ContractKen vs Legartis: how they compare in 2026
Choose Legartis when legal wants to delegate a recurring process to business colleagues within configured boundaries, with the agent handling steps across intake, negotiation, approvals and signing. ContractKen is better aligned with a lawyer who remains in Word to draft, inspect issues and approve narrowly targeted edits. Both can encode negotiation standards, but their operating units differ: a governed workspace process on one side and the lawyer's agreement review on the other. Legartis offers a limited free plan and a quoted paid workspace, whereas ContractKen provides a public standard review subscription. Their hosting descriptions also differ. Legartis states Switzerland and Europe; ContractKen's default AWS arrangement and optional private inference require attention to the chosen deployment rather than assuming a universal regional setup.
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.
Models classify clauses, compare negotiation positions, explain deviations and generate contract drafts or proposed edits. The current pipeline combines language inference, entity recognition, retrieval from approved material and generative models selected for the task. These functions are central to the review and drafting work. The Word application also retains useful nonmodel components: a shared clause library, playbook administration, formatting checks and reference validation. Users can organize approved language and maintain negotiation standards alongside the AI analysis. ContractKen thus joins model driven legal work to an established editing and knowledge workflow, rather than treating every formatting or storage operation as artificial intelligence.
Legartis sells the product as a Legal AI Workspace built on an agentic framework. Its named components are the Review Agent, the Legal Agent and the Playbook Creator Agent, and every capability a customer pays for runs through these agents. Since agentic workflows launched on 23 September 2026, the Legal Agent takes on complete legal processes, from incoming requests and contract review to negotiation, approvals, reporting and signature. The pricing page also lists e signature via DocuSign and a contract repository with status and versions. Workflows can be created by voice or in writing and reused across the workspace. Procurement and sales teams work in their own Focus Spaces, under rules and templates legal has approved.
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.
Review findings connect to the relevant contract passage, and generated explanations draw on the customer's playbooks, clause library and prior agreements. Retrieval preserves section structure, definitions and cross references instead of splitting text without that context. Drafted clauses identify whether they came from a precedent, approved library language or a playbook requirement. Low confidence suggestions are flagged for review. The models undergo internal classification tests before deployment, but current numerical results, a reproducible test set and error rates for generated legal conclusions are not specified. A research result about similar legal models is separate from ContractKen's production accuracy.
Legal experts define the playbook requirements against which Legartis evaluates contracts. Each requirement has a reliability indicator derived from test examples, and users can correct classifications to tune future reviews. The interface traces review results to a requirement and contract passage; legal questions carry citations to supporting sources. The quality framework names inaccurate instructions, missing context, interpretation differences and invented information as distinct failure modes. Customer dashboards expose performance within their own workflows, but a reproducible public test set and current accuracy results are not provided. The widely stated reduction in review time measures speed rather than legal accuracy.
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.
Playbook Driven Review checks preferred, fallback and walkaway positions; Comprehensive Review provides an alternative when no organizational playbook exists. Risk sensitivity can be adjusted, and the playbook framework distinguishes deviations that require escalation to a partner. Reviewers navigate to the exact clause, inspect an explanation and approve, modify or reject a proposed change. No edit enters the agreement without explicit human approval. Drafts receive a playbook compliance report before use, and administrators control who can change the playbook itself. These controls separate automatic analysis from the lawyer's decision about the final language and the route for an unacceptable negotiating position.
The system works against legally validated requirements and company playbooks, and legal experts rather than the model define what counts as correct. Legartis names four review tools. AI Quality Scores for each requirement appear in a dashboard, and in test sets the user reviews and corrects how the system understood a requirement. Detection of clauses outside expected patterns and a full audit trail complete the set. It states twice that judgment returns to a person. A human is the final checkpoint before any decision is made on an AI classification, and accountability stays with the organization, not the AI, when agents draft, review or flag clauses. The path for a misclassification is documented end to end, from detection through correction in the test set to the system applying that correction to similar cases. Since the agentic workflows launched on 23 September 2026, legal teams set the playbooks, templates, responsibilities and decision boundaries the Legal Agent follows. When a deviation exceeds a boundary, such as a liability clause outside the agreed position, the agent refers it to the responsible person for a decision. Legartis publishes no default boundary, and each customer sets its own.
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.
Named practitioners describe using ContractKen in contract work. Aseet Patel, a lawyer and legal technology founder, uses it for agreements and term sheets before sending work to outside counsel for final review. Sharon Zachariah, an innovation lawyer and former partner, describes using it after drafting or reviewing client contracts. These accounts identify people and actual tasks, but give no dated baseline or measurement method. Separate drafting illustrations promise substantial reductions in time to a first draft, and the review calculator estimates savings from assumed workloads. Those illustrations do not establish measured outcomes for either named practitioner or the current AI pipeline.
Two customers, dormakaba and TUEV NORD, have dedicated case study pages. Seven more appear as logos (Uniklinik, Emmi, Fiege, Oechsler, Framatome, Zuercher Kantonalbank and Arabelle Solutions). Legartis cites a DPA first review falling from 45 to 60 minutes to under 10, and contract review up to 85 percent faster. It also cites playbook creation effort down up to 98 percent and costs down more than 90 percent on portfolio risk analysis. Testimonials carry personal names, including Kim Weiler, Dr Marc Hansmann, Cedric Ruepp, Gordian Berger and Juerg Sommer. The testimonials do not give these individuals' organizations, so the figures they quote are not tied to a named customer.
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.
The security commitments treat content as confidential work product, restrict staff access to necessary support under confidentiality obligations and separate customer tenants with individual encryption keys. The Moderation Layer masks sensitive text locally, offers a preview and validates the sanitized version before external model processing. Public or shared model training is excluded in the security FAQ, while the architecture also describes controlled feedback learning and private customization. The general terms reserve content review for service improvement. Retention and purge controls exist, but internal matter walls and a consistent contractual training restriction are not established across these different surfaces.
The home page and pricing page state no data sharing with third parties, GDPR compliance, ISO 27001 certification and hosting in Switzerland and Europe. The pricing page uses the narrower phrase no uncontrolled data sharing. The only published data document is a privacy policy last updated 6 November 2019. It addresses website and account data and does not address uploaded contracts, prompts or outputs. On training, the only published statements are on the pricing pages, which offer exclusion of the customer's data from model training on the paid Team to Enterprise plan only. Legartis does not address segregation between customers or between matters, states no retention or deletion position for contract content, and identifies no model provider. Its published materials do not mention privilege, professional secrecy or work product.
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.
The terms distinguish ContractKen from a law firm or attorney and state that its information is not legal advice. They direct people needing advice to a licensed lawyer and do not create a professional relationship with the vendor. The product reinforces supervision through source inspection, playbook controls and required approval of generated changes. Its confidentiality explanation also engages with lawyers' duties under ABA Formal Opinion 512. Standard clauses include common law jurisdiction notes, but that coverage does not define a complete set of professional practice limits. The trial audience includes people who are not lawyers as well as legal teams.
Asked in its FAQ who is liable if the AI makes a mistake, Legartis answers that when a lawyer sends a signed document it makes no difference how it was created. The lawyer remains liable, the AI is an assistive tool, and legal responsibility stays with the person who approves the result. A companion answer says accountability stays with the organization rather than the AI. Both positions sit in FAQ prose rather than in an agreement. No jurisdiction limit is stated, although the product is sold across every European language and legal system. Legartis also invites people who are not lawyers to work in the product. A dedicated FAQ confirms that procurement and sales teams review contracts on their own in line with legal standards. No statement on scope of use for those users is published.
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.
ContractKen describes a controlled model update process using feedback from accepted, modified and rejected suggestions. Those signals are aggregated and reviewed before supervised retraining, rather than changing the model instantly after each user action. Updated models face held out tests using precision, recall and F1 measures; performance must remain stable or improve before release. Administrators can also restrict sensitive information through redaction rules. This is a concrete development and release framework. A named person accountable for AI governance, current test results and findings about uneven performance across jurisdictions, contract types or groups are not specified.
Legartis sets out its AI Quality System as three named layers, each with a described mechanism. Playbooks and Legal Best Practices with Agent Memory form the knowledge base, AI Quality Scores come with feedback loops and targeted user tuning, and clauses outside expected patterns are detected. Three published articles cover auditable AI, explainable AI and governing agentic legal AI. Legartis distinguishes explainable AI, which shows how a decision was reached, from auditable AI, which checks whether output meets a defined standard. Nobody inside Legartis is named as accountable for AI governance, no testing regime before release is described, and no testing results are published. Nothing is published about uneven output across matter types or populations, although bias appears in a section heading. ISO 27001 is a security management standard and does not cover AI governance.
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.
Administrators can request an immediate purge of contracts, prompts, logs and backups. Operational logs normally remain for 30 days, with a contractual option to set that period to zero. Enterprise controls include single sign on, administrator multifactor authentication and permissions for playbook uploads, draft review and data export. Staff access is restricted and logged. The security FAQ states continuous monitoring and material incident notification within 72 hours or a faster legal deadline. A complete current subprocessor register and the DPA require a request, and the default retention period for application prompts and generated output is not separately stated.
Data handling is governed by a privacy policy last updated 6 November 2019. It covers website and account data and does not address what happens to uploaded contracts, prompts or generated output after processing. Its retention section speaks generally, saying aggregated, anonymized or pseudonymized information may be kept indefinitely, and states no retention period for contract content. No deletion position or incident and breach practice is published. The policy names Turicode, VSHN and LinuxFabrik as third party processors for Application users. All three are Swiss infrastructure and operations suppliers, and no AI model provider is among them. Access control appears only as paid features in the pricing matrix, with role management, document controls and audit logs on the paid Team to Enterprise plan. Personal data is stated to be stored on servers in Zurich.
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.
The public terms disclaim accuracy, completeness and noninfringement warranties and cap aggregate liability at the greater of $100 or fees paid in the preceding 12 months. Exceptions concern death, property damage or injury from gross negligence, and fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. Customers indemnify ContractKen for specified claims. The security FAQ offers a stronger position, including an IP indemnity, performance warranty, cyber and professional insurance and different liability exceptions. Paid customers may instead have an Enterprise Services Agreement, whose text is not available here. Those stronger commitments therefore do not clearly replace the default terms for every subscriber.
The legal section of the site footer offers two documents, a legal notice and a privacy policy, and neither is a contract for the service. Legartis publishes no customer agreement. The legal notice is a website disclaimer. It disclaims the accuracy of information on the website, excludes liability for losses from using that information, and puts reliance at the user's own risk. It governs the website rather than the Application. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty on the service or its output, or insurance position is published. On who bears the loss, the only statement is an FAQ answer on the AI Quality System page. It says the lawyer who signs remains liable and accountability stays with the organization. That answer is marketing prose that puts risk on the customer, and it is not a contractual term binding Legartis.
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.
The Word add in reads the active agreement chosen by the user, rather than scanning other files or email. Review findings navigate to the underlying clause. Approved suggestions return through Office.js as ordinary tracked changes with explanatory comments, and the privacy mapping restores original names and values. Users supply their playbooks, precedents and clause language, then review output within the same document. Standard setup requires Microsoft Word and includes onboarding support. Integrations with systems such as iManage belong to the separately quoted custom workflow offer; they are distinct from the detailed, standard Word editing connection.
The Word add in is the main integration, and customers on Microsoft Office 2019 or Office 365 can install the Legartis Word app. An open REST API is described as letting Legartis run as a standalone web app alongside any contract management solution. The pricing matrix lists API and MCP integrations on the paid Team to Enterprise plan. Legartis has no integrations page or developer documentation, and does not describe what moves between systems or in which direction. The pricing page now lists e signature via DocuSign, and the Team to Enterprise plan adds SSO.
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 standard service combines a Word add in with a hosted analysis pipeline. Sensitive entities can be replaced locally before sanitized text reaches ContractKen's servers and external AI providers. Primary hosting is on AWS, with European Union or United States residency available on request. Regulated teams can obtain private inference in their own Azure tenant or virtual private cloud, and enterprise customers can supply an endpoint. These options distinguish local preparation from remote analysis. Exact cloud regions, the location of every provider's processing and the configuration or price differences between residency choices are not specified.
Legartis states on its product and pricing pages that hosting is in Switzerland and Europe, and the arrangement is the same on every tier. The privacy policy says personal data is stored on servers in Zurich. Processing location is not addressed separately from storage. No model provider is named, so where inference runs is not stated. Legartis does not say whether the platform is single tenant or multitenant, or how customers are separated. The only related detail is document level permissions, offered as an Enterprise feature. No deployment option varies the hosting arrangement.
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.
ContractKen describes SOC 2 Type II certification as in progress and its controls as aligned with ISO 27001 and ISO 27701. The security FAQ also mentions a report under a nondisclosure agreement, without identifying a completed audit period or service scope. Encryption, tenant isolation, administrator authentication, annual independent penetration testing and customer audit access are separate operating controls. Penetration test summaries and a security paper are available on request. Its own certification remains unfinished, without a dated independent audit, a named auditor or a defined assurance scope covering the ContractKen service.
Legartis states that it holds ISO 27001 certification. The claim appears in the home page trust block, the security section of the AI Quality System page, the pricing matrix and a badge in the site footer. No certifying body, certificate number, scope statement or statement of applicability, or issue or expiry date is published. Legartis has no trust center or portal, and offers no route to obtain a report at any access tier. With no certifying body named, the claim cannot be matched to a register without contacting Legartis. No penetration testing is mentioned.
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 architecture identifies DeBERTa for clause classification and natural language inference, plus spaCy and custom entity types for recognition. Generative models handle explanations and edits after retrieval from approved material. The security FAQ names OpenAI and Google as example API providers, while enterprise customers can bring their own endpoint. Routing selects models by task and can change as performance improves. Exact generative model families, versions and processing regions are not specified. The 30 day notice commitment concerns material changes to data handling or service levels, rather than every substitution of a model in the pipeline.
Legartis describes its own agentic AI framework and does not identify the models underneath it. Its marketing distinguishes that framework from generic language model output and contrasts Legartis with ChatGPT, which implies third party models are in use without naming one. No model or model provider is named, and no notice of change is committed. The third party processors published for Application users, Turicode, VSHN and LinuxFabrik, are Swiss infrastructure and operations suppliers, not model providers. Where inference runs is not stated. Hosting in Switzerland and Europe describes where the platform sits. The pricing matrix offers exclusion from model training on the paid Team to Enterprise plan, without explaining the default treatment of Free accounts.
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 standard Word subscription costs $149 per user per month on monthly billing or $119 with annual billing. It has no minimum seat requirement and includes unlimited review and redlining, a clause library, playbooks, formatting, onboarding and training. A guided trial lasts 14 days, and cancellations or seat reductions can receive a prorated refund. Custom AI and workflow projects use a quoted proof of concept lasting eight to 12 weeks, including usage and customization. Standard installation is included; custom implementation support is also described as included, but the project fee and enterprise deployment price are not stated.
Legartis has a Free plan and a paid Team to Enterprise plan priced on request. Free provides one seat, two NDA reviews a month, basic agent access and German, English and French. The paid plan expands to all contract types and European languages, with custom playbooks, workflows, reporting, single sign on, role management and audit logs. Contract volume and team requirements determine the commercial discussion, and no paid rate or implementation amount accompanies the current plans. Training exclusion is a paid entitlement. The older Professional and Team rates no longer appear in either the current English or German plan matrix.
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.
Law firms and internal legal teams can review commercial agreements, draft from prior transactions and maintain shared negotiation language. Examples include nondisclosure, service, software, employment, supply, lease and acquisition agreements. Prebuilt clauses cover common law jurisdictions including the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, with jurisdiction notes and tags for custom language. Separate playbooks can serve different teams, contract types or jurisdictions. Multilingual review is described broadly, but a tested language matrix and unsupported practice boundaries are not specified. The product centers on transactional drafting and negotiation; its clause guidance does not establish a general legal research or litigation service.
The buyer Legartis describes is the legal department and the procurement and sales teams around it, each with a dedicated page, plus a construction industry page. Law firms are neither claimed nor excluded. Best Practice Playbooks are published for NDA, DPA, SaaS agreement, purchase agreement and commercial lease agreement. Paid tiers cover all contract types, and the free tier covers NDA only. Twelve industries are listed. Language coverage is set per tier, with German, English and French on Free and all European languages on paid plans. Coverage is claimed for companies of any size and industry. Government use is not addressed, and nothing says where the product stops.
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?
Section 8 permits review or editing of content for "operating and improving the Service" without a model training exclusion. The security FAQ excludes training public or shared models, while the architecture describes aggregated lawyer feedback used in controlled retraining and private customization. Another statement says no customer data trains models. The Enterprise Services Agreement may supersede the general terms, but its training clause is not available in the public agreement.
Legartis's main pricing page says the Team to Enterprise plan adds the exclusion of the customer's data from model training. The FAQ on its plans page says the Team and Enterprise plans offer an opt out of model training. Customers on the Free and Professional plans have no opt out available to them. No agreement, policy or trust page states what the default is, what is trained on, or whose models are involved. The privacy policy, last updated 6 November 2019, does not address contract content. The opt out is a paid product setting rather than a published term.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Administrators may request immediate deletion of contracts, prompts, logs and backups. The security FAQ gives operational logs a 30 day default and allows that period to be set contractually to zero. It does not separately define a default window for application prompts or generated answers. The privacy policy's period after account termination concerns personal information and does not establish how long AI interactions remain during active use.
Legartis publishes nothing on how long prompts, uploaded contracts or generated output are retained. The privacy policy, last updated 6 November 2019, addresses website and account data only. Its retention section says information is kept as long as necessary and that aggregated, anonymized or pseudonymized information may be retained indefinitely, but nothing in it applies to contract content. Its pricing page lists a contract repository with status and versions, with no retention period.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Customer tenants are logically separated and use individual encryption keys. Enterprise roles control who uploads playbooks, reviews drafts or exports information, and shared precedents are available to authorized team members. These controls separate organizations and administrative activities. A permission model that divides opposing matters within one firm, or carries a connected document system's ethical walls into retrieval at query time, is not specified in the standard Word workflow.
The pricing matrix lists advanced role management, described as team based access control with document level permissions, as an Enterprise feature, and lists user management on paid tiers. Legartis does not describe how any of it is enforced, and does not address separation between customers or between matters. The marketing trust blocks state no data sharing with third parties and, on the pricing page, no uncontrolled data sharing.
Neither statement concerns segregation inside the platform. Segregation is offered as a purchasable feature with no published detail behind it.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The terms allow ContractKen to preserve or share information when reasonably necessary for legal process, law enforcement and protection of rights or safety. The privacy policy also permits disclosures in response to legal requirements. Neither sets out advance customer notice for a subpoena, a process for challenging a request or a transparency report. The separate security incident notice commitment concerns breaches and does not supply a legal demand notification policy.
The privacy policy states that without explicit consent Legartis will not disclose personal data to third parties other than its named processors, unless this is required by law. Disclosure under legal compulsion is therefore addressed directly. Neither the privacy policy nor the legal notice commits Legartis to notify the customer of such a request, and neither reserves discretion over notice. The legal notice separately states that data transmitted by users is treated as confidential and will not be forwarded to third parties. That addresses voluntary sharing rather than compelled disclosure.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Review and drafting use the customer's playbooks, clause library and prior agreements. ContractKen also supplies a library of commercial clauses and describes bundled language as authored internally, licensed or drawn from public domain material. Individual external sources and their rights are not listed, nor is an update schedule for a primary law corpus. Jurisdiction notes and refreshed sample language support drafting without establishing a comprehensive collection of legal authority.
The Legal Agent is described as doing legal research with references to legal sources and as connected to relevant legal sources. Legartis names no database, publisher, jurisdiction or collection behind those answers, and states no license or rights basis. The knowledge it describes in detail is the customer's own, namely playbooks, Legal Best Practices and Agent Memory built from company guidelines and contract history.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
ContractKen can flag a precedent that no longer matches the team's current playbook and replace language from the approved clause library. It also traces generated clauses to their inputs. These checks concern contract standards and provenance, rather than the subsequent treatment of a judicial decision. A commercial citator connection, a method for checking whether authority has been overruled or an inline legal status warning is not specified.
Legartis is mainly a contract review and drafting product. A check of authority for subsequent history applies to it only through the Legal Agent, which is described as answering legal questions and researching with references to legal sources. Legartis describes no treatment signal, currency check or citator relationship, and names no primary law source.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The interface flags low confidence suggestions and gives reviewers supporting sources, explanations and control over proposed edits. Playbook thresholds identify unacceptable negotiating positions and can send those issues to a partner. That escalation is about contract risk rather than unsupported answers. An explicit refusal response when retrieval cannot support a generated conclusion, or a published demonstration of the system declining such a question, is not described.
AI Quality Scores give a reliability signal for each requirement, shown to the user in a dashboard, and Legartis says customers can see at any time where the AI stands. Detection of clauses outside expected patterns separately flags clauses the playbook does not define. Neither is an abstention path. Legartis does not describe the product declining to answer, marking an output as ungrounded, or stopping when it cannot support a conclusion.
It names hallucination as one of four error types it says occur most often, and calls it particularly critical because it is unpredictable. It does not describe what the system does after detecting one.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database has no entry naming ContractKen as the tool behind fabricated legal citations as of October 15, 2026. Its stated work centers on contract drafting, clause review and proposed Word edits, with the lawyer approving changes. This court record concerns one specific kind of incident; it does not establish an error rate for those tasks or validate the accuracy of the current models.
Legartis has no named tool entry in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of October 15, 2026. Its agents review contracts, answer legal questions and progress configured workflows, with legal teams defining the standards and decision boundaries. Those uses do not supply an error rate. This database result is limited to the court matters that name a tool and does not establish that every classification or generated answer is reliable.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The Moderation Layer explanation addresses ABA Formal Opinion 512 and connects its confidentiality duties to local masking, user previews and logs of external AI requests. It discusses informed consent and also references several state bars, the SRA and the CCBE. It does not map the product to named opinions in multiple jurisdictions. These statements explain ContractKen's approach; they do not guarantee privilege or establish that every deployment satisfies a lawyer's duties.
Legartis refers to professional responsibility in general terms without naming any guidance. The AI Quality System FAQ addresses liability directly. It says a lawyer sending a signed document remains liable however it was created, that the AI is an assistive tool, and that legal responsibility stays with the person who approves the result. No bar, chamber or regulator is named, no ethics opinion or professional code is cited, and no jurisdiction is identified, although the product is sold across European legal systems.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The privacy workflow logs who triggered AI analysis, what information went to which provider and when. Enterprise administrators can export document activity and enable prompt history exports, while Word preserves accepted edits and comments. These records identify parts of the assisted work performed on an agreement. ContractKen also markets shorter drafting and review times, but gives no corresponding guidance on recording billable hours, charging clients or disclosing the effect of those savings.
Legartis claims time and cost savings. It cites contract review up to 85 percent faster and playbook creation effort down by up to 98 percent. It also cites a DPA first review falling from 45 to 60 minutes to under 10, and costs down more than 90 percent on portfolio risk analysis. Its return on investment FAQ names lower external law firm costs and avoided headcount growth as the direct return. Its materials do not address what happens to a bill when work done with AI takes less time, and describe no per matter record of that work. The buyer is an in house department rather than a firm billing a client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
ContractKen offers a DPA, current subprocessor register, security paper, data flow diagram and insurance certificates on request. Some assurance materials require a nondisclosure agreement. Its public security FAQ explains tenant separation, model provider restrictions and purge options, but is not a complete provider list or a client consent package. A firm can begin its assessment from those commitments, while the detailed materials for a client's AI requirements require direct contact.
The privacy policy publishes a list of third party processors, separating website visitors from Application users and naming Turicode, VSHN and LinuxFabrik for the latter. All three are Swiss infrastructure and operations suppliers, and no AI model provider appears among them, so the list does not say whose models see a client's content. The list sits in a policy last updated 6 November 2019. Legartis offers no data processing agreement, consent pack or disclosure material for clients at any access tier, and makes no commitment to notify changes to subprocessors.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Anonymized versions and interaction logs preserve the information sent to AI providers, while drafting identifies source clauses and Word retains accepted edits. Administrators can export activity logs and prompt history. These provide pieces of an explanation of how an agreement was produced. A single export tying each generated passage to the exact model version, retrieved sources and a named human verification step for a court certification is not specified.
Legartis states a full audit trail in the trust blocks on both the home page and the AI Quality System page. It says a complete audit trail documents every correction step, and that every classification is traceable through the AI Quality Scores and the audit trail, so misclassifications stand out. Review history is listed as part of AI contract review, and audit logs appear in the pricing matrix as an Enterprise feature.
No export of a record for each document is described, the model used for a given output is not disclosed to the customer, and Legartis publishes no disclosure guidance or template for a court.
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.
- Good Law Verification
Which one fits
Choose ContractKen if
- The main user is a lawyer drafting or negotiating in Word rather than a business team progressing a delegated workflow.
- Review needs explicit fallback and walkaway positions plus a separate comprehensive clause analysis mode.
- A standard published review subscription is preferable to first defining the size and scope of an agent workspace.
Choose Legartis if
- Procurement or sales teams should complete recurring contract work inside rules and decision boundaries established by legal.
- An agent workflow spanning intake, approvals and signing is part of the intended process.
- A limited free NDA workspace is useful before scoping a paid team deployment hosted in Switzerland or Europe.
In summary
ContractKen
ContractKen applies negotiating standards inside Microsoft Word, with preferred language, fallback positions and walkaway rules encoded in the playbook. It also offers broader clause analysis and drafting from several source materials. The AI Legal Index identifies its Word review surface and targeted Surgical Redlines as the central mechanism for returning proposed work to the lawyer. The standard Review plan has a public per user price and unlimited review, while private inference is offered through enterprise arrangements. Local masking can remove sensitive terms before configured processing. Its default agreement permits service improvement, and the stronger warranties described for custom enterprise deals are not part of the public standard terms.
Legartis
Legartis organizes review, legal questions and agent workflows inside a legal AI workspace. Legal teams define requirements and decision boundaries, while procurement and sales use Focus Spaces to handle recurring work. The AI Legal Index identifies configured escalation to the responsible legal or business owner as the key control when a proposed action exceeds those boundaries. Its agents can extend from intake and negotiation to approvals, reporting and signing. A free plan covers one seat and two NDA reviews monthly; the paid Team to Enterprise plan requires a quote. Hosting is in Switzerland and Europe, and customer data exclusion from training is a paid plan entitlement.
Questions buyers ask
How do the products handle exceptions to a playbook?
Legartis can route deviations above configured boundaries to the responsible legal, finance or business owner. ContractKen uses negotiating positions and escalation thresholds within its review playbook. Both leave a human decision for work outside the approved position, but in different operating surfaces. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are Legartis's older CHF rates still its current paid offer?
The current English and German plan matrices show Free and a Team to Enterprise plan priced on request. The older Professional and Team figures are not the current displayed offer. ContractKen separately lists a standard per user Review subscription. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can business teams use Legartis without sending every contract to legal?
Its Focus Spaces and configured workflows are designed for that arrangement. Legal sets standards and boundaries, with deviations returning to the responsible person. This is delegated work within rules, not a claim that every AI decision is independently correct. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does either have an unconditional ban on training with customer content?
Legartis describes training exclusion as a paid plan entitlement without explaining every aspect of Free account treatment. ContractKen's standard terms permit operating and improving the service, with separate limits on public and shared models. Neither statement should be expanded beyond its stated scope. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 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.
Legartis Technology AG and ContractKen, Inc. are separate operators. Neither reviewed this page. Hosting statements and paid training entitlements describe their respective published offers, not a guarantee that every deployment is identical.