Consilio vs Steno: how they compare in 2026
These two sit at opposite ends of the same supply chain. Consilio runs ediscovery, investigations and legal data work for law firms and corporations, selling its Aurora Legal AI Suite with managed review teams. Its AI reviews documents for responsiveness and privilege, and AI PrivGen drafts privilege log entries. All of it runs on custom models in Consilio's own private data centers rather than a public cloud, with AI Guides who design each review and validate prompts. Steno books court reporters, videographers and interpreters for depositions and gives away Transcript Genius, which answers questions across a firm's transcripts with page and line citations and synced video. The overlap is deposition testimony, which Steno creates and Consilio may later review inside a wider document set. A team choosing between them is really choosing between a review operation for whole matters and an analysis layer over the depositions it already books.
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.
Machine learning drives several capabilities a client pays for, and the businesses underneath would carry on without it. Nine AI products are named and separately marketed, including Guided AI Review and Native AI Review for responsiveness classification, AI PrivDetect and AI PrivGen for privilege work, AI Summarize, AI Investigate, Aurora Verity Review and the narrative analysis acquired with TrueLaw in June 2025. The models are described as built in house and fine tuned for legal document classification, with AI PrivGen trained on thousands of court approved privilege log entries. The scale claimed around them is large: more than 1,300 analytics engagements a year, over 250 million documents analyzed and more than 40 dedicated AI team members. Sightline is a complete eDiscovery and legal hold platform without any of it. Aurora's core promise, freedom from platform lock in and visibility across matters, is not a machine learning promise. The AI is also delivered wrapped in labor: AI Guides validate the prompts, privilege review experts check every generated description, and the company frames the work as a hybrid in which technology enhances rather than replaces judgment.
Transcript Genius is included with no extra charge and no usage limit, and the home page markets it as free with all Steno depositions. Customers pay for the services underneath: court reporting, videography, interpreters, remote and hybrid depositions, equipment rental, conference rooms and DelayPay. Without the AI, all of those remain, along with Steno Connect for Zoom and the Firm Dashboard. The terms reserve the right to change Transcript Genius's price or limit a person's use of it at Steno's sole discretion. The deposition business runs without the AI.
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 asserted repeatedly and measured nowhere. The claims are specific in language and empty of numbers: descriptions that are accurate, defensible and court ready, results that are reliable and consistent, and a system trained on thousands of court approved privilege log entries. The one figure published concerns effort rather than correctness, a reduction in attorney hours of up to seventy percent on privilege log creation, hedged as what clients report. The Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy, searched, show no accuracy rate, recall or precision statistic, validation protocol, test set or error analysis. That absence is conspicuous for privilege classification, where a false negative discloses a privileged communication and cannot be undone. Nothing describes grounding either, with no citation of the underlying document from a generated log entry and no retrieval method. The substitute for measurement is people: privilege review experts provide oversight to ensure accuracy and defensibility, which is a control rather than evidence. Eight of the nine AI product pages were not opened and may say more.
Every Transcript Genius answer carries a clickable page and line citation into the transcript, shown side by side with the source, and Steno's FAQ says human verification is a simple click away. Summaries carry the same linked citations. Where a firm has ordered Text to Video Sync, a citation opens the deposition video at that moment, so a user can hear the tone of the testimony as well as read it. Lookups combine exact wording and meaning across the firm's transcripts. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation, error rate or comparison is published, despite a marketing claim of unparalleled accuracy. The agreement says AI is not perfect and may make mistakes, and disclaims any warranty of accuracy, completeness, truthfulness, timeliness or suitability for outputs. Checks against legal authority do not apply, since the tool reads deposition transcripts, not law.
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.
Human oversight is the delivery model here, and it is described with specificity. The framing is the AI Trust Gap, and the answer given is a hybrid in which advanced AI is combined with seasoned professionals and guided by human oversight at every step, so that legal teams retain full control. The people are named as roles. AI Guides bring three stated types of expertise, review design, legal domain knowledge, and AI prompting and validation, and they refine and validate prompts so outputs fit the matter. AI PrivGen publishes a four stage flow ending in a quality assurance step where privilege review experts check generated descriptions before delivery. Aurora adds control on the customer side, with AI adopted at the client's own pace and the client choosing which models and review platforms operate on its data. Those pages and the privacy policy, checked, publish no threshold at which a model declines to answer, no confidence signal, no description of what happens when a generated description is wrong, and no correction route. The oversight model is well staffed and undocumented at the point of failure.
The terms say Transcript Genius uses AI with no human oversight to question transcripts and other case documents. Its outputs are research aids, not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the record. No one at Steno checks an answer before it appears, and the user must check it against the record. The product supports that check with page and line citations on every answer, a side by side transcript view, and video sync to the cited moment. Customers must switch AI features on in the Dashboard. Only final ordered transcripts can be questioned, not drafts. The tool shows no sign of uncertainty and offers no way to report a wrong answer.
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.
Operational scale is published in quantity, and customer outcomes are not attributed to anyone. The scale figures are specific: more than 1,300 analytics engagements a year, over 250 million documents analyzed, more than 120 review managers trained on the AI suite, over 40 AI team members, upwards of 210 terabytes ingested monthly, more than 7,000 servers, over 30,000 matters hosted and fifteen or more data centers. Those describe the vendor rather than what changed for a client. The one customer figure is a reduction in attorney hours of up to seventy percent on privilege log creation, attributed only to what clients report, with no named organization, matter, date or method. No named customer appeared on the Sightline, Aurora or AI PrivGen pages or in the site navigation on 31 August 2026. The customer success section of the flagship AI product page still carries its unfilled template instruction, asking for a headline highlighting customer results with numbers to maximize credibility. The Sightline page's expert section renders roughly one hundred cards all reading Full Name and Job Title. A case study library exists and was not opened, so it may say more.
Five quotes carry a name, title and firm. They come from a partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi, a director at Ivie Mcneill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, a paralegal at Citron & Citron, an attorney at Gamliel Law and an attorney at Burneikis Law. The Burneikis Law attorney is also the subject of a Transcript Genius customer story, which describes time saved without saying how much. No quote has a number or date. Trade coverage of the beta reported an average saving of two to four hours per case, a figure Steno does not state itself.
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.
Confidentiality is asserted clearly and in general terms, and the document that would bind it is not published. The privacy policy states that all client data is treated as confidential, whether it includes personally identifiable information, protected health information or simply nonpublic information. It says handling policies keep data and devices protected from unauthorized access while in Consilio's possession, supported by strict access control policies, network segregation and background screening of all employees and contractors. The AI PrivGen page states that privileged content never leaves Consilio's secure environment and that attorney client confidentiality is maintained, with processing on private data centers rather than public cloud. The contractual layer is missing. No terms of service, master agreement or data processing addendum is published, so there is no readable commitment on training with client material, no client or matter segregation model, no ethical wall description and no work product treatment. The privacy policy states that Consilio acts primarily as data processor for client services, which places the operative terms in client contracts a buyer cannot read in advance.
Content is not accessed or viewed except as the customer authorizes, as needed to perform, as the agreement and privacy policy provide, or as law requires. Steno commits to physical and technical safeguards consistent with SOC 2. The customer keeps copyright in its Content and grants only a revocable license to provide the Services, plus a carve out for aggregated, deidentified use to improve them. Data shared with Steno's model providers is not used as broader training data, and the product page adds that transcripts and conversations never train the AI and that AI partners keep nothing after a session. Backups may cover entire proceedings, including parts considered off the record, which in a deposition can include exchanges counsel treat as privileged. A backup will not be shared without a valid subpoena that is not objected to, or a court order. Nothing describes a wall between matters, and the Dashboard is built to query all of a firm's depositions at once.
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.
Nothing published addresses the advice line, and no document on the site would carry it. The footer inventory is a privacy policy, privacy rights requests, an antislavery statement, a cookies policy, a cookies preference manager and a PAIA manual. There is no terms of service, disclaimer page or professional responsibility statement. Nothing states that output is not legal advice, that no attorney client relationship arises with Consilio, or where responsibility sits when a generated privilege description proves wrong. No bar or ethics authority is named anywhere, including ABA Formal Opinion 512. The exposure is sharper than for a pure software vendor, because Consilio's own reviewers and privilege experts exercise legal judgment on client matters as part of the service, and the published material does not address the professional responsibility questions that raises. A supervision and competence posture is published: human oversight is promised at every step, and technology is said to enhance rather than replace critical legal judgment. That describes how the work is done, not who answers for it.
The AI section of Steno's terms says AI tools are research aids and are not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the underlying record. The general disclaimer adds that content is informational only and is not advice of any kind; it does not replace professional advice, including legal advice, and users must get independent advice before acting. Users must be eighteen or older and represent they are competent. No bar or ethics authority, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, is named on any product or policy page, and no jurisdiction limit is stated. Steno's blog has an item titled as covering ABA and state ethics guidance on AI.
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.
Principles and a staffing model are published; a governance framework a buyer could audit is not. The published material is organized around the AI Trust Gap. It names ethical concerns and the absence of clear governance frameworks as an industry problem, and answers with expert oversight, client choice over which models run, and processing on private infrastructure. The privacy policy recites the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing. It also states that Consilio complies with applicable CCPA and CPPA requirements, including those on risk assessments, cybersecurity and automated decision making technologies. The Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy, searched, show no responsible AI page, no accountable owner for model behavior, no prerelease testing regime, no model documentation and nothing on bias or uneven output. Models that classify responsiveness and privilege determine which documents a reviewing lawyer ever sees, and uneven performance across custodians, languages or document types is left unaddressed. A chief information security officer is named, for security rather than for AI.
The terms say Transcript Genius runs without human oversight and that its model providers do not train on the data. They also disclose internal AI use for drafting messages, support triage, software development and routine work, under agreements that bar those providers from training on the data. The trust center publishes bias disclosures for BrightHire and Criteria, two tools used in hiring, and notes AI features in Rippling recruiting; none of them covers Transcript Genius. No responsible AI principles, accountable owner, testing regime or model documentation exists for the product, and the terms let Steno change the AI platform behind Transcript Genius at any time at its sole discretion. How the tool handles accents, dialects and interpreted testimony is not described, though it analyzes spoken testimony and Steno also books interpreters.
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.
The privacy policy carries a substantial safeguarding section that covers most of this ground, and it is the only substantive document published on the site. Certifications are stated with the holding entity distinguished. Consilio is certified to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and HITRUST CSF, its collocated data centers to either ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type 2, and its UK data center and offices hold Cyber Essentials Plus. Named controls include a chief information security officer, enterprise policies reviewed by management, a vendor management program with supplier vetting and periodic security audits, and network segregation using a DMZ and multiple firewalls. They also include intrusion detection and prevention, third party monitoring, background screening of all staff and contractors, incident management, disaster recovery and business continuity policies, and daily incremental and weekly full backups. A list of current third party suppliers is published at a stated public URL. No retention period is published, since the Data Retention and Disposal Policy is named but obtainable only by email. There is no deletion commitment for client data and no breach notification timeframe. Policy updated 17 August 2026.
Retention is in the customer's hands: uploaded documents, recordings and other materials are kept until the customer tells Steno to delete them. On the model side, AI partners do not keep data after a Transcript Genius session. The conversation thread is kept only to give follow up questions context, is not shared, and can be deleted by the user. Steno commits not to access or view Content outside four named cases. It holds a SOC 2 Type II report and a HIPAA addendum, and publishes a data processing addendum (DPA) that applies where law requires. The DPA commits Steno to notify the customer promptly once a security breach is confirmed, to keep a current subprocessor list available on request, and to give notice of new subprocessors where privacy law requires. The terms name Stripe and Bill.com for payments but not the model providers. Steno publishes its controls for encryption, access, background checks, penetration testing and disaster recovery testing.
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.
Nothing is published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong, because no customer agreement of any kind is published. The footer legal inventory was read. It consists of a privacy policy, a privacy rights request portal, an antislavery statement, a cookies policy, a cookies preference manager and a PAIA manual. There is no terms of service, master services agreement, service level agreement, data processing addendum or acceptable use policy. Nothing therefore states a liability cap, an indemnity in either direction, a warranty on the software or on generated output, an insurance position, a limitation period, a governing law or a forum. A buyer cannot read the allocation of risk in advance at any level, and the only route to it is a negotiated contract. Consilio hosts more than thirty thousand matters across fifteen or more data centers and publishes none of it.
Liability for any damages related to the agreement, for any cause, is capped at $100 under the terms, and more than one claim does not raise the limit. No exception to the cap is named. Indirect, consequential, exemplary, incidental, special and punitive damages are excluded, suppliers carry no liability, and the customer gives Steno a broad release with a California Civil Code 1542 waiver. Disputes go to mandatory individual arbitration before the AAA in Los Angeles, with a class action waiver and a thirty day opt out. An AI disclaimer provides outputs as is and with all faults, with no warranty of accuracy, completeness, truthfulness, timeliness or suitability, and the customer bears all risk of using them. The only indemnity runs from the customer to Steno, and no insurance is mentioned.
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.
Integration is the product rather than a feature, and the named connections are to competing platforms. Aurora is described as platform agnostic and deliberately upstream of review, integrating with Relativity, Relativity Server, Everlaw and Sightline. Its stated purpose is to free an organization from lock in to a single vendor so it can select the optimal platform for each matter. Supporting mechanics are named: enhanced autoloaders and data mapping that reduce processing volumes, and a version of AI Investigate built for Relativity Server so the AI reaches data held in a third party platform. On collection, Aurora is said to connect with an organization's data sources, from email servers and cloud storage to collaboration platforms and enterprise systems. No individual data source is named, only categories. No document management, matter management, electronic billing or filing integration is named, no API or developer documentation is published, and nothing describes what moves in which direction or what a client must configure. Checked the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the navigation; the technology partners page was not opened and may say more.
Clio and Litify integrations have their own pages, listed in the main navigation under Technology and Integrations. Steno Connect for Zoom runs the deposition inside Zoom, with exhibits uploaded, shared, numbered and annotated in the meeting. The terms add linking of Google and Microsoft accounts and a general provision on exporting information to connected third party services. What the Clio and Litify integrations move, and what a firm must set up, is not described. No API or developer documentation is offered, and no document management, electronic billing or court filing system is named.
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.
The deployment model is stated plainly and repeatedly as the company's central differentiator. Everything runs on Consilio's own private hosted infrastructure and not on the public cloud, a point made on the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages alike, with the argument that privileged content never reaches a public cloud provider. The estate is quantified at more than fifteen global data centers, over seven thousand servers and more than thirty thousand matters hosted, with offices and data centers across North America, Europe and Asia. Residency is addressed in part. Aurora promises complete data sovereignty in the client's chosen jurisdiction, and its UK and European launch is stated to be hosted in Consilio's UK data center with GDPR and UK data protection compliance. ITAR compliance is claimed, and transfers across borders run through an intracompany data transfer agreement incorporating the EU Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK Addendum. No list of data center locations is published, so a buyer cannot check which jurisdictions are available. There is no tenancy model and no distinction between where data is stored and where model inference happens.
Where data is held is not stated. The product is a browser dashboard with a Zoom app, and the terms say materials are stored on Steno's systems under its security protocols. No cloud provider, region or tenancy model is named. Content does pass to outside model providers for Transcript Genius, and those providers do not keep it after a session. The privacy policy, updated 9 October 2026, says Steno is headquartered in the United States, uses service providers in other countries, and may move personal information across borders. The DPA allows cross border processing of personal information only where privacy law is met and a lawful transfer mechanism is in place.
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.
The certifications are real and current and stated with care about which entity holds what, and there is no security page or trust center to put them in. Consilio itself is certified to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and HITRUST CSF. Its collocated data centers are certified to either ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type 2, so the SOC 2 attaches to the facilities rather than to Consilio. The UK data center and offices hold Cyber Essentials Plus, and ITAR compliance is claimed. Consilio is certified to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework with the UK Extension and the Swiss-US Framework, lodged with the US Department of Commerce and verifiable on the public register, with JAMS named as the recourse provider and the Federal Trade Commission as having jurisdiction. That is the one attestation a buyer can confirm without asking. All of this sits inside a privacy policy. No auditor is named, no scope, coverage period or report date is given for the ISO or HITRUST certifications, and no route is published for obtaining any report.
The trust center offers a SOC 2 Type II report for the control period 1 February 2025 to 31 January 2026 and a HIPAA addendum dated 31 January 2026, both through a request access form. According to the Transcript Genius page, SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA standards cover all data in the platform, and Steno's AI partners meet them too. The terms commit to safeguards in line with SOC 2 policies. Controls across infrastructure, organizational and product security are shown, including encryption, background checks and penetration testing, along with a responsible disclosure policy. No auditor is named on the public pages.
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.
The vendor says the models are its own and stops there. The models are described as custom built and developed in house, hosted on Consilio's private cloud, and fine tuned for legal document classification. AI PrivGen models are described as trained on legal privilege concepts and on thousands of court approved privilege log entries, and TrueLaw's technology was integrated following the June 2025 acquisition. A buyer cannot establish whether any third party foundation model sits beneath the fine tuning, and if so whose. No model name, version or provider appears anywhere, no inference location is stated apart from the data residency claims, and there is no notice commitment on model change. The AI product pages say the models are custom built in house, while Aurora is marketed on letting clients use AI models they choose and avoiding lock in to proprietary models, which implies third party models in the stack. Nothing published reconciles the two. A list of current third party suppliers is published at a stated URL and was not opened; it may say more.
Transcript Genius is built mainly on large language models from outside providers that Steno has vetted and holds under contract, according to the terms of use effective 10 September 2026. Data shared with those providers is not used as broader training data. The trust center adds that customer data is not stored with the AI provider, and the beta terms describe zero data retention agreements with Steno's model vendors. No provider or model is named, and the trust center's subprocessor page lists none. Steno may change the AI platform behind Transcript Genius at any time at its sole discretion, with no promise to notify. A separate paragraph says Steno's internal AI use runs under agreements that bar providers from training on data.
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.
No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, and no pricing page exists. The full primary navigation covering solutions, expertise, technology, resources and about, and the complete footer, were read: there is no pricing entry in either. No rate, no unit, no tier or package names, no volume band, no term length and no statement of what implementation or managed review adds. Every call to action across the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages is a demo request or a contact form. The one place pricing appears at all is as an argument about other vendors: Aurora's marketing states that public-cloud platforms trap legal teams in rigid contracts with annual price hikes of eight to twenty percent, and offers complete cost visibility across a portfolio as the remedy. A platform sold substantially on controlling and making visible the buyer's legal technology spend publishes nothing about its own.
Transcript Genius has no extra charge and no usage limit, though Steno may change that at its sole discretion. Canceling a court reporter or videographer after 4pm on the business day before a job can cost up to $400. Interpreter cancellation runs from 48 hours to 30 days ahead depending on dialect, and the fee may be the interpreter's full charge. Invoices more than 30 days late accrue interest at the lesser of 1.5 percent a month or the legal maximum. DelayPay defers case costs until settlement. Reporting and video rates come from a rate card sent on request, and a firm can negotiate them. Any quote is a nonbinding estimate, and the firm is liable if the invoice is higher. Rates for reporting work are not listed.
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.
Coverage is documented across several dimensions with real substance, and nowhere states a limit. Practice areas are enumerated as litigation and arbitration, global investigations, antitrust and competition, cyber incident response, corporate transactions, and risk and compliance. Industries are enumerated separately as financial services, pharmaceutical and life sciences and healthcare, insurance, transportation and mobility, consumer brands, and technology. Service lines run to eight, including eDiscovery, analytics and AI, document review, risk management and compliance, talent, cyber incident response, data forensics and investigations, and legal transformation. Product-level coverage is more specific still, with Sightline published against regulatory response, cyber incident response, data subject access requests, early case assessment, PII and PHI detection and review, multimedia review, small matters and investigations, and AI PrivGen against complex litigation, multi-party matters, regulatory investigations and mergers and acquisitions. The buyer types are named as multinational law firms, corporations and government organizations, and the site is published in nine locales. What is absent is any boundary: no practice area or data type is identified as unsupported, no jurisdictional limit is stated, and no matter size threshold appears, though a distinct Small Matters module implies the range is deliberate.
The buyer is litigation teams at law firms, with deferred payment aimed at contingency and plaintiff practices, and the terms expect firm administrators to manage users such as legal assistants and paralegals. Transcript Genius accepts third party transcripts in text and PDF as well as Steno's own, so a firm can analyze depositions taken by opposing counsel. Steno claims to handle anything from single depositions to complex matters with many parties. No list of states or jurisdictions where Steno can staff a proceeding is published on the product pages or in the terms. The only geographic signs are a navigation entry for California litigation support and a Nevada firm registration in the footer. No practice area is named as served or excluded.
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?
No customer agreement is published, and no policy page states a position on training of client material. The privacy policy lists improving the Products and Services among the purposes for every category of Personal Data it covers, which is the usual improvement language, but it governs Personal Data such as contact and technical information rather than the collected corpus a client uploads, and it states that Consilio acts primarily as data processor for client services, placing those terms in contracts that are not public.
No terms of service, master agreement or data processing addendum exists on the property. What the vendor does say about training data points elsewhere: AI PrivGen models are described as trained on thousands of court-approved privilege log entries and on legal privilege concepts, with no statement about whether client documents contribute. Checked the full footer inventory, the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages on 31 Aug 2026.
The AI section of the terms of use, effective 10 September 2026, says data shared with outside model providers through Steno is not used as broader training data. A separate paragraph on internal AI use says Steno's agreements with model providers ensure they do not train on data given to them. The product page says transcripts and conversations are never used to train the AI, and the privacy policy, updated 9 October 2026, says Steno does not use information to train AI models. The Content license also lets Steno use customer Content on an aggregated, deidentified basis to improve the Services.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged, deferred to an unpublished document, and never quantified. The privacy policy states that Personal Data is processed for as long as is reasonably necessary to comply with contractual or legal obligations and to pursue legitimate interests. It is retained under a named internal document, the Data Retention and Disposal Policy, which is not published and is obtainable only by emailing the privacy address.
The instrument is named and a route to it exists, but no period is stated that a buyer could rely on. Nothing separately addresses prompts submitted to the AI products or the descriptions and summaries they generate. There is no retention period, no setting the customer can configure, no option for zero retention, and no statement of what happens to generated output at the end of a matter. Policy updated 17 August 2026; read 31 August 2026.
Retention sits with the customer. Materials uploaded through the Dashboard, Steno Connect for Zoom or a third party integration are stored until the customer asks for deletion. On the model side, AI partners keep no data after a Transcript Genius session. A conversation is saved in a thread so follow up questions have context; the thread is not shared, and the user can delete it. No period is set for threads the user keeps.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Separation is claimed at the level of security controls and never described as a permission model. The privacy policy states that all client data is treated as confidential whether or not it contains personal or health information, and that handling policies keep data protected from unauthorized access while in Consilio's possession. It adds that networks use a DMZ and multiple firewalls with strict access control policies to separate segments facing the internet from sensitive data storage.
The AI PrivGen page adds that privileged content stays inside Consilio's environment and that attorney client confidentiality is maintained. None of that is a segregation mechanism. Nothing published describes separation between one client's matters and another's, between two matters for the same client, or between review teams inside a matter, and nothing states whether the AI products can retrieve across matter boundaries.
The question matters for a provider that also staffs managed review, since reviewers move between engagements. Checked the privacy policy and the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages on 31 August 2026.
Transcript Genius is marketed on questioning all the depositions in a firm's Dashboard at once. Filters by case, attorney or witness narrow the results but do not restrict who can see what. Access control works at firm level. A designated Administrator keeps the list of End Users and removes people who should no longer have access, and Steno disclaims liability if that list is wrong. Matter level permissions, and whether the AI would respect them, are not described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Disclosure to authorities is contemplated and notice to the customer is never reached. The privacy policy's Data Privacy Framework section states that Consilio may be required to disclose personal information in response to lawful requests by public authorities, including to meet national security or law enforcement requirements. Its recipients table names government officials, law enforcement or others where permitted by the notice or required by law.
Nothing commits Consilio to notifying the affected client before or after disclosure, to seeking a protective order, to resisting or narrowing a demand, or to seeking a waiver where notice is prohibited. No transparency report or disclosure statistics were located, and no terms of service exists that might carry a stronger commitment. Checked 31 August 2026.
In certain jurisdictions the terms let Steno record remote depositions for backup, including portions considered off the record. Such a recording is not shared without a valid subpoena to which no party objects, or a valid court order. Nothing commits Steno to telling the customer that a demand has arrived or to resisting it. For Content generally, the terms allow access as required by law, with no notice attached. No transparency report is offered.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The question does not arise in its usual form and a related one does. Consilio operates on documents its clients collect and upload, so there is no vendor-assembled corpus of primary law, no third-party content license and no upstream supplier of legal material to identify. Recorded as not addressed on that basis, with the reason stated rather than left to look like neglect. The adjacent question that does bite is training-set provenance: AI PrivGen is described as trained on thousands of court-approved privilege log entries, and nothing published states where those entries came from, whether they originated in Consilio's own client work, whether any consent or license underpins their use, or how they were selected.
For a model whose output is offered as court-ready, the provenance of the material it learned from is a live question and it is unanswered. Searched the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy on 31 Aug 2026.
Transcript Genius works on the deposition transcripts of the customer's own matters, whether made by Steno's reporters or uploaded by the firm. No body of law or licensed content sits behind it. The customer keeps copyright and other rights in the Content it submits, and Steno takes only a revocable license to provide the Services. Only final, ordered transcripts can be questioned, not drafts or unordered ones; Steno says this protects the court reporters' work, and it means the text analyzed is a certified record.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Checking authority for subsequent history does not arise for this product class. Consilio's platforms search, classify and summarize a client's own collected documents. They do not retrieve primary law or assert propositions whose continued validity would need checking, and no citator or treatment signal is claimed anywhere. Searched the Sightline page, the Aurora page, the AI PrivGen page and the privacy policy on 31 August 2026.
The accuracy question that does apply is validation of classification and privilege calls, and no recall, precision or error figure was located for it.
Transcript Genius reads deposition testimony, not legal authority, so there is no point of law to check for later history, and no citator is claimed. The check that does apply is whether an answer or summary matches the transcript, which Steno handles through design, with every answer cited to a page and line and shown beside the source. No measure of how often answers are correct is published.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing published describes what the models do when they are unsure. The Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy, searched on 31 August 2026, show no abstention path and no confidence score or uncertainty indicator surfaced to a reviewer. Nothing describes behavior where a document is ambiguous or the basis for privilege is unclear, or a threshold at which a document is routed to a person rather than described automatically.
The vendor's answer to uncertainty is organizational rather than technical. Privilege review experts provide quality assurance over generated descriptions and AI Guides validate prompts, so the design assumes a person catches what the model gets wrong rather than the model flagging it. Nothing states how that review is sampled or scoped.
Nothing on the Transcript Genius page, the home page or in the terms of use describes what the tool does when the transcript does not support the question. No way of declining to answer, confidence indicator, threshold, or behavior for ambiguous testimony or a contradiction that does not exist is published. The terms admit the risk in general. They say AI is not perfect and may make mistakes, give outputs no warranty of accuracy or completeness, and state that the tool runs with no human oversight.
Every answer is cited to a page and line with the transcript alongside, so a user can check any claim, but is not told which claims the system was least sure of.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this company or its products has been located as of 31 August 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the company name and the product names. It tracks decisions worldwide where a court addressed hallucinated AI content and records the tool implicated where known. Several independent 2026 sanctions trackers and law library guides were searched the same way.
This is a statement about the public record on the date shown rather than a clearance. Consilio's AI classifies and describes a client's own documents rather than citing legal authority. An inaccurate privilege log description, the risk this product carries, would surface as a privilege dispute rather than as a hallucination case.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Steno or Transcript Genius. Transcript Genius answers questions about deposition testimony with page and line citations into transcripts the customer already holds, not citations to legal authority.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Defensibility and court-readiness are claimed throughout and no authority is ever named behind them. AI PrivGen is marketed as producing court-ready privilege log descriptions that withstand scrutiny, containing all required elements while avoiding common pitfalls that might compromise privilege claims, and trained on thousands of court-approved entries. Searched the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy on 31 Aug 2026 and located no citation to any rule, standard or opinion: nothing names Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5), which governs what a privilege log must contain, no Sedona Conference commentary, no ABA Formal Opinion 512 and no state bar guidance.
For a product whose entire output is a document filed to sustain a privilege claim, the absence of the rule that defines sufficiency is the finding. Nothing maps any feature to a professional obligation a supervising lawyer could evidence.
Brief, Steno's blog, carries a post dated 1 April 2025 titled Legal AI: ABA & State Legal Ethics Guidance on Artificial Intelligence. It discusses ABA Formal Opinion 512, Texas State Bar Opinion No. 705 of February 2025 and Kentucky Bar Association opinion KBA E-457, and lists the guidance state by state. The Transcript Genius page, the home page and the terms of use cite no professional conduct authority. The terms take a professional position without citing a source: AI outputs are research aids, not legal advice, attorney work product, or a substitute for reviewing the record.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Savings are the headline and the client's bill is not addressed. The published claims are a reduction in attorney hours of up to seventy percent on privilege log creation, lower overall review costs through automation of repetitive tasks, and substantial cost reductions without sacrificing thoroughness. Aurora adds cost visibility across the portfolio and real time matter cost alerts. The same pages and the privacy policy, searched on 31 August 2026, show no per matter record of AI assisted work intended for fee purposes and no guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment where AI generated work product is delivered.
Consilio's own charges are often a disbursement passed through to a client, and its reviewers' output is billed work. An hours reduction of the size claimed changes what a client pays, and nothing published addresses how that is recorded or disclosed.
Time savings run through the product pages: hours of transcript review reduced to minutes, summaries generated in minutes instead of hours, and hours saved on every case. No per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes is offered, and no guidance covers how a firm should treat or disclose AI assisted analysis when billing a client. Transcript Genius carries no additional charge, so there is no separate technology cost to pass through. DelayPay defers court reporting costs until settlement.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current list of third party suppliers is published. The privacy policy states that Consilio may use third party subprocessors to deliver services, that engaged processors work under a specified contract with appropriate technical safeguards, and links the supplier list at a public URL requiring no agreement or request. A firm can also point a client to certifications stated in the same document. These are ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and HITRUST CSF for Consilio, ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type 2 for its data centers, and Cyber Essentials Plus in the UK.
A Data Privacy Framework certification is verifiable on the US Department of Commerce register. The supplier list was not opened on 31 August 2026 and may say more, so whether it names AI model providers is not established. No data processing addendum, security page or disclosure pack specific to AI is published, so anything a client's AI clause asks about model handling would need to be negotiated.
The data processing addendum, effective 3 March 2025, commits Steno to keep an up to date list of subprocessors available on request and to give notice of new ones where privacy law requires. The trust center's subprocessor page lists none. The terms of use name Stripe and Bill.com as payment processors and describe the model providers behind Transcript Genius only as vetted third parties under contract. The SOC 2 Type II report and HIPAA addendum come through the trust center's request access form, while the DPA, the privacy policy and the terms are public.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Nothing published would help a lawyer disclose or certify AI use to a court. Searched the Sightline, Aurora and AI PrivGen pages and the privacy policy on 31 Aug 2026: no model is identified or versioned, so which system generated a given privilege log description cannot be established; no audit trail or transparency log of AI decisions is described; nothing states that the expert quality assurance step is recorded, sampled at a stated rate, or producible; and no export, template or guidance exists for an AI-use disclosure or a certification of verification.
Aurora publishes dashboards and standardized metrics, but they track matter progress and cost rather than AI provenance. The absence bites hardest on the flagship product, since a privilege log is filed with the court and an opponent challenging it would ask how each description was produced and who checked it.
Every Transcript Genius answer cites a transcript page and line, is shown beside the source, and can open the synced video at the cited moment. Nothing says questions, answers or the acceptance of an answer are logged for export. No export exists for an AI use disclosure or a certification of verification, and no template or guidance is published for a court's standing order. The terms do not name the models behind Transcript Genius and let Steno change the AI platform at any time, so the model behind an earlier answer may not be knowable later.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Consilio if
- Client material must stay off the public cloud. Consilio stores data in its own network of private data centers, and its AI runs inside that infrastructure.
- You want people attached to the AI. AI Guides design each review and validate the prompts, with review managers and analytics experts working alongside them.
- Privilege logs are the bottleneck. AI PrivGen drafts uniform privilege descriptions, and Consilio cites up to 70% fewer attorney hours on log creation.
Choose Steno if
- Your questions start and end with deposition testimony. Transcript Genius works across a firm's transcripts, including those from other reporters, and is included at no extra charge.
- Every answer has to be checkable against the record. Each answer carries a page and line citation shown beside the source, and synced video opens at the cited moment.
- You book reporters and interpreters anyway. Steno bundles the AI with the reporting work, Clio and Litify integrations and DelayPay for deferred case costs.
In summary
Consilio
Consilio is an ediscovery and legal data business headquartered in the United States, selling software and managed services together. Its Aurora Legal AI Suite covers review, ediscovery and legal operations, and AI PrivGen drafts privilege log descriptions from a document's content, metadata and context. According to the AI Legal Index, Consilio runs its custom AI models on its own private data centers outside the public cloud. It holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and HITRUST CSF certification and pairs each review with AI Guides and review managers.
Steno
Steno is a deposition and litigation support company in Los Angeles that pairs court reporting, videography and interpreters with a dashboard for the firms that book them. Transcript Genius answers questions across one deposition or many, with a clickable page and line citation beside each answer. According to the AI Legal Index, Steno's terms bar its outside model providers from training on the data and describe outputs as research aids rather than legal advice or work product.
Questions buyers ask
Are Consilio and Steno alternatives to each other?
Rarely. Consilio reviews and manages large document sets for litigation, investigations and regulatory work. Steno books the people who create deposition transcripts and adds an AI layer over them. They meet only where deposition testimony enters a wider review. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What models sit underneath each product?
Consilio describes custom AI models built in house and fine tuned for legal document classification, hosted on its private cloud. Steno's terms say Transcript Genius runs mainly on large language models from outside providers under contract, without naming them. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which certifications do Consilio and Steno hold?
Consilio holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and HITRUST CSF certification and keeps data in its own private data centers. Steno offers a SOC 2 Type II report and a HIPAA addendum through its trust center's request form. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does either publish a price for the core service?
No. Steno lists ancillary terms such as cancellation fees of up to $400 and interest on late invoices, and quotes reporting rates from a rate card on request. Consilio prices its services in a sales conversation. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can a firm read the customer terms before buying?
For Steno, yes: its terms of use cover AI outputs, cap liability at $100 and allow backup recording of whole proceedings. Consilio's site carries a privacy policy, and its service terms are agreed in a contract. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Consilio is headquartered in the United States and separated from First Advantage in 2015 with Shamrock Capital Advisors as its principal investor. Steno Agency, Inc. is based in Los Angeles. Neither vendor reviewed this page.