim. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, no failure mode is named, the retrieval method and the corpus behind the legal analysis are not described, and nothing states what the system does when it cannot support a proposition. The home page answer to How does Learned Hand prevent hallucinations? is published but does not render to automated retrieval and could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.

A 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.

A written position that the judge decides, with real review surfaces, short of a published control structure, which is the B band. The workflow the vendor publishes ends with a human step at each stage: the user reviews the analysis, clicks any statement to see its source, asks questions to refine the analysis, and edits the first draft in the platform or exports it to Word. The vendor's release quotes its chief executive that the product will assist with preparation but that judges make the final decisions. What the A band asks for is not published: no threshold or mode at which the system acts without review, no categorical constraint on what a draft may be used for, and nothing on what happens when an analysis is wrong. The home page answer to What if I disagree with its analysis? could not be read on this date and is the surface most likely to move this row. Verified 18 September 2026.

Named 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.

Named customers without figures, which is the B band. The vendor's release of 18 March 2026 names the Superior Court of Los Angeles County as a partner, carries statements from its Presiding Judge and its Executive Officer, and states that the technology is used by the Michigan Supreme Court and by trial courts in ten states. Those are named deployments at identifiable courts, confirmed in the customer's own words in the Los Angeles case. The estate adds an unattributed testimonial from a federal judge described as a user since 2024 and an unattributed Red Pen testimonial saying the platform takes minutes to do what would take a staff attorney several days. No figure for what changed at any named court is published, the ten states are not identified, and nothing describes how any result was measured. Verified 18 September 2026.

Substantive 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.

Specific commitments exist for one product and none can be read for the one that holds case files, and no agreement is published, which places this at C. The Red Pen page states that filed briefs are not retained, are not used to train, and that the court's data is never stored, logged or used to train models. Those are real statements, but they describe a citation checker that reads briefs as they are docketed. The main workbench, which syncs a court's cases and holds them, carries no readable confidentiality statement: the home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date, and it is the surface most likely to move this row. No terms of service, customer agreement, privacy policy or security page exists on the estate, so nothing on segregation between courts or users, on deliberative confidentiality, or on the position of any model provider can be read before signing. Verified 18 September 2026.

The 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.

A clear position on tool versus decision-maker and a precisely stated audience, short of the supervision dimension, which is the B band. This axis is written for the line between tooling and legal advice; for a product sold only to courts the equivalent question is whether the vendor is clear that the output supports and does not make a judicial decision, and that is how it is graded here. The vendor states it is built for the judiciary and contrasts itself with tools designed for lawyers and private practice, and its release quotes its chief executive that judges make the final decisions. The home page describes the product as decision support. What is missing is the rest of the treatment: nothing addresses a judge's or clerk's duties of competence and supervision when relying on a draft, no court rule or judicial ethics standard on generative AI is named, and no jurisdictional limit is stated beyond a claim that the software is jurisdiction-specific. The home page answer to Does Learned Hand replace me or my clerks? could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.

A 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.

An impartiality principle is stated without any mechanism behind it, which is the C band. The vendor says the product is built for impartiality and designed for the bench from the first line of code, and contrasts itself with tools built for advocacy. Nothing published says who inside the company is accountable for model behaviour, what is tested before a release, or what has been found about uneven output across case types or parties, which matters more for a product that drafts judicial orders than for almost any other in the index. No responsible AI page, policy or evaluation exists on the estate. Press reporting says the company tests for bias and accuracy and has not published results; that is recorded as located and not credited, since the index grades what the vendor publishes. Verified 18 September 2026.

Substantive 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.

One product carries a specific retention position and nothing else in the stewardship set is published, which places this at C. The Red Pen page states zero data retention: filed briefs are not retained, and data is never stored, logged or used to train models. For the workbench, which syncs a court's case management system and holds its cases, no retention period, deletion commitment, access control description, subprocessor list or incident practice was located. No privacy policy, security page or trust centre exists on the estate; the site's own search index lists two pages. The home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date and is the surface most likely to move this row. Verified 18 September 2026.

Searched 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.

Nothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no other pages, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026, and searched for a published court contract, on 18 September 2026. No terms of service, customer agreement, warranty, indemnity, limitation of liability or insurance statement exists on the estate. Court agreements are reported in the press but none was located in published form. Verified 18 September 2026.

Real 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.

Integration with court case management systems is claimed and described in outcome terms, with no system named and no documentation, which is nearest the C band. The home page says the product integrates with a court's case management system, sync once and the cases are there, and that documents can be uploaded or connected directly from the case management system; The Red Pen page says every filing is checked automatically the moment it is docketed. Drafts can be exported to Word. That describes what the connection does, which is more than a logo, but no case management system is named, nothing states which direction data moves or what a court must configure, and no API or implementation documentation is published. Verified 18 September 2026.

Deployment 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.

Nothing published on where the software runs or where court data sits. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026. No tenancy model, hosting provider, region or deployment option is stated anywhere on the estate. The home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.

Certification 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.

No independent security attestation located. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no security or trust page, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026, and ran a targeted search for a SOC 2, CJIS or other attestation, on 18 September 2026. None was found on the vendor's estate or attributed to it elsewhere. Verified 18 September 2026.

The 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.

Nothing published by the vendor about the models underneath. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026. The estate contrasts the product with generic AI and with ChatGPT but names no model, provider or architecture; the home page answer to How is Learned Hand different from ChatGPT? could not be read on this date. Press reporting attributes to the company the use of models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google; that is located and not credited, because it is not the vendor's own published material. Verified 18 September 2026.

The 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.

No pricing information published at any level. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no pricing page, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026; the only route offered is a demo request. A public sector reseller lists the product on the NASPO ValuePoint and SEWP V contract vehicles without a price, and press reports court contract values; neither is the vendor's own publication and neither is credited. No pricing row is written. Verified 18 September 2026.

Who 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.

The segment is stated precisely and the work is described by motion type, short of the boundaries, which is the B band. The vendor says it serves the judiciary only, naming judges, clerks, staff attorneys and court staff, and positions itself against tools built for lawyers and private practice, which is a stated boundary on segment. The work is described by motion rather than practice area: summary judgment and post-conviction relief on the home page, pro se filings on The Red Pen page, and analysis that follows the procedural standard for the motion and the court's local rules. Its release names the Michigan Supreme Court and says trial courts in ten states use it. What is left open: the ten states are not named, the supported motion types are not listed in full, and nothing says which courts, case types or jurisdictions the product does not handle. Verified 18 September 2026.