Colibri Legal vs Skribe: how they compare in 2026
Colibri Legal and Skribe both record depositions without a stenographer and use speech recognition to produce a transcript the same day, with human finals on top. Skribe sits in the top two bands on seven of fifteen axes and Colibri Legal on five of fifteen, and both carry the lowest grade on privilege, which is the first thing a litigator should know. Skribe's terms disclaim any guarantee of confidentiality for uploaded material, grant it a perpetual license to use that material, including to improve and sell the service, and keep a backup recording running through recesses and breaks that can be released on a subpoena. Colibri's published terms and privacy policy say nothing about the confidentiality of recordings. Skribe's lead comes from what it tells a buyer up front: prices of $99 per hour for Library and $379 per record hour for a hosted deposition, a table of the states whose rules allow non stenographic depositions with the governing rule cited, and named firm testimonials. Colibri's counterweight is its engine and its processor disclosure: it runs its own speech recognition as a Zoom app and names OpenAI among its processors.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the product. Colibri's own speech recognition produces the real-time transcript and rough draft that Colibri Legal is bought for; the recording library and search sit around it, and human-certified final transcripts are an optional service on top. Verified 22 September 2026.
The models are the engine of the working layer, on a record-capture product whose official output is human-verified, which is the B band. Automatic speech recognition produces the same-day rough transcript synced to video and powers the Library product, and generative AI finds key moments, summarises testimony and answers questions across a deposition with links back to the video. But the official record is the audio and video recording, the final transcript is proofread by a person and sworn to, and the hosted tier includes a digital reporter and recording management that work without the models. Remove the AI and a customer still has a recorded, human-transcribed deposition. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Accuracy is claimed, not measured. The site says Colibri's speech recognition delivers best-in-class machine transcription accuracy and consistently outperforms alternatives, and offers certified human final transcripts where accuracy matters, but publishes no error rate, benchmark or method. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI answers are grounded in the record with a direct link to source, and one accuracy figure is published without a method, which is the B band. The AI page says every AI answer is supported by links to the exact point in the video, so a user can check any answer against the testimony itself. The home page states that human-proofread final transcripts are 99 per cent accurate and compares that with the 95 per cent threshold for stenographer certification. That figure applies to the human-verified final transcript, not to the rough AI transcript or to AI summaries and answers, and no method, sample or test is described. Nothing states the accuracy of the rough transcript or what the AI does when the testimony does not answer a question, and the terms disclaim any warranty of accuracy. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A clear line between AI drafts and certified finals, short of stated limits. The product separates AI rough drafts, for review during depositions and breaks, from final transcripts prepared by certified legal transcriptionists, and lets attorneys highlight, annotate and search as they go. It does not state that rough drafts may not be relied on or filed. Verified 22 September 2026.
A human verification step is built into the official deliverable, while the AI analysis layer has no stated review, which is the B band. The vendor separates the same-day rough transcript, produced by speech recognition, from the final transcript, which it says is human-proofread every time and accompanied by a sworn Declaration of Verbatim Transcript, and it states that the audio and video recording is the official record. A trained staff member attends hosted depositions and monitors the recording. The AI summaries, key moments and answers carry no equivalent control, and nothing states what the rough transcript should not be used for. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Testimonials without measured results. The site quotes Peter Hellman of DepoCall, a court reporting firm, and other business users of the meeting-notes product. No law firm customer, case study or measured result for Colibri Legal was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Named customers are published without figures, which is the B band. The home page carries attributed testimonials from Charles Peckham of Peckham Martin, Steven Sachs of Espinoza & Brock and Randy Sorrels, managing partner of Sorrels Law, and shows firm logos. The testimonials describe faster transcripts, same-day video and lower overhead, but give no measured result. The vendor's price comparison, roughly half the cost of traditional court reporting, is a pricing claim rather than a customer outcome. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Checked the Colibri Legal page, the Terms of Service (2020) and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses the confidentiality or privilege of recorded proceedings and transcripts, whether recordings train any model, or how long they are kept; the Privacy Policy lists third-party processors, including OpenAI, and reserves use of data to improve the services. Verified 22 September 2026.
The published terms disclaim confidentiality for uploaded material and grant broad use rights over it, which meets the D band in substance. Section 13 of the Terms & Conditions, revised 27 July 2026, grants Skribe a non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual licence to use uploaded content for the service's customary and intended purposes and any related purpose, including to research, improve the service and sell, and states that Skribe does not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to submissions. The confidentiality clause in section 12 excludes information from testimony used for the service's intended purposes. Section 4.c, added in July 2026, keeps a backup recording running while the meeting room is open, including recesses and breaks, stores it under unstated retention practices, and allows release on a subpoena or court order, edited to exclude off-the-record segments unless a court orders otherwise; attendees are advised to mute or leave the room. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, and the privacy policy authorises use of information to improve algorithms. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Checked the Colibri Legal page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses attorneys' duties when relying on AI rough drafts, recording consent or the use of recordings of proceedings conducted by the other side. Verified 22 September 2026.
A real position is published on what the service is and where it lawfully operates, short of the supervision dimension, which is the B band. The terms state that Skribe is not a law firm and gives no guarantee that recorded testimony is admissible; the site states that Skribe digital reporters are not certified shorthand reporters and do not perform stenography, that depositions are conducted under rules permitting non-stenographic recording, and publishes an admissibility page listing the states that allow it. Subscribers are defined as attorneys and law firms. Nothing addresses an attorney's duties when relying on AI summaries or answers, and the rough AI transcript is not distinguished in professional-responsibility terms from the sworn final. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home, Colibri Legal, About and pricing pages, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on transcription accuracy across accents or audio conditions was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
No governance position published. Searched the home page, the terms and privacy policy, and the AI, product, FAQ and about pages on 18 September 2026. No responsible AI policy, testing regime, accountable owner or disclosure about speech recognition performance across accents, speakers or audio conditions was located, which matters for a product whose transcripts become evidence. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A processor list and a generic privacy policy. The Privacy Policy names its processors, including OpenAI and hosting and analytics providers, with places of processing in the United States, Estonia and Spain, and says personal data is deleted on request and kept only as long as required. Nothing addresses security controls, retention periods for recordings or incident notification. Verified 22 September 2026.
Retention and security are addressed only in general terms, which places this at C. The privacy policy says personal information is stored indefinitely unless the user asks for removal, that copies may persist with third-party providers after deletion, and describes security as SSL encryption at 128-bit strength. The terms let subscribers delete material from their account but say Skribe has no obligation to preserve data after cancellation, and backup recordings are kept under standard retention practices that are not stated, with internal access restricted to staff with an operational need. No encryption at rest, subprocessor list for recordings or AI processing, or incident notification commitment is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Addressed only through a standard limitation clause. The Terms of Service, last updated in 2020 and governed by California law, disclaim warranties, limit Colibri's liability and send disputes to arbitration. Nothing stands behind a transcript that proves wrong. Verified 22 September 2026.
Liability is addressed only through limitations that disclaim the exposure the product creates, which is the C band. The terms provide the software as is with no warranty of accuracy or completeness, cap Skribe's liability at the amount paid and never more than $1,000, limit a non-paying user to injunctive relief, and require users to indemnify Skribe, including for reliance on advice provided through the software. No vendor indemnity or insurance position is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A documented Zoom integration, short of legal systems. Colibri was a Zoom Apps launch partner and shows live transcription with identified speakers in a Zoom side panel, records from other platforms and the telephone, and connects to Slack and Salesforce for its business products. No connection to a litigation, case or document management system was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
No integration into practice systems located. Searched the home, product and pricing pages and the terms on 18 September 2026. Skribe is built on Zoom and its Skribe Link feature records Zoom depositions a firm does not host, which are capture channels rather than practice systems. No connection to document management, case management, e-discovery or trial presentation software is named; clips are shared by link. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Processing locations are listed per processor; the service's own hosting is not described. The Privacy Policy gives the United States as the place of processing for hosting and most processors, with some in Estonia and Spain. No region choice, tenancy or deployment option is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Location is stated without a hosting or tenancy model, which places this at C. The terms say the software is operated in the United States and the privacy policy says personal information is stored and processed on servers in the United States. No hosting provider, tenancy model or deployment option is named, and processing of recordings by speech recognition and AI providers is not located. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, Colibri Legal, pricing and About pages and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No certification, audit or trust centre is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
No independent security attestation located. Searched the home page, terms, privacy policy and FAQ, which has no security page linked from navigation, and ran a targeted search for a Skribe SOC 2 or other attestation, on 18 September 2026. The only security detail published is SSL encryption at 128-bit strength in the privacy policy. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
An in-house model and a named provider, short of change notice. The site says Colibri's speech-to-text engine is its own, built with machine learning models, and the home page pairs Colibri AI with ChatGPT; the Privacy Policy lists OpenAI among its processors with the United States as the place of processing. No model versions or notice of provider changes are published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Nothing published about the models underneath. Searched the home, AI and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. The vendor refers to its automated speech recognition system and generative AI tools but names no speech recognition provider, language model or provider, and the privacy policy names only Google and Stripe as third parties. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The legal product's price structure is described without figures. The Colibri Legal page describes a low monthly subscription for real-time and rough drafts, optional certified final transcripts charged by the page, and optional court reporter appearance fees, with a quote on request. The per-user prices on the pricing page are for the meeting-notes product. Verified 22 September 2026.
A buyer can price a deposition before speaking to anyone, which is the A band. The home and pricing pages publish Library at $99 per hour of audio or video, the hosted Live tier at $379 per record hour including the digital reporter, same-day rough transcript, human-verified final transcript in five to seven days, exhibits, clips, RealTime transcript and AI tools, and an in-person surcharge of $100 per hour with a three-hour minimum. Cancellation is free with 24 hours' notice. The terms add monthly automatic billing through Stripe. What volume or firm-wide terms look like is not stated. A pricing row is written. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Uses are named, short of limits. The page addresses attorneys, paralegals and court reporting, and names depositions, court hearings, meet-and-confer sessions, mock trials and internal meetings on remote platforms and the telephone. What proceedings, languages or recording conditions it does not handle is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
The product's working boundary is published jurisdiction by jurisdiction with its conditions, which is the A band. The admissibility page tables forty-two U.S. states plus the District of Columbia and the federal rules, marking each as allowed, allowed with stipulations, or allowed with stipulations to remote proceedings, citing the governing rule (for example FRCP 30(b)(3), Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 2025.330, Tex. R. Civ. P. 203) and offering a sample non-stenographic notice for each; the eight states not listed, among them New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, fall outside the published boundary. The vendor serves litigation teams at firms of every size and covers depositions, examinations under oath and other sworn proceedings, remote or in person. Nothing states which proceeding types, languages or accents the speech recognition and AI handle less well. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy are published and neither addresses whether recordings or transcripts train any model. The Privacy Policy reserves use of collected information to personalize and improve the services; that improvement right never names training.
The agreement grants a use right over uploaded content bounded to the service's purposes, including improvement, and never names training. Section 13 of the terms grants Skribe a perpetual, irrevocable license to use uploaded content for the service's customary and intended purposes and any related purpose, listing research, sale and improving the service among them, and the privacy policy authorizes use of personal information to improve algorithms and develop features.
The bound is loose, and no statement anywhere says customer recordings or transcripts are not used to train speech recognition or language models.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The Privacy Policy says personal information is kept as long as required by law or regulation and is irrecoverably deleted when an account is deleted. No retention period for recordings or transcripts is stated.
Retention is indefinite by default and the customer controls removal. The privacy policy stores personal information indefinitely unless the user asks for removal and warns that copies may remain with third-party providers; the terms let subscribers delete material from their account. Backup recordings made under section 4.c are kept under standard retention practices that are not published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Checked the Colibri Legal and pricing pages on 22 September 2026. A team library with search and viewer accounts is described; nothing addresses separating matters or users.
Searched the home page, terms, privacy policy and product pages on 18 September 2026. Nothing addresses separation between matters, users or firms. Everyone who attends a hosted deposition receives the video and exhibits, and shared clips posted to public areas are visible to all visitors under section 13 of the terms.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The Privacy Policy says Colibri may disclose information it believes necessary to satisfy applicable law, legal process or a governmental request. Nothing addresses notifying the customer.
Disclosure in response to legal process is addressed and customer notice is not. The privacy policy permits sharing on a court order, subpoena or government request, and section 4.c of the terms allows backup recordings to be released under a lawful subpoena or court order. The terms' confidentiality clause requires notice before compelled disclosure where permitted, but it binds users to one another and excludes testimony used for the service's purposes, so it does not give the customer a notice commitment from Skribe.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Checked the Colibri Legal page on 22 September 2026. The product transcribes the customer's own recordings; no legal corpus is involved.
Searched the home, AI and product pages on 18 September 2026. The AI works over the customer's own recordings and transcripts rather than a legal research corpus, and no external legal source is described. Nothing to name.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Checked the Colibri Legal page on 22 September 2026. The product does not cite legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for later treatment.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The product does not cite legal authority, so no subsequent-history check arises and none is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Checked the Colibri Legal and home pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes how uncertain or inaudible passages are marked in AI rough drafts.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Nothing describes what the AI does when a deposition does not answer a question, and no confidence indicator is described for the rough speech recognition transcript.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Colibri, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Skribe. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind, including rulings on whether non-stenographic depositions may be used.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Checked the Colibri Legal page, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No material engages with lawyers' professional obligations or names any ethics opinion.
Searched the home, FAQ and product pages and a vendor blog post on 18 September 2026. No bar ethics opinion on AI is named. The vendor engages procedural rules on non-stenographic recording, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) and Texas rules among them, and lists permitting states on an admissibility page; those are court procedure rather than professional-responsibility guidance and are credited on the UPL and coverage axes.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The page pitches savings: pay for final transcripts only if needed, and record and transcribe proceedings without buying transcripts from the other side's court reporter. Nothing addresses how transcript costs are passed to clients.
The vendor's charge is a deposition cost that reaches the client as a case expense, and client disclosure is not addressed. The product page says that at roughly half the price of traditional court reporting, clients will save money. Nothing addresses how firms should bill or disclose AI-produced rough transcripts or analysis as costs.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The Privacy Policy lists the processors that handle data, including OpenAI, Google services and customer relationship tools, with each one's place of processing. No client-facing disclosure material was located.
Searched the terms, privacy policy and product pages on 18 September 2026. The privacy policy names only Google and Stripe as third parties receiving information; no speech recognition or AI provider is named and no data processing agreement is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Checked the Colibri Legal page on 22 September 2026. Rough drafts are distinguished from certified finals, but nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in material put before a court.
The record separates AI output from human-verified output and carries a sworn declaration, short of a full AI disclosure record. Final transcripts are human-proofread and accompanied by a Declaration of Verbatim Transcript attesting accuracy under penalty of perjury, the rough speech recognition transcript is labeled as such, and the audio and video recording is the official record. Nothing records which model produced AI summaries or answers.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Security Certifications and Trust Center
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Colibri Legal if
- You want a real time transcript of a remote proceeding, including one the other side is running. Colibri Legal records any remote proceeding with a click and shows a live transcript from its own speech recognition inside Zoom or its web app, with highlights, notes and pre loaded deposition questions checked off as they are asked.
- You need to know which outside companies handle the recordings. Colibri's privacy policy lists its processors, including OpenAI, with the country each one processes in, mostly the United States with some in Estonia and Spain. Skribe names only Google and Stripe, and no speech recognition or AI provider.
- You only want to pay for a certified transcript when a case needs one. Colibri sells a monthly subscription for real time transcripts and rough drafts, with certified final transcripts charged by the page and delivered within 24 hours, and a certified deposition reporter bookable through a partner firm. Legal prices are quoted.
Choose Skribe if
- You need to know whether a non stenographic deposition will hold up where you practice. Skribe publishes a table of forty two states, the District of Columbia and the federal rules, marking each as allowed or allowed with stipulations, citing the governing rule, and offering a sample notice for each.
- You want to price a deposition before calling anyone. Skribe publishes Library at $99 per hour of audio or video and hosted depositions at $379 per record hour, including the digital reporter, same day rough transcript, human verified final and AI tools, with $100 an hour extra in person and free cancellation on 24 hours' notice.
- You want a sworn human final behind the AI draft. Skribe's final transcripts are proofread by a person and come with a sworn declaration of verbatim accuracy in five to seven days, a digital reporter who is a notary swears in the witness, and the audio and video recording is the official record.
In summary
Colibri Legal
Colibri Legal is the deposition and court reporting product of Colibri.ai, trading as Alterra.ai Inc., a company that also sells AI meeting notes and sales coaching. Attorneys and paralegals record any remote proceeding and follow a real time transcript from Colibri's own speech recognition in Zoom or the web app, with rough drafts immediately and certified human finals within 24 hours when ordered. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on five of fifteen capability axes, with an A on AI centrality. Its privacy policy names its processors, including OpenAI. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no published position on the confidentiality of recordings, no security certification, no retention period for recordings and no legal pricing.
Skribe
Skribe, of Austin, Texas, records depositions, examinations under oath and other sworn proceedings without a stenographer, on Zoom or in person with a digital reporter who is a notary, and treats the audio and video recording as the official record. Speech recognition gives a same day rough transcript synced to video, a human proofread final with a sworn declaration follows in five to seven days, and AI finds key moments, summarizes testimony and answers questions linked to the video. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on seven of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on pricing and coverage. As of 18 September 2026 the index located no security certification, no named model provider and no confidentiality commitment for uploaded material.
Questions buyers ask
Colibri Legal vs Skribe: which is better for recording depositions?
On published evidence Skribe sits in the top two bands on seven of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Colibri Legal on five of fifteen, because Skribe publishes its prices, a state by state admissibility table and named customers. Colibri runs its own speech recognition inside Zoom and names its processors, including OpenAI. Both carry the lowest grade on privilege, so a firm should read each vendor's terms on confidentiality before recording privileged testimony.
Does Skribe keep recording during breaks in a deposition?
Yes. Section 4.c of Skribe's terms, added in July 2026, keeps a backup recording running while the meeting room is open, including recesses and breaks, stores it under retention practices that are not published, and allows release on a subpoena or court order, edited to exclude off the record segments unless a court orders otherwise. Attendees are advised to mute or leave the room. Colibri's published terms do not address backup recording. 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 September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are Skribe depositions admissible in my state?
Skribe publishes an admissibility table covering forty two states, the District of Columbia and the federal rules, marking each as allowed, allowed with stipulations, or allowed with stipulations to remote proceedings, citing the rule, such as FRCP 30(b)(3), and offering a sample non stenographic notice. The eight states not listed fall outside its published coverage. Skribe's terms give no guarantee that recorded testimony is admissible. 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 September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which AI does Colibri Legal use?
Colibri says its speech to text engine is its own, built with machine learning models, and its privacy policy lists OpenAI among the processors that handle data, with the United States as the place of processing. No model versions are published, and nothing commits to notice when providers change. Skribe names no speech recognition or language model provider 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 September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Colibri Legal and Skribe both leave unpublished?
Any security certification, and any commitment that recordings stay confidential and out of model training. Neither publishes a SOC 2 or ISO report, an encryption at rest statement or a breach notice commitment. Neither says whether recordings train its models, how uncertain passages are marked in AI drafts, or whether accuracy holds across accents and audio conditions. Neither addresses lawyers' professional obligations when relying on AI transcripts. 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 September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Two readings to weigh. Skribe's confidentiality disclaimer, its perpetual license over uploaded content and its practice of recording through breaks are published terms, and it advises attendees to mute or leave the room during recesses; a firm should read sections 4.c and 13 of its terms before a deposition. Skribe states that its digital reporters are not certified shorthand reporters, so its method depends on rules allowing non stenographic recording. Colibri Legal's terms of service were last updated in 2020. Colibri Legal was verified on 22 September 2026 and Skribe on 18 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.