Diliforce vs DiliTrust: how they compare in 2026
A governance team choosing between these suites should start with the work that follows its central repository. Diliforce joins contract storage, board meetings, entities and data rooms through metadata and SmartIndex views. It suits a team organizing the same corporate materials for daily administration, funding rounds and external due diligence. DiliTrust adds a dedicated matter management workflow, QuickView status summaries and Risk Detector's playbook based contract revisions. Both assist board preparation, but DiliTrust specifically turns meeting recordings and related files into editable draft minutes. Signature delivery also differs: Diliforce connects outside providers, while DiliTrust Sign supplies native simple electronic signatures as its module rollout expands. Diliforce emphasizes a common governance repository and reusable due diligence structures; DiliTrust extends that foundation into tracked contract proposals and ongoing matter activity.
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.
Diliforce adds AI analysis to a governance system that already manages contracts, board meetings, legal entities and due diligence materials. The Assistant summarizes agreements, compares versions, translates clauses and explains potential risks. Metadata extraction proposes tags and key terms during individual or bulk imports, while SmartIndex can build a folder structure from a sample file or photograph. These functions reduce preparation work across the suite, but the repository, meeting cycle, reminders and signature connections operate independently. Generative features require an additional account subscription and administrator permission. The product remains a corporate governance platform with substantial AI assistance rather than a standalone legal reasoning service.
Lini supplies AI functions across DiliTrust's five governance modules: contracts, entities, matters, board meetings and secure file sharing. Risk Detector applies internal playbooks and proposes tracked edits, while extraction fills contract summary sheets. Other functions transcribe meeting recordings, draft minutes, summarize files and generate QuickView matter updates. These functions extend systems that also manage permissions, calendars, agreements and corporate structures without generative processing. The AI is embedded in the suite rather than constituting the entire product. Customers can additionally connect their own language models through a secure API, subject to their chosen integration and governance arrangements.
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.
The Assistant analyzes selected corporate files and can compare two versions through an AI Analysis List. Metadata extraction is promoted as producing accurate tags, and the Assistant offers explanations of complex clauses and potential compliance issues. Its responsible use guidance warns that generated content may be inaccurate, incomplete or outdated and requires independent verification of important information. No measured error rate, reproducible accuracy test or passage citation method is specified. Selecting the source files gives users material against which to inspect an answer, but does not establish that each assertion links to an exact supporting passage or current legal authority.
Risk Detector accepts a Word or PDF agreement, identifies its type and applies the customer's playbook rules. It highlights the clauses that depart from those rules alongside proposed edits, leaving the original contract language available for inspection before the reviewer accepts or adjusts a suggestion. This gives contract findings a concrete source and review path. The same assurance is not quantified across generated meeting minutes, general summaries or QuickView updates. No reproducible accuracy benchmark or error distribution is specified for those functions. A highlighted contractual passage also does not establish the validity of an external legal proposition or current case authority.
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.
Metadata extraction produces suggestions that a user must review and apply for each agreement, including files submitted through mass import. Users can discard suggestions; changing a proposed value requires applying it and then editing the metadata card. The account administrator controls access to AI features and can separately enable or disable optional Claude models. An AI Analysis List lets each user select an accessible file for analysis or two for comparison. The service terms exclude automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects under GDPR Article 22. Confidence thresholds, automatic escalation for uncertain answers and correction handling beyond these review controls are unspecified.
Users initiate AI work by supplying an agreement, asking a question or requesting a summary. Risk Detector returns highlighted clauses and tracked proposals that the reviewer can accept or adjust. Minutes Generation provides an editable draft assembled from meeting files and recordings; QuickView produces a matter update for the user to inspect and share. The AI Code of Conduct requires human oversight for critical decisions, and the security sheet describes human validation by default. These review surfaces keep users involved, but the definition of a critical decision, automatic uncertainty thresholds and a prescribed escalation route for unreliable output remain unspecified.
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.
RELEX Solutions uses the governance portal, entity register and data rooms to maintain materials for financing and subsidiary administration. Its head of legal, Tuomo Sirkka, describes replacing scattered network folders with a common repository and reusing due diligence materials for successive funding rounds, including the €500 million round in 2022. Legal, finance and administrative staff share the system, and external law firms receive materials through its data rooms. SIGG and Kiron Interactive also describe contract or entity management use. These accounts establish operational adoption, but do not measure AI accuracy or isolate the Assistant's contribution to time savings or transaction results.
Consort Group's head of legal, Claire Dolley, describes DiliTrust as the central working tool for its contract activity in an account updated August 18, 2026. Legal and procurement jointly selected the system to replace fragmented contracting information. The implementation combined repository migration, approval workflows, renewal alerts, templates, signatures and required metadata fields. New sales employees receive mandatory training, and the shared system supports both sales and procurement. This account explains deployment and organizational adoption in concrete terms. It does not provide a measured before and after result or attribute a defined portion of the improvement to Lini's AI features.
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 service agreement prohibits model training on prompts, files uploaded for AI interactions and generated outputs. Mutual confidentiality duties extend to employees and subcontractors, while the DPA restricts personal data processing to customer instructions. Administrators assign category permissions and can use access groups for particular entities or business units. AI Analysis Lists accept only attachments the user may access. Optional Claude processing requires administrator activation and uses Anthropic infrastructure. Providers may temporarily retain prompts for abuse prevention under their own terms. These protections address confidential corporate materials, without promising preservation of legal privilege or a separate conflicts management process for outside counsel.
The security sheet expressly excludes client data from training global models and confines ordinary AI processing to DiliTrust's infrastructure. The product uses granular permissions, encryption, separate data access and audit trails, while the vendor states that its team has no access to critical customer information. Customers can retain encryption keys in their own PKCS#11 compatible hardware security module. Private customer specific model training and a contractual training prohibition are not set out in a customer agreement available before procurement. Legal privilege preservation, production prompt retention and the full hosting and support processor chain remain unspecified.
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.
Responsible use guidance tells users to inspect AI output, independently verify important information and avoid treating generated responses as legal, financial or other professional advice. That boundary applies even though the Assistant is marketed for governance guidance, board responsibilities, ESG issues and contract risk explanations. Users remain responsible for deciding whether a proposed interpretation or summary is suitable for the underlying business decision. The terms also prohibit protected health information, GDPR special category data and specified financial information. No jurisdictional professional conduct mapping, lawyer qualification check or detailed allocation of supervision duties between corporate counsel and board administrators is specified.
Lini assists legal teams with contract revisions, board minutes, summaries and matter updates. The AI Code of Conduct requires human judgment for critical decisions, and each workflow leaves users with material to inspect or edit. However, the professional boundary between that assistance and legal advice is not defined through an explicit advice disclaimer or jurisdictional duty framework. The audience includes corporate counsel, law firms and public organizations, whose responsibilities differ by role and jurisdiction. General human oversight does not specify who must supervise a generated resolution, verify a proposed clause or approve its use under the professional rules governing an engagement.
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.
Diliforce's responsible use instructions acknowledge incomplete, inaccurate and outdated AI answers and require human verification before reliance. Administrators control AI access and optional provider activation, and the terms rule out automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects under GDPR Article 22. Those are practical use boundaries, but they do not describe a model governance program. A named owner for AI risk, release testing criteria, bias assessment across languages or jurisdictions and published findings from such evaluations are unspecified. Board oversight and corporate governance features organize the customer's affairs; they do not establish how the vendor evaluates its own models.
DiliTrust's AI Code of Conduct describes in-house development, synthetic and public training data, local processing infrastructure and customer model connectivity. It commits to testing and monitoring for bias, making AI processes understandable and retaining human oversight of critical decisions. Its security sheet adds human validation by default and places model processing inside the controlled infrastructure. These provisions give the governance approach substance beyond a general fairness statement. Named evaluation datasets, release acceptance criteria and results showing uneven performance across languages, legal tasks or populations are not supplied. Security leadership and machine learning roles do not establish a complete published model accountability process.
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.
Conversation attachments are removed after the interaction at Diliforce's layer, while model providers may retain prompts and responses for abuse prevention. Account and profile information remains for the subscription plus twelve months; usage logs and support communications normally remain for twelve months. Security guidance describes seven day database recovery and file soft deletion. The DPA requires return or destruction after termination, subject to legal retention and scheduled backup deletion, and written breach notice without undue delay. Access groups, MFA and individual permissions restrict visibility. A full subprocessor list is supplied on request, and provider retention periods are not fixed in the agreement.
The platform combines user permissions, encryption, audit trails, watermarks, daily backups and monitoring. Each server request requires authentication and permission to proceed, and customer controlled encryption keys are available through an external hardware security module. Backups remain in the production country's jurisdiction at a separate location. Security testing includes internal reviews, weekly automated scans and an annual independent assessment. The privacy notice addresses website and business contact information, with general deletion on request. Production prompt retention, the lifespan of backup copies, a complete service subprocessor list and a defined customer incident notification deadline are not stated in those materials.
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.
ContractZen's agreement expressly excludes liability for damage caused by AI features or their use, including inaccurate, incomplete or misleading output. The service is supplied as is without performance, fitness or noninfringement warranties. Its general aggregate liability ceiling is 50% of fees paid during the six months before receipt of a claim, subject to liabilities that law does not allow it to exclude, including gross negligence and intent. Customers indemnify the provider against third party claims connected to their use or contractual breach. No reciprocal AI output indemnity or accuracy warranty is offered to cover a mistaken governance recommendation or contract summary.
Lini can propose agreement language, produce board minutes and summarize active matters, but a customer facing allocation of loss for incorrect output is not set out in an available subscription agreement. The website legal notice disclaims warranties and damages for website materials; it does not establish an AI output indemnity, application liability cap or product service level commitment. Security certifications and audit reports address controls rather than compensation after a mistaken recommendation. The terms governing enterprise use therefore remain dependent on procurement materials, with no stated public warranty or insurance commitment covering a flawed clause or inaccurate account of a board decision.
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.
Electronic signature connections carry agreements from Diliforce to Assently, Adobe Sign, Docusign, SignHero or Visma Sign and bring signed copies back into the workspace. Assently packages are purchased in the in-app store; other providers require an existing account connected there, and Adobe requires its Enterprise plan. Starting from an existing agreement or meeting preserves that item's signature status and returned signed file. Starting from the dashboard cannot return the result to an existing item. Signers cannot be changed after sending without cancellation and restart. Microsoft 365 and Google provide SSO, while Teams supports board work and a custom plan offers API access.
CRM connections generate and populate contracts from Salesforce opportunities, HubSpot deals and Microsoft Dynamics data. Word and Google Docs support drafting, Teams and Outlook carry board materials and invitations, and Gmail brings communications into matter management. Registry partners synchronize entity and filing information. Signature integrations include Docusign, Adobe Sign and several European providers. DiliTrust Sign adds native simple electronic signatures with automatic storage of the signed file and completion certificate, rolling out progressively across modules. The external connections have described purposes and data flows, but administrator configuration, detailed field mappings and deployment prerequisites are not supplied as an implementation reference.
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 governance service runs on Microsoft Azure, with security guidance naming the Netherlands for hosting and EU geography for data at rest. The default Assistant accesses models through Microsoft Foundry, but its privacy guidance permits processing in other Microsoft regions, including outside the EEA, under transfer safeguards. Optional Claude runs on Anthropic's own infrastructure and may also process outside the EEA. This makes storage location narrower than the permitted processing footprint. Customer files receive a separate encryption key held in Azure Key Vault. A customer hosted deployment, selectable inference region and country list covering every optional service are not specified.
The security sheet places European customers in Europe, Canadian customers in Canada, Latin American customers in Canada or Europe, and American customers in the United States. It describes regional options for the Middle East and Africa, including Morocco, and keeps backup copies within the same country as production. Ordinary AI processing uses local DiliTrust infrastructure, while customers may connect their own models through an API. Customer managed encryption keys are also available. The complete list of hosting countries, tenancy choices and processing implications of each customer selected model connection are not specified, so regional commitments do not resolve every deployment configuration.
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.
Security measures include AES-256 protection for attachments and databases, TLS connections, customer specific file encryption keys, MFA and restricted user access. The engineering process follows a secure development lifecycle and addresses OWASP risks; security tickets require validation before closure. Azure supplies redundant storage, monitoring and disaster recovery infrastructure. The ISO, SOC and other compliance standards named in the security guidance belong to Microsoft Azure, rather than constituting an independent attestation of ContractZen or Diliforce's application. No vendor specific certification report, auditor, assessment period or attested application scope is identified. Technical controls and the hosting provider's credentials therefore remain separate assurances.
AFNOR certificates cover delivery and operation of the DiliTrust Governance Suite as SaaS under ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27701:2019. Both run from February 23, 2026 through February 22, 2029, with the Puteaux site and remote access from Canada identified. The statement of applicability is version six dated June 28, 2024. The certificates can be obtained without a sales request. DiliTrust also claims SOC 2 Type II compliance, with that report supplied on request, and an ENS certification for Spain. Its separate security sheet describes audit practices, encryption and infrastructure; those explanations do not extend the certificates beyond their stated scope.
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.
Microsoft Foundry supplies the default model access layer, with Azure OpenAI identified in the AI privacy guidance. Administrators may enable Anthropic Claude, which runs on Anthropic infrastructure even though Foundry supplies access, identity and billing. Claude is disabled by default and has separate processing terms. The agreement prohibits training on AI inputs and outputs but permits providers to handle them under their own abuse prevention rules. Exact model versions, the routing between available models and a model specific change notice commitment are not stated. General contract amendment notice does not specify advance notice for each model or provider substitution.
DiliTrust develops and operates its own legal models and names the suite's AI engine Lini. The AI Code of Conduct describes pre-finetuning and fine-tuning commercially permissible open models with synthetic legal material, public datasets and an internal knowledge base. Processing takes place within local infrastructure, and customers may attach their own language models through an API. The underlying model families and versions are not identified, despite broader marketing language about fully proprietary technology. Nor is a model specific advance change notice promised. The architecture is described, while the precise foundation model and any customer selected provider remain configuration questions.
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.
Standard costs $9.50 per user each month when billed annually and includes contract management, the board portal and SmartIndex. Advanced costs $27 per user monthly on annual billing, with at least five users, and adds entity management, access groups, detailed audit logs and included data rooms. AI is a separate account subscription starting at $15 monthly, with administrator allocation of access. Signature providers charge separately, and larger custom plans require a quote. The terms normally renew yearly unless canceled fourteen days before expiry. Migration, training and assistance can be separately agreed, so the full implementation cost is not fixed by the standard subscription rates.
Pricing depends on user numbers, the selected solutions and customization requirements. DiliTrust offers tailored arrangements and demonstrations, but no subscription rate or minimum purchase is stated. Onboarding covers setup, migration, training and support; the main offering includes ongoing multilingual support and user training. Implementation duration varies with project complexity, and consulting is available for integrations and configuration. Its ROI calculators estimate potential savings without establishing the actual invoice. A price comparison therefore requires a proposal defining modules, user scope, services and signature requirements, with renewal terms, implementation charges and the cost of optional model connections still unspecified.
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.
The suite serves corporate legal teams, company secretaries, directors and finance staff maintaining governance information. Its main workflows cover board preparation and minutes, legal entities and ownership, agreement administration, funding rounds and audit preparation. Standard targets smaller organizations, Advanced adds controls for midsize companies, and custom arrangements support larger groups. Named customers include RELEX Solutions, SIGG and Kiron Interactive, with use across more than thirty-five countries. Multilingual analysis does not establish coverage of a defined body of national law. The service terms also exclude health information, GDPR special category data and specified financial account information, which limits the material these teams may upload.
Corporate legal departments, general counsel, boards and company secretaries are the main audience for the governance suite. It combines entity administration, contracts, disputes and matter tracking, meeting workflows and protected file exchange. Industry material addresses pharmaceuticals, private equity, real estate and energy. The FAQ additionally identifies law firms and public sector organizations and says smaller businesses can use tailored packages, so coverage is broader than large corporate departments alone. Multilingual operation and international deployment are supported, but a precise jurisdictional legal content inventory, government deployment requirements and exclusions by practice type or organizational size are not supplied.
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?
Prompts, files uploaded for AI interactions and generated outputs are excluded from model training by the service agreement. The same terms allow anonymized, aggregated datasets from customer information, but the specific AI clause directly prohibits training on those inputs and outputs. This applies to the default model service and optional providers. Claude activation authorizes Anthropic processing through the administrator's instruction; it does not remove the training prohibition. General account analytics and feedback have separate purposes.
Client material is excluded from training global models by the security sheet. The AI Code of Conduct separately describes synthetic data, public datasets and an internal knowledge base for the vendor's own model development. This is an express policy assurance for shared models, without a matching customer contract available before procurement or a clear position on private customer specific adaptation. The privacy notice's general service improvement language concerns business and user information and does not itself specify model training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Diliforce deletes attachments added to an AI conversation after the interaction. Its AI privacy guidance distinguishes that deletion from temporary retention of prompts and responses by Microsoft or Anthropic for abuse prevention, without giving those provider periods. Usage logs and support correspondence generally remain for twelve months, while database recovery and file soft deletion cover seven days. Ordinary account content has termination and backup rules of its own. No customer control guaranteeing zero retention across the complete AI processing chain is specified.
The AI processing path ends with results returned to the user, without a stated period for keeping prompts, generated text or meeting recordings. Daily infrastructure backups are described, but their deletion cycle is unspecified. The website privacy notice allows retention for as long as needed and deletion within a reasonable time on request; it does not establish production AI history rules. No customer setting for prompt expiry or zero retention is identified for Lini's contract, board or matter workflows.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Administrators set category permissions so users cannot see categories outside their access. Access groups further divide agreements, meetings and entities by company, country or business unit; users see items belonging to their assigned groups. The personal AI Analysis List permits selection only of attachments the user can access. These controls belong to Diliforce rather than an inherited external document management system.
Advanced includes access groups, while the help center also describes separate activation. Formal conflict screening and automatic matter wall administration are not specified.
Administrators define roles, permissions and access to individual files and functions within DiliTrust. Server requests are authenticated and authorized before execution, with audit trails capturing user activity and changes. Watermarks and controlled sharing help track distribution of sensitive corporate material. This is the suite's own access system rather than a stated inheritance of external document repository permissions.
The materials do not specify automated conflicts screening, matter wall synchronization or exactly how every Lini retrieval request applies an individual user's file permissions.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The DPA requires ContractZen to inform the customer before legally required personal data processing outside its instructions, unless the law prohibits that notice. It also requires notification without undue delay of supervisory authority or other authority inquiries concerning the data. ContractZen ordinarily does not answer those inquiries without customer instructions. The general confidentiality clause permits legally required disclosure, while the privacy notice separately covers account information.
No request transparency report or universal promise to challenge a demand accompanies these contractual notification duties.
The privacy notice permits cooperation with legal process and other requests considered necessary to protect rights or prevent harmful activity. It also says the company rejects demands it considers unfounded, overbroad or unrelated to their purpose. There is no corresponding commitment to notify the affected customer, offer time to object or report the demand afterward. Regional hosting and claims about foreign government access address where information is held; they do not establish notice when a competent authority requests disclosure.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The Assistant works with selected agreements, board materials, entity files and related corporate information. Its governance guidance does not identify a collection of statutes, decisions or regulatory publications with jurisdiction and licensing details. Microsoft and Anthropic model access likewise does not identify the underlying primary legal corpus available to a particular answer. SmartIndex legal due diligence and ESG templates organize customer materials; they are not a licensed legal research collection or an assurance that a legal proposition reflects current authority.
Lini primarily analyzes customer agreements, board materials and matter information. Its model development description names categories of training material, including synthetic data and public datasets, but identifies no specific collection of primary law, publisher or statutory source. The statement that base models permit commercial use is not a license for a defined legal research corpus. International and multilingual capabilities likewise do not establish jurisdiction by jurisdiction authority coverage or the update schedule behind an answer containing a legal proposition.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Agreement comparison and governance summaries operate on customer selected files. No licensed citator, precedent treatment signal or case validity mechanism is specified for the Assistant's answers. Responsible use instructions require independent verification of important information, but do not describe a legal authority validation workflow inside the product. Contract renewal reminders and entity filing dates help track obligations in corporate materials; those controls do not determine whether a cited case remains good law or whether a statute has been amended.
Risk Detector compares contract provisions with internal rules, while other AI functions produce meeting minutes and matter summaries. No licensed citator or mechanism for showing whether a case has been reversed, distinguished or overruled is specified. Entity registry integrations keep corporate filings aligned with official sources, which serves a different purpose from validating case authority. The suite's review controls support inspection of customer materials, but they do not establish a current-law check for any legal proposition included in a generated response.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Metadata suggestions stay subject to individual review and application, and users can remove unwanted proposals. That provides control over stored values, but no confidence threshold, refusal condition or automatic request for clarification is specified for uncertain AI answers. The responsible use guidance warns about incomplete or outdated output and places verification with the user. An Assistant answer about a board obligation or contract clause therefore requires inspection even when the source file is available in the analysis session.
Users can adjust contract suggestions, edit generated minutes and inspect a QuickView summary before sharing it. The Code of Conduct requires human oversight for critical decisions, but no AI refusal condition, confidence cutoff or request for clarification is specified for unsupported answers. A reviewer may see the original clause or meeting material without receiving a warning that the model lacks adequate support. The prescribed human role therefore does not establish how Lini itself behaves when a source is incomplete or ambiguous.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No fabricated citation proceeding naming ContractZen or Diliforce was identified in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of October 16, 2026. The product's main work concerns internal agreements, entity information and board materials, so a mistaken extraction or invented meeting detail could affect corporate decisions without producing a court citation incident. The database result does not establish an error rate or validate the Assistant's legal explanations. Its own usage guidance still requires independent verification before reliance on important information.
No fabricated citation proceeding naming DiliTrust or its Lini engine was identified in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of October 16, 2026. Matches containing the letters in Lini referred to unrelated names and ordinary words, rather than this product. Most suite outputs concern agreements, board minutes and internal matter updates, where a mistaken detail may never produce a court citation incident. This result supplies no measured accuracy assurance and does not exclude other disputes or operational mistakes involving generated content.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The AI instructions distinguish workflow assistance from legal, financial or professional advice and require users to verify important information. They do not name a bar opinion or map product controls to a lawyer's duties of competence, confidentiality, candor or client communication in any jurisdiction. GDPR provisions and corporate governance guidance address different obligations. Counsel preparing board materials or reviewing an agreement must therefore apply the professional rules governing that engagement without a vendor supplied jurisdictional conduct mapping.
The governance framework discusses GDPR, the European AI Act, bias mitigation and human oversight. It does not name a bar opinion or connect particular controls to jurisdictional duties governing lawyers' competence, confidentiality, candor or client communication. Corporate governance obligations and professional conduct rules apply to different actors. Lawyers using proposed contract clauses or generated matter summaries therefore receive general supervision principles, without a vendor supplied mapping to the rules that govern their own engagement or professional status.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Diliforce is sold for the internal governance work of organizations, including legal, finance and board administration. Its efficiency claims concern contract handling, meeting preparation and due diligence readiness rather than calculation of a lawyer's bill to a client. External counsel may receive materials through a data room, but that sharing workflow does not establish time entries, billing adjustments or AI fee disclosures.
The separate AI subscription is a software operating expense, with no stated mechanism for allocating saved lawyer time to client invoices.
DiliTrust promotes reduced manual work and supplies ROI calculators for its suite and individual modules. Its stated customer audience includes law firms as well as corporate departments, so time savings can arise within a lawyer and client fee relationship. No mechanism allocates those savings to billable entries, adjusts invoices or explains AI charges to clients. Matter management tracks outside counsel spend and dispute costs, but that does not establish an AI billing disclosure process or a client facing account of automated work.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
ContractZen supplies its current subprocessor list on request under the DPA. Public AI guidance already distinguishes Microsoft processing from optional Anthropic processing and explains administrator activation, training restrictions and possible international transfers. The service terms also provide a DPA, confidentiality provisions and customer audit rights. A complete processor schedule and details of applicable transfer safeguards require a request.
No packaged mapping to individual outside counsel guidelines, client approval workflow or matter specific restriction on the use of different AI providers is specified.
An AI Code of Conduct, a security sheet and downloadable ISO certificates provide materials that legal teams can share during a client technology review. They describe local processing, model development, global model training restrictions and security controls. Customers may also connect their own models, which changes the configuration requiring review. The website privacy notice lists business service providers, but no complete production subprocessor schedule covers hosting, monitoring and support. A client specific approval workflow or automated mapping to outside counsel guidelines is not included.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The board portal tracks decisions and tasks, and Advanced includes a detailed audit log and four structured account exports each year. Signature workflows retain executed files with the relevant agreement or meeting when initiated from that item. These materials can support reconstruction of corporate activity, but a complete export of AI prompts, model versions, responses and human approval history is not specified.
Conversation attachment deletion also differs from retention of the underlying governance file. No court declaration or certification of AI use is provided.
Risk Detector leaves highlighted source clauses and tracked suggestions for human review, while the suite maintains activity and change logs. These supply parts of a reconstruction of contract work, and signed files have their own completion certificate. No per-file export combines the model version, prompt, retrieved sources, generated passages and reviewer approval into an AI disclosure history. Board minutes and QuickView updates may be shared after editing, but no tribunal or regulator declaration identifies which portions originated with Lini.
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
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Diliforce if
- The same corporate files must support an audit, financing round and ongoing administration. SmartIndex creates tailored views and shares selected material through integrated data rooms without duplicate uploads.
- Your agreement import needs a review step before metadata is applied. Diliforce requires users to inspect and approve extraction suggestions for individual files, including those submitted in bulk.
- The team wants a published starting subscription and optional AI priced by account. Standard and Advanced separate the base governance package from AI access, signatures and additional data room charges.
Choose DiliTrust if
- Legal matters need their own operational workspace alongside governance materials. Matter Management tracks activity, and QuickView assembles past updates and upcoming developments for a user to share.
- Reviewers want contract revisions driven by an internal playbook. Risk Detector identifies the agreement type, highlights clauses that depart from rules and offers tracked changes for acceptance or adjustment.
- Board minutes begin with meeting audio and related files. DiliTrust combines transcription and Minutes Generation into an editable draft within the board workflow.
In summary
Diliforce
Diliforce arranges contracts, board materials and entity information in one workspace. For corporate teams preparing due diligence materials, the AI Legal Index identifies SmartIndex's ability to create different structures without moving or duplicating files. Users review extracted agreement metadata before applying it, and access groups restrict visibility by entity, country or business unit.
DiliTrust
DiliTrust connects five modules with Lini's AI functions. Risk Detector highlights agreement clauses against internal rules and suggests tracked edits. QuickView summarizes matter developments, while the board workflow turns recordings and supporting materials into draft minutes. Its signature options include native simple signatures and external providers for other levels, with native availability expanding across modules.
Questions buyers ask
How do contract review workflows differ?
Diliforce's Assistant analyzes selected files and compares two versions, while its metadata workflow proposes values for review and application. Within the contract review workflow itself, the AI Legal Index highlights DiliTrust's combination of playbook rules, highlighted original clauses and tracked suggestions. DiliTrust's reviewer accepts or adjusts those revisions before finalizing the agreement.
Do both products require a separate signature provider?
Diliforce connects Assently, Adobe Sign, Docusign, SignHero and Visma Sign, with provider specific accounts or packages. DiliTrust Sign handles simple electronic signatures natively without an outside provider account, but is becoming available progressively across modules. DiliTrust still connects external providers for advanced or eIDAS QES requirements. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does the starting Diliforce package cost with AI?
Standard costs $9.50 per user monthly on annual billing, and AI for the account starts at an additional $15 monthly. Advanced costs $27 per user monthly on annual billing with at least five users and adds entity management, access groups and other controls. DiliTrust sets its quote by users, selected solutions and customization; it does not state an equivalent starting rate. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does EU storage mean every AI request stays in the EU?
Diliforce stores service data in EU geography, but its AI guidance permits some Microsoft processing outside the EEA. Optional Claude uses Anthropic infrastructure and can also process outside the EEA. DiliTrust describes local infrastructure by customer region and allows customer model connections. Storage location alone does not settle the processing footprint of every configuration. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which suite supports a legal team's matter updates?
DiliTrust has a dedicated Matter Management module, and QuickView generates a summary of past and upcoming developments that users can inspect and share. Diliforce's described governance modules concentrate on agreements, boards, entities and due diligence. Its reminders and entity information serve those workflows without an equivalent named matter status feature. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 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.
Diliforce is the renamed ContractZen platform and remains operated by ContractZen Ltd. The comparison covers current governance products. DiliTrust Sign is rolling out progressively across modules. Neither vendor reviewed this page.