Filevine vs Litify: how they compare in 2026

The AI portfolio is the widest in this pull and the platform beneath it is a complete practice management system. Twelve or more distinct AI products are named and separately marketed: MedChron for medical chronologies, DemandsAI for demand letters, Depo CoPilot for live deposition assistance, Depo Summaries, AIFields, AI Doc Review, AI Data Mapping, ValidationAI, ImmigrationAI, Leads AI, Ask LOIS, LOIS for Word and the LOIS Console. AI has its own top-level navigation entry and its own free tier. Several of those are the engine of a capability a firm actually buys, most obviously the medical chronology and the demand letter, which are the two most labour-intensive documents in a personal injury practice. What sits underneath is the business Filevine sold before any of it: matter management, document management and assembly, intake and lead conversion, billing and time-keeping, e-signature, analytics and deadline generation. Strip the models out and every one of those remains and the firm keeps running. The commercial structure confirms the reading, with the AI products sold as packages and extensions on top of a core platform rather than as the platform itself.

The home page calls Litify the only AI-native platform of action, and the product's own history contradicts the claim: the Taylor King Law case study describes a 2021 deployment whose measured gains came from the analytics engine, phone-tree routing and matter plans, with no AI in the account at all. What sits on top now is substantial rather than decorative. Litify ACE is positioned as the AI nerve centre, eight further named agents run from intake qualification through deposition preparation, and machine learning is embedded in document generation, time capture and line-item invoice review. Remove the models and a working intake, matter, billing and reporting platform remains, which is the shape of a legacy system that added a real AI layer rather than one built around it.

Grounding is claimed consistently across products and no measurement is published anywhere. The pricing page describes Ask LOIS as returning grounded, traceable answers, LOIS for Word as producing source-linked recommendations, AI Drafting as delivering fact-level accuracy and human-verified output, and Depo Summaries as carrying page and line references, and the free LOIS Explore tier is described as drafting content with every result cited to source. A legal research capability with an opinion reader sits alongside it, so a user can open the authority rather than take the citation on trust. The failure modes are named in the agreement rather than in a footnote, and that is rare: output may be incomplete, may contain factual or legal errors or omissions, may reflect biases present in training data, and substantially similar inputs may produce different output. What is absent is any number. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page and the subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation and no error rate, set against a marketing claim on AIFields inviting buyers to stop struggling with AI hallucinations. One hedge belongs in the record: MedChron's verifiable output is described as pointing back to source documents when applicable, which is not the same as always. The individual product pages were not opened.

Accuracy is claimed repeatedly and measured nowhere. The Litify AI page asserts that being fully native to the platform ensures greater accuracy than standalone AI tools, and the Damages Assistant is described as reconciling bills against records for total accuracy. No test set, no benchmark, no error rate and no failure mode is published on any surface checked on 31 August 2026. The product does not retrieve primary law, so the citator limb of this axis does not bite; what it does do is draft demand letters and interrogatory responses from a firm's own medical records and matter data, and no grounding mechanism is described for that output. Nothing was located that would let a reader open a drafted assertion and trace it to the source page it came from, which is the specific thing a comparable plaintiff product in this pull does publish.

The review obligation is written into the contract and it is specific about the act required. Section 3.2 of the subscription agreement makes the subscriber solely responsible for reviewing, verifying and determining whether and how to use any output, and then names what that means: independently confirming citations and legal conclusions before relying on output or sharing it with any third party, including a client or a judicial body. Few vendors name the court as the audience. It is reinforced by an AI Acceptable Use Policy incorporated into the agreement and governing permitted and prohibited uses of AI-enabled features, by a product page describing AI drafting as producing human-verified output, and by outputs described as structured for human review with hyperlinks into the underlying material. What is not published, checked across the AI features page, the pricing page and the full agreement on 31 Aug 2026: no abstention behaviour, no confidence or uncertainty indicator surfaced to the user, no threshold at which a feature declines, and no route to report or correct a wrong output. The agreement discloses non-determinism, that similar inputs may produce different output, which is honest and is a warning rather than a control. The AI Acceptable Use Policy was not opened and is the rebuttal route.

Litify sells autonomy in plain terms and publishes no control structure for it. ACE is described as a proactive, autonomous partner that anticipates risk and executes tasks in the background, the platform page describes autonomous AI agents that execute tasks in the background, and the Demand Agent drafts demand letters automatically as damages approach policy limits while the Discovery Agent auto-drafts interrogatory responses. Against that, the only oversight position located is a philosophical one in the Pillars of Responsible AI Development post of 9 July 2024, which states that AI is not a replacement for legal professionals and is not well positioned to engage in the art of case strategy. That is a statement of intent rather than a mechanism: no review point, no approval step, no threshold at which an agent stops, and nothing on what happens after an agent is wrong was located on the product, platform or AI pages. A stated belief about the division of labour is not the same as a published place where a lawyer signs off.

Volume claims stand where customer outcomes should be, on the surfaces read. What is published: approximately 100,000 demand letters drafted by Filevine customers every month, a claim to host the largest and most accurate repository of personal injury case management data in the world, and a case study headline naming an individual, a shareholder said to have brought 125 active cases under control and recovered his evenings. The agreement carries a customer reference clause permitting Filevine to use a subscriber's name and logo, with a withdrawal right, which tells a buyer the logos are consented to rather than assumed. What was not established is any measured outcome attributable to a named organisation: the case study headline gives a person and a caseload figure without naming the firm, and no other quantified result was located on the pages read. This is the weakest-evidenced row on this record and the limit is worth naming precisely: a dedicated customers and case studies library exists at a public URL and was not opened on 31 Aug 2026, and it is the obvious home for named, quantified deployments. Anyone revisiting this record should open it first.

This is the strongest evidence set located in the plaintiff lane. The Taylor King Law study names the firm, its size at 75-plus employees, its states, its COO Emily Merryman, and a 2021 go-live migrating from Needles, then gives a baseline of a 30 per cent intake conversion rate moving to 50 per cent and a 46 per cent rise in average attorney fees. A published baseline is rare in this corpus and it is what makes the figure assessable. The method is described step by step rather than asserted: identifying high-performing intake agents from captured workflow data, routing existing-case calls away from them by phone tree, replacing uniform follow-up with if/then timing logic, and adding an automated quality-of-life questionnaire to surface non-economic damages. Further named studies carry their own figures, including EllisDon at 100 per cent faster reporting, McFarlane Law at a 10 per cent lift in billing collection and Cesar Ornelas at 33 per cent more case production without added headcount. Two limits belong on the record: no study carries a publication date or a measurement window, and not one of the located figures is attributed to an AI capability, so the outcome evidence is for the platform rather than for Litify AI.

Substantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, in the agreement, short of matter-level segregation. The training position is the most carefully drafted in this pull: Filevine engages third-party AI providers under written agreements prohibiting them from using subscriber data to train or improve their models, and under which they do not retain subscriber data beyond the applicable request, with a single named exception for temporary retention for abuse-monitoring or trust-and-safety purposes. Naming that exception rather than leaving it implicit is the mark of a drafter who expected the clause to be read. Ownership is stated clearly, with the subscriber owning its data including output generated from it, and subscriber data defined as confidential information under a mutual confidentiality clause surviving seven years, with trade secrets protected indefinitely. A separate clause commits Filevine not to reduce its confidentiality or security commitments mid-term without written consent. Tenant separation is addressed obliquely, in a provision stating that other subscribers' queries and output are not the subscriber's data. What is missing is the matter-level question: nothing describes a wall between two matters inside one firm, which for a plaintiff practice running adverse cases is the live issue. The Security Addendum and Data Protection Agreement are published and were not opened.

The commitments are specific, readable before signing, and none of them is contractual, because no customer agreement is published anywhere on the property. The Litify AI page states that customer data is never retained or used to train the model, the Pillars post of 9 July 2024 describes single-tenant architecture giving each client a walled-off cloud environment, and the security post states that customer data sits in Salesforce data centres to which Litify is not an authorised administrator, with support access requiring the customer to run a Grant Litify Support Team Access process. It also states that third parties including Litify employees, investors, shareholders and board members are not permitted to access customer information. What is missing is what the band expects to be missing at this level: segregation is described between customers rather than between matters inside a firm, which is the level a plaintiff or defence firm buyer actually needs, and nothing addresses what Anthropic or AWS may retain when a prompt reaches Bedrock. Privilege and work product are not mentioned on any surface checked, and the only published legal document, the privacy policy, expressly excludes data held on behalf of customers.

The most complete advice-line clause located in this pull, and no engagement with the authorities behind it. The agreement states that Filevine is not a law firm or provider of legal advice and that use of output does not create an attorney-client relationship, repeats in the disclaimer that Filevine is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, and then goes further than any comparable clause by specifying the professional act required: the subscriber must independently confirm citations and legal conclusions before relying on output or sharing it with any third party, including a client or a judicial body. That names the duty, the object of the duty and the audience, which is the competence and supervision dimension most vendors omit. An AI Acceptable Use Policy is incorporated into the agreement and controls permitted and prohibited uses of AI features. What holds this below the top band: no bar or ethics authority is named anywhere located, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, and no jurisdictional limit on the product's output is stated, which matters for a platform serving immigration, criminal defence and prosecution work across every state. The AI Acceptable Use Policy was not opened on 31 Aug 2026 and is the rebuttal route.

Searched the home page, the Litify AI page, the platform page, the privacy policy, the CA notice link, the responsible AI post, the security post, the customers section and the Salesforce AppExchange listing on 31 August 2026: no disclaimer, no statement of what the product is and is not, no supervision or competence discussion, no jurisdiction limit and no engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar guidance was located. There is no terms of service on the property to carry a boilerplate disclaimer, so the record here is a true absence rather than a thin clause. This matters more than it would for a reporting tool, because the shipped agents draft demand letters and interrogatory responses and the platform is sold to firms whose staff include non-lawyer case managers and intake agents. The absence is the finding.

The first vendor in this pull to address bias at all, and it does so twice. Six AI principles are published and named: Fairness, stated as fighting against the threat of bias in its legal AI tools so the technology works for all legal professionals and their clients; Reliability and safety; Privacy and security; Inclusiveness, framed around building tools across practice areas and fostering equity in the profession; Transparency, committing to explain how the AI works in understandable language; and Accountability, committing to take full responsibility for the impact of the technology. More importantly the point is repeated where it binds, with the agreement disclosing that output may reflect biases present in training data, which is a contractual acknowledgement rather than a marketing sentiment. Governance has real apparatus around it: an AI Acceptable Use Policy incorporated into the agreement, a commitment to maintain a list of permitted models for use in AI-enabled features, and a clause preventing Filevine from reducing confidentiality or security commitments mid-term without consent. Named roles exist in a Head Legal Futurist and a Legal Futurist. What is absent is testing: no pre-release evaluation regime is described, no result of any kind is published, no bias audit or fairness measurement appears, and the Fairness principle is a single sentence. Owner accountability is implied by role rather than assigned.

Litify publishes a governance post, Our Pillars of Responsible AI Development, dated 9 July 2024 and by-lined to VP of Engineering Andrew Heffernan, which is more than most of this lane offers. Read for governance specifically, most of its substance belongs to other questions: the Claude 3 selection, Amazon Bedrock and single-tenant storage are supply-chain and deployment facts, and the value-first pillar is a philosophy about not replacing lawyering. What remains as governance is a set of principles with nothing attached to them. No accountable owner for AI governance is named, no pre-release testing regime is described, no evaluation results are disclosed, and nothing at all was located on bias or uneven output across matter types, claimant populations or case values. That last gap is worth stating plainly on a product whose Case Value Agent and Policy Agent make value judgements about individual injury claims.

The Data Protection Agreement, last updated 14 Jan 2026 and read in full, closes the two gaps that held this row down. All five elements this axis asks for are now published and specific. Retention: personal information is retained for the duration of performance of the Services, and on termination or expiry Filevine will destroy it or return it if the subscriber so directs in writing. Deletion: where law compels retention Filevine must notify the subscriber in writing with the documents involved, the legal basis, and a specific timeline for destruction once the requirement ends, and it commits to certify in writing that destruction is complete within thirty days of completing it. Access control: access is limited to employees who require it and to the parts they strictly require, under confidentiality commitments, with privacy training and background checks where lawful. Subprocessors: each is engaged under a written agreement with obligations not less protective than the DPA, the current list sits in Annex C, a subscribe-by-email mechanism gives notice of new ones, the subscriber may object within ten business days on reasonable grounds, and Filevine is liable for a subprocessor's acts as if it had performed them itself. Incident practice: Filevine will notify the subscriber promptly and without undue delay on becoming aware of a security breach, describing the categories of information affected, the approximate number of data subjects, the steps taken to investigate and remedy, and a named contact, with phased disclosure permitted and Filevine bearing the reasonable costs. One softness rather than a gap: the notification duty is expressed as promptness rather than a fixed number of hours. The Security Addendum was not opened.

Access control is genuinely well described and the rest of the ground is not covered. The security post of 30 June 2022 states that customer data sits in Salesforce data centres where Litify is not an authorised administrator, that documents are held on AWS behind a strict internal approval process, that the support team must be granted access through a named customer-run process, and that employees, investors, shareholders and board members may not access customer information. Against that single strong element: no retention period, no deletion route, no subprocessor list and no incident or breach-notification practice was located on any surface checked on 31 August 2026. The privacy policy that would ordinarily carry some of this states in its opening that it does not apply to personal information held on behalf of users of the services, which removes matter data from its scope entirely. The access-control material is also four years old and has no current counterpart.

The first A on this axis in the pull, and it is earned on four separate limbs rather than one strong clause. Indemnity: Filevine will defend the subscriber against third-party claims that the services infringe a United States patent or copyright or misappropriate a trade secret, and will indemnify for damages, costs and fees awarded or agreed, with named remedies of procuring the right to continue, modifying the services, or terminating and refunding. Cap: total liability is limited to the greater of the fees paid in the twelve months before the claim or two hundred thousand dollars, which is a floor rather than a ceiling for smaller subscribers and is the highest published floor located in this pull. Carve-outs: the cap expressly reaches claims arising from a security breach affecting subscriber data caused by breach of the Security Addendum or the DPA and from breach of confidentiality obligations, gross negligence and intentional misconduct sit outside the limitation where law prohibits limiting them, and the infringement indemnity sits outside the cap entirely. Insurance: the agreement commits Filevine to maintain industry-standard insurance from carriers rated A minus, VI or better by A.M. Best, which is a stated quality floor and the only insurance commitment located in any agreement in this pull. Alongside those sit an affirmative warranty that the services will substantially conform to documentation, not knowingly infringe and comply with applicable law, and a 99.0 per cent uptime commitment with a published three-tier credit table. Output itself carries no warranty and is carved out of the indemnity, which the note records so the picture is complete.

No customer agreement of any kind is published. The escalation ladder was run in full on 31 August 2026: the footer of every rendering page carries only a Privacy Policy and a CA Notice at Collection, a search anchored on agreement language returned no Litify terms, and the Salesforce AppExchange listing carries Salesforce's own Terms of Use rather than the provider's. No master subscription agreement, order form, indemnity, liability cap, warranty on output or insurance position was located, and there is no trust portal or documents page from which one could be requested. This is an absence rather than a retrieval failure: the pages that would hold such a document render normally and simply do not exist. A buyer cannot learn who bears the loss when an agent drafts a wrong demand until they are already in a sales process.

Real integrations exist and are named, with the depth left to a page that was not opened. The most substantive is LOIS for Word, which puts drafting and standards-enforced redlining inside Microsoft Word with source-linked recommendations, so the AI reaches the application where the document is actually written rather than requiring a trip to a separate system. Microsoft 365 integration is reported, DataBridge is published as a package extension giving secure real-time access to Filevine data, Vinesign has a public API for embedding e-signature into other workflows, and the platform advertises native and partner integrations as a purchasable extension. The agreement confirms API access is granted and makes the subscriber responsible for activity through it. Deposition scheduling includes court reporter booking and automated Zoom link generation, which is an operational integration into how the work is actually run. What is not established is what any of these move, in which direction, or what a firm must configure: the dedicated integrations and API page was not opened on 31 Aug 2026, and no developer documentation, endpoint list or connector catalogue was read. Nothing was located for iManage, NetDocuments or e-billing.

The platform page displays roughly thirty integration logos, and the names are the right ones for legal work: iManage, NetDocuments, Outlook, DocuSign, Aderant, Epiq, QuickBooks, Chrometa, Time by Ping, RingCentral, Vonage and Case Status among them. The See All Integrations link on that same page resolves to a bare anchor and goes nowhere, and no integrations directory, developer index or connector documentation was located anywhere else on 31 August 2026. So an implementer can learn that a NetDocuments or iManage connection exists but not what it moves, in which direction, or what a firm must configure. Being a Salesforce managed package does bring genuine API reach, but that is the platform's extensibility rather than a documented Litify integration, and it is credited on the deployment question instead of here.

Reading the Data Protection Agreement supplied the processing location and the cross-border framework that were missing. Delivery is cloud, hosted on Amazon Web Services, which the vendor names on both the case management page and the pricing FAQ, and separate United States and Canadian login domains imply a distinct Canadian instance. The DPA adds what the marketing did not. Annex A identifies the data importer as Filevine, Inc. at 1260 Stringham Avenue, Suite 600, Salt Lake City, Utah, so a European or British subscriber can see which entity in which jurisdiction receives its data, and a Data Protection Officer is named as the contact point. Cross-border transfers are governed rather than assumed: the European Commission's Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK Information Commissioner's international data transfer addendum are both incorporated, with the operative provisions completed, the docking clause disapplied, and competent supervisory authorities enumerated for EU member states, the United Kingdom via the ICO, and Switzerland via the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner, with the CNIL as the default. Government access requests are to be notified to the subscriber only, not the data subject. What is still not published is the residency choice itself: no list of available regions or data centre locations, no option a subscriber can select, no tenancy model, and no statement distinguishing where data is stored from where model inference runs, which matters because third-party AI providers process subscriber data. The Security Addendum was not opened.

The tenancy model is stated and the location is not. The Pillars post of 9 July 2024 describes single tenant architecture in which each client has a unique cloud environment walled off from other organisations, extended to single tenant storage for the AI features, and the product is delivered as a Salesforce managed package requiring a Salesforce platform licence. Beyond that, nothing: no region list, no data residency options, no distinction between where data is stored and where it is processed, and no statement of which Salesforce or AWS regions a firm's matter data occupies. The privacy policy does say servers are in the United States, but it scopes itself to the marketing site and expressly excludes data held on behalf of customers, so it cannot answer the question for the product. Graded against the bands: the C band requires that neither the tenancy model nor the region be stated, and the tenancy model is stated, so C is not available. What holds the grade below A is that the residency half is wholly absent and the tenancy claim rests on a blog post from July 2024 with no current specification page behind it. Regraded from C on 1 September 2026 for consistency with records publishing one of the two limbs.

Reading the Data Protection Agreement moved this row. The certification claim was always broad, covering SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3, HIPAA, CJIS, HITECH and GDPR, with a structured security page reached from the platform navigation under governance and risk, industry compliance, access and identity security, and data protection. What was missing was any way for a buyer to get behind it, and the DPA supplies that contractually. Filevine commits to retain an independent third party at least once per year to audit its data processing practices and its information technology and information security controls for the facilities, infrastructure and systems used to process personal information, which is a stated scope and a stated cadence. On the subscriber's written request it will make the relevant audit reports available for review, subject to confidentiality, which is a route to the report rather than a promise of one. It commits to address any issues or exceptions raised in those audits through a management corrective action plan. If it has not conducted an audit in the past year, or declines to share the reports, the subscriber acquires a direct audit right on 21 days' notice, extending to records, systems, facilities and meetings with relevant personnel. And separately it agrees to respond in writing to a subscriber security questionnaire once a year, within six weeks of receipt. What is still absent is the paperwork a buyer would ideally see without asking: no auditor is named, no report date or coverage period is published, and the certification claims themselves carry no scope statement. The security page and Security Addendum were not opened.

Litify names its auditor, which most of this lane does not. The security post states that Litify has completed SOC 2 Type I and Type II audits, both performed by Sensiba, and that it undergoes annual independent security audits. What is absent is everything that would let a buyer act on it: no scope, no trust services categories, no coverage period, no report date, no trust portal and no route to request the report short of a demo. The post is dated 30 June 2022 and no current attestation was located, so a reader in 2026 cannot tell whether the annual cadence held. Separately, the Litify AI page claims the product is fully configurable to meet HIPAA, GDPR and SOC II standards, which is a statement about configurability rather than an attestation and should not be read as one.

The agreement confirms third-party models are in the stack and never says whose. Section 3.1 states that AI-enabled features use artificial intelligence including models provided by third-party AI providers, and section 4.3 commits Filevine to maintaining a list of permitted models for use in those features. A commitment to maintain a list is not a commitment to publish one, and no model, provider or version was located on any page read on 31 Aug 2026. One tension belongs on the record: the AI principles page states that Filevine's AI is proprietary, while the agreement describes models provided by third-party AI providers, and nothing published reconciles the two. What is disclosed instead is the contractual treatment of those providers, which is strong on its own terms, prohibiting them from training on subscriber data and from retaining it beyond the applicable request except temporarily for abuse monitoring. No change-notification commitment specific to models was located, though the general update clause requires thirty days' notice for material changes and bars reduction of security or confidentiality commitments mid-term. A Subprocessors page is published at a public URL and was not opened; it is the most likely place a provider is named and could move this grade.

Litify names its model provider in the marketing hero, which almost nothing else in this pull does: the home page describes the platform as built on the infrastructure of Salesforce, AWS and Anthropic, identified as its closed AI model. The Pillars post of 9 July 2024 goes further and names the model to a version, the Claude 3 family from Anthropic, reached through Amazon Bedrock and run inside closed AWS services so client data is not exposed to the broader internet or to open models. Two things hold this below the top of the axis. No commitment to notify customers when the model or provider changes was located, and the version naming is two generations stale, with the current AI page naming Anthropic and no model at all. The supply chain also extends further than the model pages admit, since the Damages Assistant and Instant Demands are powered by Supio, AI Time Capture by Billables.ai and conflict checking by Salesforce Agentforce, and no subprocessor list ties those parties to what customer data they see.

The shape of the purchase is published in unusual detail and no figure appears anywhere. The pricing page sets out the full modular structure: a LOIS tier with seven named components, and four platform packages covering Matters, Intake, Depositions and Signatures, each broken into named features, plus five Matters extensions for analytics, deadline management, a client portal, data access and integrations. A buyer can therefore see exactly what is bought separately, which is the practical question in a modular product. A genuinely free tier is published with its limits stated, LOIS Explore, requiring no credit card, offering document upload and questioning, AI drafting with results cited to source, legal research and the opinion reader, and expressly excluding the case management connection. The agreement adds real commercial mechanics: interest at the lesser of 1.5 per cent per month on amounts more than ten days overdue, suspension rights at ten days, a ten-day window to dispute a charge or waive it, usage telemetry with retroactive invoicing at list rates if entitlements are exceeded, and non-refundable fees outside a warranty or breach termination. One cost disclosure is unusual and creditable: implementation, configuration and data migration are stated not to be provided by Filevine at all but by separate certified Implementation Providers under their own agreements and fees. What is nowhere published is a number, at any tier, and every route to one is a demo or a custom quote.

There is no pricing page on litify.com and no pricing entry in its navigation, but the vendor's own Salesforce AppExchange storefront publishes a figure and a unit: a default plan at $200 USD per user per month, marked as the lowest starting price, with discounts noted for nonprofits. The listing also states that the package requires Platform Cloud, so a buyer can see that a Salesforce licence sits on top of the Litify subscription even though the size of that addition is not given. What is withheld is the rest of the range: no tier names, no feature splits between packages, no statement of what the AI capabilities cost, and nothing on implementation, which is substantial for a Salesforce-native deployment. A buyer can therefore learn the floor and the unit of charge without entering a sales process, and nothing above the floor.

The most extensively documented segment coverage in this pull, and no boundary anywhere. Seventeen dedicated segment pages are published across four dimensions. By practice area: personal injury, family law, mass torts, immigration, insurance defence, criminal defence and estate planning. By government tier: prosecutors, public defenders, states and municipalities, attorneys general, and federal agencies, which is the widest public-sector treatment located in the pull and is reinforced in the agreement by clauses addressing sovereign immunity, anti-indemnification statutes, constitutional limits on multi-year obligations, and FAR and DFARS commercial software designations. By corporate use: in-house counsel. By firm size: solo, small, mid-size and big law, each with its own page. Product coverage is equally specific, with ImmigrationAI stated to handle documents in 170 languages and Timely generating court deadlines for any jurisdiction in the country. What is absent is any statement of limits: no practice area, matter type, jurisdiction or scale is identified as unsupported, and the deadline claim of any jurisdiction in the country is asserted without a coverage table behind it. The individual segment pages were not opened on 31 Aug 2026.

Coverage is described with real substance. Four solution lines each have their own page and named buyer: personal injury firms handling high-volume intake, firms doing high-volume defence work for insurance carriers, consumer and business immigration practices, and corporate legal departments managing internal matters and outside counsel. The AppExchange listing adds government agencies and nonprofits as named segments, and the customer roster bears the breadth out, running from Brooklyn Defenders to the United States Postal Service. The claim that the platform works across fifteen-plus practice areas is not itemised, and no statement of where the product stops was located: nothing on firm size floors or ceilings, on practice areas that are not supported, or on jurisdictions outside the United States, though the platform-of-action framing and the Salesforce licence requirement both point away from the very small firm.

A contractual prohibition, drafted with its exception named rather than left implicit. The subscription agreement, last updated 12 August 2026, states that Filevine engages third-party AI providers under written agreements prohibiting them from using subscriber data to train or improve their models, and under which those providers do not retain subscriber data beyond the applicable request, except for temporary retention solely for abuse-monitoring or trust-and-safety purposes. The same section commits Filevine to maintain a list of permitted models consistent with that undertaking. One carve-out sits alongside it and a buyer should read the two together: a separate clause permits Filevine to use subscriber data in de-identified, aggregated form to improve and enhance the services and for development, diagnostic and corrective purposes across its other technologies, subject to a commitment that anonymised data cannot reasonably identify anyone and that Filevine will not attempt re-identification. Checked the agreement, the AI features page and the pricing page on 31 Aug 2026.

The Litify AI page states the position twice, in a Zero Model Training panel and again in the FAQ, where it says the closed and secure model ensures customer data is never used to train the model. The Pillars of Responsible AI Development post of 9 July 2024 says the same of the single-tenant AI architecture. No customer agreement, master subscription agreement or data processing addendum is published anywhere on the property, so the commitment is a policy statement on a product page rather than a term a firm could hold Litify to.

Retention is now stated contractually across the data lifecycle, with a certification deadline attached to the end of it. The Data Protection Agreement, updated 14 Jan 2026 and read in full, gives the period as the duration of performance of the Services, and provides that on termination or expiry Filevine will destroy personal information or return it where the subscriber directs in writing. Where a law or regulator compels Filevine to keep something it would otherwise destroy, it must notify the subscriber in writing identifying the material, the legal basis, and a specific timeline for destruction once the requirement lapses. It then commits to certify in writing that destruction is complete within thirty days of completing it, which converts a promise into a checkable event. Two qualifications keep this short of a fixed customer-facing period. The commitments run to personal information as defined in the DPA rather than to prompts and generated output as a class, and nothing published addresses whether an AI conversation thread is retained separately or for how long. And the Subscription Agreement routes retention, return and destruction of data generally to the Security Addendum, which is published and was not opened on 31 Aug 2026.

What Litify publishes covers the model, not the platform: the quoted line and the Zero Model Training panel both address whether the AI model persists customer data, and say it does not. Nothing located states how long prompts and generated outputs are kept inside the Litify application itself, whether a firm can configure that window, or whether zero retention is available. Searched the home page, the Litify AI page, the platform page, the privacy policy, the security post and the responsible AI post on 31 August 2026; the privacy policy states a general as-long-as-necessary standard but scopes itself out of data held on behalf of customers.

Nothing published describes a wall between matters. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page, the case management page and the full subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no ethical wall concept, no matter-level permission model, and no statement that a user can be restricted to particular cases or that AI features respect such a restriction. Tenant separation is addressed once and obliquely, in a clause stating that queries submitted by and output generated for other subscribers are not the subscriber's data, which draws a line between customers rather than inside one. Account-level control exists, with each authorised user required to hold unique credentials that may not be shared and the subscriber responsible for its users' compliance. The question is live for this buyer base: a plaintiff firm running adverse matters, or a public defender office and a prosecutor's office both named as target segments, would need to know whether one matter's material can surface in another's AI output. The Security Addendum is published and was not opened, and is the rebuttal route.

The segregation Litify describes is between customers rather than within a firm: the responsible AI post of 9 July 2024 says each client has a unique cloud environment walled off from other organisations. Nothing located addresses ethical walls, matter-level access restriction, or whether retrieval enforces a firm's own permissions at query time, which is a live question for a product whose ACE agent is described as working natively across all of a firm's cases and documents and whose conflict checker searches an entire case history. Searched the home page, the Litify AI page, the platform page, the security post, the responsible AI post and the privacy policy on 31 August 2026.

Two instruments address this and the Data Protection Agreement is the stronger of them. The Subscription Agreement permits disclosure of confidential information where required by law, court order or other government order, conditioned on advance notice to the disclosing party where legally permitted. The DPA, read in full on 31 Aug 2026, goes further on personal information: where a law requires Filevine to process or disclose it, Filevine will first inform the subscriber of the legal requirement and give the subscriber an opportunity to object or challenge it, unless the law prohibits such notice, and any disclosure is limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish its purpose. An opportunity to object and a minimisation duty are materially better than notice alone. The Standard Contractual Clauses appendix adds that on a government access request Filevine will notify the subscriber only and not the data subject, leaving the subscriber to decide what its own client is told. Two carve-outs a buyer should read: the opportunity to object is qualified where it would prejudice Filevine or expose it to liability for non-disclosure, and the DPA route governs personal information rather than every document in a matter. No transparency report or disclosure statistics were located, and nothing commits Filevine to seek a protective order of its own motion.

The privacy policy of 3 June 2026 says Litify may disclose personal information to law enforcement and government authorities and in response to valid requests by public authorities, with no commitment to notify the affected party and no transparency report. That policy states at its opening that it does not apply to personal information held on behalf of users of the services, which places a firm's matter data outside its scope, and no customer agreement exists to address the question instead. Searched the privacy policy, the CA notice, the security post and the AppExchange listing on 31 August 2026; no notice or subpoena commitment covering customer data was located.

This question does arise for this product and nothing answers it. Most of what Filevine's AI reads is the customer's own case file, where provenance is not in issue, but the pricing page states that the free LOIS Explore tier gives access to legal research and an opinion reader, which means the platform retrieves primary law from a corpus Filevine has assembled or licensed from someone. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page, the case management page and the full subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located nothing identifying that corpus: no source, no supplier, no jurisdictions covered, no licence or public-domain basis, and no update cadence. For a research capability offered free to anyone who signs up, and used to produce drafts that the same agreement expects to be filed after citation checking, the absence of any statement about where the law comes from is the finding. The LOIS product pages were not opened and are the rebuttal route.

The product does not retrieve primary law. Litify AI works on a firm's own matter data, medical records and documents, so there is no case law or statutory corpus behind its output and no licensing question of the kind this signal tracks. Recorded as not addressed rather than skipped; searched the Litify AI and platform pages on 31 August 2026 and located no reference to a primary law source.

A legal research capability is published and no currency check is claimed for it. The pricing page states that LOIS Explore provides access to legal research and an opinion reader, and the drafting products are described as citing every result to source, so the product does retrieve and cite authority. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page and the full subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no citator, no treatment signal, no subsequent-history check and no statement about whether cited authority remains good law. The agreement puts that burden squarely on the user, requiring independent confirmation of citations and legal conclusions before output is relied on or shared, which is an allocation of responsibility rather than a product capability. One adjacent signal is recorded rather than credited: a published webinar is titled around checking the cite, seeing the reasoning and reading the opinion, which suggests the vendor is thinking about verification workflow, and it was not opened.

No citator function is offered and none would apply in the ordinary way, because the product does not return authority to be checked for subsequent history. The nearest adjacent behaviour is drafting: the Demand Agent produces demand letters and the Discovery Agent auto-drafts interrogatory responses, neither of which is described as citing or verifying case law. Searched the Litify AI and platform pages on 31 August 2026.

The limitations are disclosed unusually frankly and the behaviour is not described. The subscription agreement states that AI-generated output may be incomplete, may contain factual or legal errors or omissions, may reflect biases present in training data, or may otherwise be unreliable, and that substantially similar inputs may produce different output. Disclosing non-determinism in a customer agreement is rare and is recorded as a point in the vendor's favour. What none of it does is describe what the system does when it is unsure. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page and the full agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no abstention path, no confidence or grounding indicator surfaced to the user, no threshold at which a feature declines to answer, and no statement of behaviour where the case file does not support the question asked. The AI Acceptable Use Policy is incorporated into the agreement and published, and was not opened; it governs permitted and prohibited uses and is the rebuttal route.

No located material describes what any Litify agent does when it cannot support an answer from the matter file. No abstention path, no confidence or grounding score and no described behaviour on missing data was found, although the Record Retrieval Agent is described as identifying missing medical records, which is gap detection in the case file rather than uncertainty about its own output. Searched the Litify AI page, the platform page and the responsible AI post on 31 August 2026.

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of 31 Aug 2026. Instrument searched: the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which tracks decisions worldwide where a court addressed hallucinated AI content and records the tool implicated where known and which stood at roughly 1,994 identified decisions when checked, together with several independent 2026 sanctions trackers and practitioner guides, searched on the company name and the product names. This is a statement about the public record on the date shown rather than a clearance. The exposure is more direct here than for most vendors in this pull, because the platform drafts demand letters, motions and other documents intended to be filed or served and offers legal research with an opinion reader, so a fabricated citation could in principle originate inside the product rather than elsewhere. The agreement anticipates exactly this, requiring the subscriber to confirm citations independently before sharing output with a client or a judicial body.

Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin at HEC Paris, along with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, on 31 August 2026. The product name and the company name are the same word, so a single search covers both filing conventions. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Litify was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product, and the failure mode is live here rather than theoretical, since the shipped agents draft demand letters and interrogatory responses.

The duties are described accurately and no authority is cited for them. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page, the case management page and the full subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located nothing naming ABA Formal Opinion 512, any state bar guidance on generative artificial intelligence, or any court standing order. What the agreement does instead is state the substance: Filevine is not a law firm, use of output creates no attorney-client relationship, and the subscriber must independently confirm citations and legal conclusions before relying on output or sharing it with a client or a judicial body. That tracks the competence, confidentiality and candour duties those authorities describe without pointing a risk committee at a single source. Two published items were not opened and are the rebuttal route: the AI Acceptable Use Policy, which is incorporated into the agreement and governs prohibited uses, and a webinar and blog series on AI risk and verification, either of which may engage named guidance.

No engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or with any state bar opinion on generative AI was located. The vendor publishes buyer-education material on AI, including a Legal AI Buyer's Guide and a 2025 State of AI in Legal report, and a responsible AI post that names NIST, the Global Partnership on AI and the Partnership on AI as bodies its model providers engage with, none of which is ethics guidance binding its customers. Searched the home page, the Litify AI page, the responsible AI post, the resources index and the privacy policy on 31 August 2026.

Savings are quantified and the client's side of the bill is not addressed. The published claims are specific by the standards of this pull: AIFields is said to reduce costs by over 75 per cent, demand letters are said to take 15 minutes or less, DemandsAI is offered on affordable per-case fees with no charges based on complexity or number of edits, and the AI features page argues that reduced workload translates to cost savings a firm can pass on to clients. Searched that page, the pricing page and the full subscription agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no per matter record of AI-assisted work intended for fee purposes and no guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment where AI-generated work informs what a client is charged. The platform includes billing and time-keeping as a core module, so the mechanism to record it exists, and nothing published connects the two. The gap is sharpest on the demand letter, which in a contingency practice is priced into the recovery rather than billed hourly.

Litify markets efficiency and realisation gains without addressing the client's side of the invoice. The home page says configurable workflows and autonomous agents let a firm handle twice as many matters with the same staff, and the platform page describes AI Time Capture as recommending time entries so that work such as quick emails is never left off the bill. Nothing located addresses how AI-assisted work should be billed or disclosed to a client, and no per-matter record of what the AI itself did is described, though AI Time Capture is said to generate review-ready entries.

The strongest position on this signal in the pull, and it is now verified rather than inferred. The Data Protection Agreement was read in full on 31 Aug 2026 and answers what a client's outside counsel guidelines actually ask. Subprocessors: engaged only under written agreements with obligations not less protective than the DPA, the current list published at a live URL reached from Annex C, a subscribe-by-email mechanism for notice of new ones, a ten business day objection window on reasonable grounds, and a right to terminate the affected Services with a refund of prepaid fees and no penalty if Filevine cannot work around an objection. Audit: an independent third party audits Filevine's data processing and information security controls at least annually, the reports are available on the subscriber's written request, a direct audit right on 21 days' notice arises if that fails, and Filevine will answer a written security questionnaire once a year within six weeks. Transfers: Standard Contractual Clauses and the UK addendum incorporated, supervisory authorities named, a Data Protection Officer identified. Breach: prompt notice with stated content. Around the DPA sit four further published instruments incorporated into the subscription agreement, including a Security Addendum and an AI Acceptable Use Policy. Two limits: the subprocessor list page itself did not retrieve on 31 Aug 2026, so the names remain unverified, and the Security Addendum and AI policy were not opened.

A firm answering a client's AI clause can point at named providers on current pages: the home page names Salesforce, AWS and Anthropic, the responsible AI post names the Claude 3 family reached through Amazon Bedrock, and the Litify AI page names Supio, Billables.ai and Salesforce Agentforce as the parties behind specific features. That is a model provider disclosure rather than a subprocessor list, and it is recorded as the closest true value rather than an exact one. No formal subprocessor register, no data processing addendum and no client-facing consent or notification pack was located, and there is no trust portal from which to request one.

The obligation is stated and the record that would discharge it is not described. The agreement is explicit about the duty, requiring the subscriber to independently confirm citations and legal conclusions before relying on output or sharing it with any third party including a judicial body, which is the clearest published statement in this pull that output may end up in front of a court. Product-side support for that duty is real in part: drafting output is described as cited to source, LOIS for Word gives source-linked recommendations, deposition summaries carry page and line references, and a legal research opinion reader lets a user open the authority. What is missing is the record itself. Searched the AI features page, the pricing page and the full agreement on 31 Aug 2026 and located no model identification or versioning, so which system produced a passage cannot be established; no log of AI invocations or of what a user accepted or edited; and no export, certification template or guidance for a court's standing order on AI use. The AI Acceptable Use Policy was not opened and is the rebuttal route.

Nothing located addresses producing an AI-use disclosure or a verification certification for a court. No export of which model produced which passage, what was retrieved, or who reviewed it is described for any of the nine named agents. The conflict checker is said to create a permanent report, but that is a conflicts artifact rather than an AI disclosure record. Searched the Litify AI page, the platform page and the responsible AI post on 31 August 2026.