EstateScribe vs Luminary: how they compare in 2026
EstateScribe and Luminary both sell estate planning software to professionals, but at different ends of the work. EstateScribe drafts wills, trusts and powers of attorney from client intake for law firms. Luminary reads existing trusts and wills into a structured record for diagrams, tax modeling and client presentations, mostly for wealth managers, and drafts nothing. Luminary sits in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen axes and EstateScribe on eight of fifteen, identical on nine. Luminary's lead is evidence and recourse. Every extracted detail cites the governing language in the source document, and a named family office reports more than five hours a week saved. Its terms add an intellectual property indemnity, notice before compelled disclosure and deletion 20 days after the term. EstateScribe's counterweight is that it produces the documents themselves, with the attorney holding final responsibility for every draft under its terms. It states that client data is purged from its inference engine once a task completes. It names no customer and publishes nothing on the accuracy of its drafts.
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.
AI drives the drafting inside a practice workflow that would still run without it. The models extract client details from uploaded intake documents, draft wills, trusts and powers of attorney from intake data, and power a copilot in the client portal. Intake forms, the client portal, matter tracking and document storage would still work as estate planning practice software without them. Verified 22 September 2026.
The models are the engine of the core capability, layered on a modelling and presentation platform that works without them, which is the B band. Luminary AI extracts and summarises trusts, wills, amendments and entity documents into a structured record of the household, and Insights and the assistant work from that record; the estate diagrams, deterministic tax engine, scenario modelling and firm-branded presentations run on the structured data whether it arrived by AI extraction or by manual entry, and the Subscription Terms offer household builds as a professional service. Verified 18 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Checked the home, Document Automation and Data & Security pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The product drafts estate planning documents, but nothing is published on how accurate drafts or extracted data are or how errors are caught; the terms disclaim any representation that output is complete, accurate or legally sufficient without attorney review. Verified 22 September 2026.
Grounding is real and documented with links to the source, short of accuracy figures an outsider can test, which is the B band. The AI Document Intelligence and Law firms pages say extracted data and assistant answers are source-cited, that every important detail can be traced back to the governing language in the document, and that customisable review controls let attorneys validate findings. A landing page claims over 98 per cent accuracy in data extraction but gives no test set or method. The citator and primary-authority limbs do not bite on a product that reads the customer's own documents (R15). Verified 18 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
A written attorney-in-the-loop commitment with an editing surface, short of stated limits. The Terms of Service say AI output is subject to attorney review, modification, approval and final responsibility, and that EstateScribe does not determine planning strategies or act as counsel; the About page says the tools create the first draft and the attorney always has the final say, and drafts open for editing. Nothing states what the client-facing copilot may not do. Verified 22 September 2026.
A written commitment that professionals review AI output, with real review surfaces, short of thresholds or a named constraint, which is the B band. The vendor describes a human-in-the-loop interface that keeps the advisor in control, source citations and customisable review controls, and Insights that teams review, prioritise and track before anything reaches a client; the Subscription Terms make the advisor responsible for using independent judgement and involving legal professionals. R124(2) was applied: no mode or tier carries a categorical limit, and no confidence threshold is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Checked the home, About, Document Automation, Intake and White-label pages and the blog index on 22 September 2026. No named customer, testimonial, case study or measured result was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
A named customer with figures but no method or date, which is the B band. The Caprock case study (a multi-family office with $13.8 billion under advisement and 29 advisors) reports more than five hours a week saved, a 25 per cent increase in advisor production capacity and onboarding more than a week faster, with the capacity figure given as the chief operating officer's estimate. Other named case studies (SCS, New Republic Partners, Bragg) carry quotes. Verified 18 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Written into the agreement, short of matter walls and named providers. The Terms of Service say client data is used only to provide the contracted services to the attorney and firm, is not used to train generalised AI models, and is processed in a siloed environment designed to preserve attorney-client privilege; the Document Automation page says client data is purged from the inference engine as soon as a task is complete. The terms leave firm-specific model tuning unaddressed, separation between matters inside a firm is not described, and the AI providers are not named. Verified 22 September 2026.
Substantive published commitments on confidentiality and training, short of privilege handling, which is the B band. The Subscription Terms make client information confidential, commit to notice before compelled disclosure, and require deletion of customer data 20 days after the term; the security and FAQ pages say neither Luminary nor its AI vendors train on customer data, that the AI retains nothing after processing, that a data processing agreement governs OpenAI, and that role-based permissions control collaboration with outside advisors. Privilege and work product in client documents are not addressed. Verified 18 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A plain advice line in the agreement, short of jurisdiction limits and portal disclosure. The Terms of Service say EstateScribe is not a law firm, gives no legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship, and that attorneys remain solely responsible for reviewing output and for compliance with ethical rules and jurisdiction-specific requirements. The jurisdictions its drafting covers are not listed, and the client-facing portal's AI copilot carries no disclosure on the pages read. Verified 22 September 2026.
A plain position on advice versus tooling, short of the lawyer's competence and supervision duties, which is the B band. The Subscription Terms say the Services do not offer legal, tax, accounting or investment advice, that the advisor is responsible for involving legal professionals, and that Luminary is not a law firm and no attorney-client relationship arises even where attorneys work on its strategy support services; the Law firms FAQ says it does not draft documents or provide legal services. The licence limits use to the United States. Nothing addresses attorneys' professional duties when relying on the output beyond verifying citations. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home, About, Data & Security and Document Automation pages, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how drafting performs across jurisdictions or family structures was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
No AI governance position was located, which is the D band. Searched the Subscription Terms, AI Document Intelligence, Law firms, pricing, security and integrations pages on 18 September 2026. Nothing describes how Luminary AI is tested before release, who is accountable for it, or how extraction performs across document types or drafting styles; the security page's review of vendors' SOC 2 reports is a security control, not AI governance. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
A detailed security programme, short of retention periods and a subprocessor list. The Data & Security page describes a written security programme, staff training, confidentiality agreements and background checks, annual third-party penetration testing, AWS hosting with US-only storage, encryption at rest and in transit, continuous monitoring, backups, least-privilege access with SSO and multi-factor authentication, and a documented incident response plan. No retention period for stored client data, subprocessor list or incident notification timeframe was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Published policy covering most of the ground, short of an incident practice and a full subprocessor list, which is the B band. The Subscription Terms let the advisor export and delete data and require Luminary to destroy all copies 20 days after the term; the security page describes AES-256 encryption at rest and in transit, role-based permissions, AWS storage in at least two US availability zones with regular backups and no offshore storage, and vendor due diligence; the FAQs say the AI retains no data after processing. AWS and OpenAI are named as vendors, but no full subprocessor list or breach notification commitment was located. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Exposure is disclaimed in full. The Terms of Service exclude liability for any direct, indirect or other damages arising from reliance on platform outputs, errors or system failures, and give no guarantee that documents are enforceable, accepted by institutions or compliant with law. Nothing stands behind a drafted document that proves defective. Verified 22 September 2026.
A real published liability position with scope and caps, short of standing behind output accuracy, which is the B band. The Subscription Terms warrant that the platform will operate materially as documented, give an intellectual-property indemnity with defined scope, procedure and remedies, and cap liability at 12 months' fees with carve-outs for IP infringement, fraud and wilful misconduct. They disclaim data accuracy, make the advisor solely responsible for advice, and limit Luminary's liability for its AI and hosting vendors to its own gross negligence or wilful misconduct. Verified 18 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Integration is claimed without names. The site says EstateScribe integrates with leading legal case management systems so data need not be entered twice, and offers a form to request new integrations, but names no system and documents no connection. Verified 22 September 2026.
Real, documented integrations, but into wealth platforms rather than the systems legal work lives in, which holds the row at the B band. The integrations page says client profiles and entities sync with Addepar, Black Diamond and Orion portfolios, eMoney households import with financial data, Snowflake shares household, account and asset valuations nightly, and a public API exposes documents, entities, individuals and households; Salesforce is also named. No document management, practice management or other law-firm system is integrated. Verified 18 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Hosting and region are stated for a single hosted service. The Data & Security page says the platform runs on AWS, that all customer data is stored in US data centres and does not leave the country, and the terms describe AI features running in a siloed environment. No other deployment option is offered, and where AI inference runs is not stated separately. Verified 22 September 2026.
Storage residency is stated without the processing location for the AI, which is the B band. The security page says data is stored on AWS in at least two US-based availability zones per region and that no data is stored offshore, and the licence limits use to the United States. Where OpenAI processes documents, and the tenancy model, are not stated (R38). Verified 18 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
A completed attestation, report under NDA. The Data & Security page says EstateScribe has completed a SOC 2 Type II examination by an independent firm and that the report is available to customers and prospective clients under NDA. The auditor and report period are not published, and no trust centre was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
A named attestation with the report available on request, short of readable scope or dates, which is the B band. The security page says Luminary is SOC 2 Type 2 certified, undergoes independent audits and penetration testing, and offers its annual SOC 2 Type II report through a Drata trust centre on request. The trust centre returned only a loading page (R128), so no audit period or auditor was read. Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
A private system is claimed without identifying what sits underneath. The site says EstateScribe runs on a secure, private AI system built exclusively for legal drafting, with its own inference engine and models it never trains on firm data, but names no model, provider or change notification. Verified 22 September 2026.
The provider is named with data terms, short of the models or any change notice, which is the B band. The pricing FAQ names OpenAI as an AI vendor under a data processing agreement and says neither Luminary nor its AI vendors train on customer data, the Subscription Terms name OpenAI and AWS as vendors, and the Law firms FAQ refers to model provider partners in the plural. No model or version is named, the assistant's Fast and Thinking modes are not mapped to models, and no notice of changes is committed. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Checked the home, About, Document Automation and White-label pages on 22 September 2026, and the /pricing address returns a missing-page error. No price, unit or tier is published; every route to a price is a demo booking. Verified 22 September 2026.
Pricing is by custom proposal while a tier name is published, which is the C band. The pricing page says the team prepares a customised proposal because pricing depends on factors specific to each team; a May 2025 release introduces Luminary Go as an accessible product tier, and the Subscription Terms tie licensed volume to authorised users and subscription tier and define a Luminary Client as a household. No figure or stated unit of charge is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The practice and documents are named, short of limits. The site addresses estate planning attorneys, particularly smaller firms, and names wills, revocable living trusts, powers of attorney and intake and onboarding work, with jurisdiction-specific drafting. Which states' law it drafts for and what it does not handle are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
Segments and scope are described with substance, short of boundaries on what the AI handles, which is the B band. Luminary publishes pages for wealth managers, estate planning law firms, trust administrators and tax advisors, says clients typically have taxable estates from $5 million to over $1 billion, lists the documents it processes (trusts, wills, business agreements, Crummey letters), and limits use to the United States; it states that it does not draft documents. Which document types or drafting conventions the AI handles poorly is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The Terms of Service limit use of client data to providing the contracted services to the attorney and firm, and say EstateScribe does not use client-specific data or attorney-client communications to train generalized AI models. The qualifier 'generalized' leaves firm-specific tuning unaddressed. The Document Automation page adds that EstateScribe never trains its models on a firm's data.
Public pages state no training on customer content, with no matching term in the agreement. The security page, pricing FAQ and Law firms FAQ say neither Luminary nor its AI vendors train models on customer data, that the AI retains no data after processing, and that a data processing agreement governs OpenAI. The Subscription Terms license customer information to provide and improve the Services and let Luminary use de-identified Aggregate Data to improve its products, without naming training either way.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The Document Automation page says client data is accessed only at the moment a document is generated and is purged from the inference engine as soon as the task completes. Stored client records are kept as long as necessary under the Privacy Policy, with no period stated.
The customer controls deletion, with a contractual end point. The Subscription Terms make the advisor responsible for changes and deletions of its data, let it export at any time, and require Luminary to delete on instruction or destroy all copies 20 days after the term ends; the Law firms FAQ says the AI retains no data after workloads are processed. Zero retention is not offered as a platform setting.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Checked the Data & Security and Document Automation pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The site describes a siloed AI environment and least-privilege access for EstateScribe staff; nothing describes separating matters or users within a firm.
Role-based permissions are asserted without published detail. The security page and FAQs say permissioned access lets trust officers, administrators, attorneys, tax professionals and wealth managers work on the same household data, but how permissions are set per household or enforced is not documented.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Checked the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. Neither addresses requests from courts, law enforcement or government for customer data.
Notice is committed in the contract. Section 7.2 of the Subscription Terms requires prompt written notice of any legal request or subpoena for the other party's confidential information, which includes client information, so the customer can seek a protective order, and limits any compelled disclosure to what counsel advises is required. No transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Checked the home and Document Automation pages on 22 September 2026. Drafting is described as jurisdiction-specific, but no source of the forms, clauses or state law behind it is identified.
Searched the AI Document Intelligence, Law firms and security pages and the Subscription Terms on 18 September 2026. The AI reads the customer's own estate documents, so no legal corpus is expected (R15); the tax law and rates behind the deterministic tax engine are not identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Checked the Document Automation page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses checking any authority relied on in drafted documents for currency.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Answers cite the customer's own documents rather than legal authority, so no check of subsequent history arises (R15).
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Checked the home, Document Automation and White-label pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what drafting or the client portal's copilot does when information is missing or a question falls outside what it can support.
Searched the AI Document Intelligence and Law firms pages, the pricing and security pages and the Subscription Terms on 18 September 2026. Answers are source-cited and the assistant offers Fast and Thinking modes, but nothing describes what it does when the documents do not support an answer, and no confidence signal is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for EstateScribe, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Searched web and trade press reporting on court sanctions for AI-fabricated citations on 18 September 2026 for any court record addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Luminary. None located. The product analyses estate documents and does not draft filings. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The Terms of Service say attorneys remain responsible for compliance with ethical rules and jurisdiction-specific requirements and that the AI environment is designed to support attorney-client privilege. No rule or ethics opinion is named.
Professional responsibility is referred to in general terms. The Law firms FAQ says Luminary does not provide legal services and that attorneys can verify AI output through source citations, and the Subscription Terms say it is not a law firm and creates no attorney-client relationship. No ethics opinion, court AI order or bar guidance is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The site promises faster drafting and less time on data entry for estate planning firms. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted drafting is reflected in client fees.
Time savings are claimed without addressing billing or disclosure. The Law firms page tells estate planning attorneys the AI moves them from document collection to assessment in a fraction of the time, and the Caprock case study reports five or more hours a week saved; nothing addresses how law firms should bill or disclose AI-assisted review to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Checked the Data & Security page, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The SOC 2 report is available under NDA; no subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material was located.
The AI provider is named, short of a disclosure pack. The pricing FAQ names OpenAI as an AI vendor under a data processing agreement, the Subscription Terms name OpenAI and AWS as vendors, and the security page says vendors are held to agreements. The Law firms FAQ refers to model provider partners in the plural, so the list may be partial, and no DPA or forwardable disclosure material is published. The Drata trust center could not be read (R128).
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Checked the Document Automation page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The product drafts estate planning documents rather than court filings, and nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use.
Searched the AI Document Intelligence and Law firms pages and the Subscription Terms on 18 September 2026. The outputs are planning analyses and client presentations rather than court filings, and nothing addresses disclosure of AI use to 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.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Court Disclosure Support
Which one fits
Choose EstateScribe if
- You want first drafts of estate planning documents. EstateScribe drafts wills, revocable living trusts, powers of attorney and other documents from intake data in a jurisdiction specific way, opens them for editing, and tracks each document through to execution.
- You want client intake handled through a branded portal. EstateScribe collects client information through intake forms and a firm branded client portal, extracts details from uploaded intake documents with AI, and offers clients an AI copilot inside the portal.
- Your security review needs an attestation and US hosting. EstateScribe states a completed SOC 2 Type II examination by an independent firm, with the report available under NDA, and hosts on AWS with all customer data stored in the United States.
Choose Luminary if
- You need to understand existing estate plans quickly. Luminary extracts and summarizes trusts, wills, amendments and entity documents into a structured household record, with every detail traced to the governing language, and builds estate diagrams and tax scenarios from it.
- Your clients' wealth data lives in advisor platforms. Luminary syncs client profiles and entities with Addepar, Black Diamond and Orion, imports eMoney households, shares valuations nightly through Snowflake, and exposes a public API.
- You want contract terms with recourse behind them. Luminary's subscription terms give an intellectual property indemnity, cap liability at 12 months of fees, commit to written notice before a compelled disclosure, and require deletion of customer data 20 days after the term ends.
In summary
EstateScribe
EstateScribe, from EstateScribe, LLC, is estate planning software for law firms that collects client information through intake forms and a firm branded portal, extracts details from uploaded documents with AI, and drafts wills, revocable living trusts, powers of attorney and other documents for attorney review, tracking each matter through execution. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on eight of fifteen capability axes. Its terms state that it is not a law firm, that attorneys hold final responsibility for output, and that client data is not used to train generalized models. It hosts on AWS in the United States and states a SOC 2 Type II examination. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no named customer, accuracy measure or price.
Luminary
Luminary, from Luminary Platforms, Inc. of New York, founded in 2021, is an AI platform for trust and estate planning that turns trusts, wills, amendments and entity documents into structured, source cited records for estate diagrams, beneficiary and tax modeling and client presentations. It is sold to wealth managers, estate planning law firms, trust administrators and tax advisors, and it drafts no documents. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen capability axes. It names OpenAI as an AI vendor under a data processing agreement, integrates with Addepar, Black Diamond, Orion and eMoney, and publishes a case study from the family office Caprock. As of 18 September 2026 the index located no AI governance position or price figure.
Questions buyers ask
EstateScribe vs Luminary: which is better for an estate planning practice?
They do different jobs. EstateScribe drafts estate planning documents from client intake for attorney review, while Luminary reads existing documents into structured records for diagrams, tax modeling and presentations and drafts nothing. On published evidence Luminary sits in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and EstateScribe on eight of fifteen, mostly because Luminary publishes more on sourcing, recourse and integrations.
Does Luminary draft wills or trusts?
No. Luminary's law firm FAQ states that it does not draft documents or provide legal services. It extracts and summarizes existing trusts, wills, amendments and entity documents into a structured household record, with each detail traced to the source language, and uses that record for estate diagrams, tax scenarios and client presentations. EstateScribe is the one of the two that drafts. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does EstateScribe train AI on client data?
Its terms of service limit client data to providing the contracted services and state that client specific data and attorney client communications are not used to train generalized AI models, which leaves tuning for a single firm unaddressed. Its product page adds that client data is purged from the inference engine once a task completes. Luminary states that neither it nor its AI vendors train on customer data. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do EstateScribe and Luminary cost?
Neither publishes a price. EstateScribe's pricing address returns a missing page error and every route leads to a demo. Luminary prepares a custom proposal for each team, has introduced a Luminary Go tier, and its terms tie licensed volume to authorized users, subscription tier and client households, without publishing a figure. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do EstateScribe and Luminary both leave unpublished?
Any AI governance position and a full supply chain. Neither describes testing before release, an accountable owner, or how its AI performs across document types, drafting styles or family structures. Neither publishes a full subprocessor list or names a specific model, and neither describes what its AI does when the documents or intake data cannot support an answer. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. The two products do different jobs within estate planning, one drafting and one analyzing, so the grid compares what each discloses rather than like features. EstateScribe's terms bar training on client data for generalized models, which leaves tuning for a single firm unaddressed. Luminary's commitment that neither it nor its AI vendors train on customer data sits on its web pages, while its terms allow use of aggregated data, stripped of identifiers, to improve its products. EstateScribe was verified on 22 September 2026 and Luminary on 18 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.