Flank vs Ruli: how they compare in 2026
Flank and Ruli both sell AI to enterprise in house legal teams for high volume contract review, drafting and business questions. Flank is stronger on supervising agents that act. The legal team sets approval thresholds by matter type, counterparty and risk, reviews flagged work in a queue that shows the agent's reasoning, and its AI management system holds ISO 42001 certification. Its data processing agreement names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Azure, with a dedicated tenant in the customer's chosen region. Ruli is stronger on what its answers rest on and what its terms say about them. Research answers cite primary sources across US, EU and UK law, and its terms state that outputs are not legal advice. Its terms also keep customer data out of training unless the customer opts in, and then only with identifiers removed.
Which one fits
Choose Flank if
- You want agents to finish routine work under rules you set. Flank's agents draft NDAs and statements of work, redline vendor paper, run negotiation rounds and answer business questions, with approval thresholds set by matter type, counterparty and risk, and complex or high risk requests escalated.
- Your business sends legal requests by email and chat. Flank takes requests through Outlook, Teams, Slack and an intranet portal, so business users never open a new tool, and Flank Record captures executed contracts at signature for plain language queries.
- You need data residency and a published processor list. Flank runs each customer in a dedicated tenant on Google Cloud or Azure in a chosen region, and its data processing agreement names each model provider with its processing location, 24 hour breach notice and two weeks to object to a new subprocessor.
Choose Ruli if
- You want research answers you can check. Ruli's Assistant answers questions across US, EU and UK laws and regulations and your own playbooks and policies, with citations to the primary sources, and drafts memos from them.
- You review contracts in Word or Google Docs. Ruli's extension checks agreements against your playbooks, marks each issue pass, partial or fail, and applies preferred or fallback language as tracked changes, while Tabular Review extracts clauses across hundreds of contracts.
- You want the training position and the advice line in the terms. Ruli's platform terms exclude customer data from training by default, allow training only on data with identifiers removed if the customer opts in, and state that outputs are not legal advice.
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.
Agents do the work end to end. A request arrives by email or chat, an agent identifies the task, runs it against the team's playbook, and either sends the result back or holds it for review. Flank Record agents file each executed contract at signature, extract its key terms and keep the estate current under a human supervisor. In negotiation, agents handle objections on the customer's own paper in three modes. They can reject a counterparty change with a comment, layer a new tracked change over it so the trail stays visible, or leave it and attach reasoning. Counter redlines with fallback language work beside any of the three. Once a deployment is running, designated users create new agents and assign task types in the governance platform in minutes. The model is an agentic service: a forward deployed team turns the lawyers' unwritten rules into playbooks the agents follow, and no separate workflow tool or CLM interface is sold.
The models are the product. Research answers, memo drafting, playbook generation, redlining clause by clause, issue spotting, extraction across hundreds of contracts and regulatory monitoring filtered to the company's risk profile are all model work. Without them, what remains is storage for playbooks and documents.
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.
Agents work from the customer's templates, playbooks and approved sources rather than from primary law. Research and Q&A answers draw on those approved sources. Review lists the checks it held with clause references, such as a liability cap at clause 11.2 or a silent rollover at 3.1, so the reviewer resolves flags instead of rereading the document. In drafting, anything the agent cannot resolve is highlighted rather than guessed. Each agent is trained by the customer's own team, and every interaction can be tracked for accuracy. No measured error rate for drafts or redlines is given.
Answers cite their sources, and the limits are stated. The Assistant page says every research result includes citations so users can verify accuracy, with primary source citations across the covered law and the team's own knowledge base, and the Word extension's Assistant answers with citations too. The Platform Terms warn that outputs may be incomplete, inaccurate or outdated and may not reflect the most current law. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published.
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.
The legal team decides which work agents take and how much runs unattended. Supervision thresholds are set by topic, uncertainty or counterparty ask, beside escalation rules and risk tolerances, and complex or high risk requests are escalated. Supervised output lands in a queue with the original request, the agent's reasoning and the draft, and the reviewer chooses approve and send, edit, or mark as resolved. Every workflow launches fully supervised, and supervision is dialed back workflow by workflow as results build. The reviewer can be the team's own lawyers, a partner firm or Flank's commercial counsel. Every decision, edit and negotiation point is logged, each correction trains the agent for next time, and the customer's team keeps final authority over outcomes.
Review is placed on the user in writing, with real surfaces to do it. The Platform Terms make the user solely responsible for reviewing outputs and require independent judgment; in Word and Google Docs, playbook edits arrive as tracked changes to accept or reject, and every flagged issue carries a pass, partial or fail status so the reviewer can prioritize. No threshold, categorical limit on use without review, or account of what happens after a wrong output is published.
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.
Simmons & Simmons partner Lucy Shurwood says the firm's agents handle drafting, review and negotiation of NDAs, DPAs, service agreements and IMAs, and are live for its teams and its clients. A second customer quote, signed Andy Perk, says NDAs and vendor agreements now move with a speed the team did not expect. Drafting agents have run in production at a global hospitality group since 2025, a second global hotel group runs its franchise packs on them, and a major international law firm runs four drafting workflows. A supervised request takes five minutes of a lawyer's time instead of sixty, by Flank's figure. None of these figures is tied to a named customer.
Named customers stand behind the stories, and the results are testimony rather than measurement. The customers page carries stories from eight companies, among them Sequoia, MasterClass and Newsweek, with named legal leaders quoted. The figures are reported by the customers themselves: a general counsel's estimate of 25 to 30 hours saved a month, and a claim that MasterClass's lean team now covers twice the function. A third, that 75 percent of Sequoia's reviewed contracts will run through the redlining tool, is a goal rather than a result. The stories carry no dates and no method.
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.
Customer data stays in a dedicated regional tenant on Google Cloud or Azure, never trains any model, and sits under zero data retention at the model providers. The data processing addendum of March 2026 names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Cloud and Azure OpenAI as processors of model calls, with executed standard contractual clauses for three of them. It provides for deletion on termination and on the customer's instruction. Privilege and work product are not addressed, for a product that drafts and negotiates on the customer's behalf and that law firms run for their clients.
The published agreement carries real commitments. Training on customer data is off by default, customers keep ownership of their data, and the confidentiality clause allows disclosure required by law only with notice where the law permits. The home page promises strict isolation of each customer's data, and the Privacy Notice, last updated 12 August 2026, describes Ruli as the processor of enterprise workspace content. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, or separation between matters within a customer.
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.
Agents answer legal and policy questions from HR, procurement and other business teams directly, in email and chat, and Simmons & Simmons runs the agents for its clients. Flank's FAQ leaves final authority with the customer's team, with Flank supplying supervision controls, auditability and policy enforcement. No terms of service are published, and nothing tells a business user that an agent's answer is not legal advice. Jurisdiction limits are not stated.
A disclaimer scoped to the product comes with a review duty. The Platform Terms state that the services and outputs are for general guidance and workflow assistance, do not constitute legal advice or professional counsel, and create no attorney client or fiduciary relationship. They require users to review outputs and use independent judgment. The terms also admit individual consumer accounts, including users aged 13 to 17 with a parent's consent, without saying how legal output should be treated by people who are not lawyers. No ethics obligations or jurisdiction limits are named.
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.
ISO 42001 certification, number AIMS-LE-103025, covers an AI management system that the trust center describes as governing legal, safety and fairness considerations in building and running the AI features. An LLM FAQ on data handling, prompt injection controls, training assurances and ethical use is released on request. Agent configurations live in a governance platform where designated users create agents, assign task types and manage settings, and every agent action is logged. The company has also formed an advisory board, The Orchestration Layer. No accountable owner or test results for agent output are named.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias finding is published. The Platform Terms warn that AI systems may produce unpredictable or biased results, a disclaimer rather than a governance position.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The data processing addendum commits to secure deletion after termination unless a retention duty applies, to correction or deletion on instruction, and to written notice within 24 hours of a personal data breach. Clause 9.3 names six subprocessors with locations, and a new or replaced subprocessor comes with written notice and two weeks to object. Access is role based, with single sign on and audit logs. Trust center controls, monitored through Secureframe, include restricted access to customer data, user access reviews, a tested incident response plan and a data retention and disposal policy. The product privacy policy, effective 17 March 2026, keeps data only as long as its purposes require, though its update notice says the revision added specific retention periods.
Deletion, access and hosting are published in reviewable form, while incident practice is thin. Deleted data is removed within set periods under the Platform Terms. The Security Policy describes encryption at rest and in transit, access on a least privilege basis with quarterly access reviews, single sign on and two factor authentication where available, and a subprocessor table with locations. Incident handling is a single statement of a process with escalation, mitigation and communication, with no commitment to notify customers of a breach. The Security Policy was last updated on 13 March 2025.
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.
No customer agreement is published. The site's legal set is the data processing addendum, an Impressum and three privacy notices, and the addendum carries no indemnity, liability cap or warranty on output, its terms running to data protection alone. Agents send finished NDAs and negotiated positions to counterparties within the customer's thresholds. Nothing states whether Flank stands behind an agent acting inside them.
Liability is handled only by standard clauses that leave the risk of output with the customer. The Platform Terms provide the services and outputs as is, without warranties, cap Ruli's total liability at the greater of $100 or the fees paid in the preceding 12 months, and require the customer to indemnify Ruli, with no indemnity running the other way. Disputes go to individual arbitration under Texas law.
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.
Agents work in the channels the business already uses: an Outlook inbox, Teams, Slack, forms, an intranet portal or the agent's own URL. CLMs, Jira and Salesforce are named among the tools agents work beside, without custom integration projects. In email, the agent reads the request, does the work and replies in the same thread with the draft attached. Flank Record answers questions in Teams, Slack or email, filtered to what the asker's role can see, and admins can browse the record in its own app. A forward deployed engineer handles complex integrations. No developer documentation sets out what moves between Flank and a CLM or Salesforce.
Real integrations with some depth described. The extension works inside Microsoft Word, listed on Microsoft Marketplace, and Google Docs, applying playbook edits as tracked changes and generating issues lists in place; the Privacy Notice describes a Google Workspace integration with scoped access to files; and DocuSign appears among the subprocessors. No integration with a document management, matter or contract lifecycle system is named, and no integration documentation is published.
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.
Each customer gets a dedicated tenant in its chosen region on Google Cloud or Azure. Clause 8.1 of the data processing addendum bars Flank and its subprocessors from processing personal data outside the EEA and UK without the customer's prior written consent. Hosting and model processing are listed separately in the addendum's subprocessor clause. Google Cloud is EU for hosting and global for model calls, and MongoDB and Mailgun run in the EU. Azure OpenAI runs in eight regions across Europe, North America and Japan, including Amsterdam, Sweden Central, Switzerland North and UK South. OpenAI and Anthropic process in the United States under executed standard contractual clauses.
Cloud, in one stated region. The Security Policy says all services are hosted on Amazon Web Services with all databases in the United States, the Privacy Notice says personal information is hosted in the United States, the home page describes each customer's data as kept separate, and the subprocessor table places the AI model provider in the United States. No residency option, private deployment or tenancy choice is offered.
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.
SOC 2 Type II, ISO 42001, GDPR, CCPA and PDPL badges sit on the home page. The trust center at trust.flank.ai, run on Secureframe, releases the SOC 2 Type 2 report, the ISO 42001 certificate AIMS-LE-103025, the LLM FAQ and a penetration test remediation report through request buttons. It shows live controls across change management, availability, access, incident response, vendor risk and network security. No audit period or auditor appears on the open page.
A named attestation without a report route. The home page and Security Policy state that Ruli is SOC 2 Type 2 certified, with independently audited controls for security, availability and confidentiality. No auditor, report period or scope is given, no trust center is published, and no way to obtain the report is described.
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.
Clause 9.3 of the data processing addendum names OpenAI and Anthropic as model providers in the United States, Google Cloud Platform as global for model calls and Azure OpenAI across eight regions. The trust center marks Google Cloud, Anthropic and OpenAI as model providers. A new or replaced subprocessor comes with written notice and a two week objection window, and clause 12.4 lets Flank update the list by publication where the law or a listed reason requires. Which model handles which task is not stated.
The provider is named. The Security Policy's subprocessor table lists OpenAI for AI models through the OpenAI API platform, located in the United States, alongside Microsoft Azure. The specific models and versions are not named, and no commitment to notify customers when the models change is published.
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.
Pricing follows outcomes rather than seats, and the customer starts paying when the agents start delivering. Implementation is scoped in forward deployed engineering days per use case and fixed in a signed Agent Design Document before work begins, so the services bill is set in advance. A deployment runs two weeks of discovery and design and two weeks of playbook engineering, then goes live in week five on one document type in one region, fully supervised. Flank Record needs roughly three months of upfront ingestion of the back catalog, and new customers join a waitlist. No figure is published, and the route in is a demo.
No price, tier or unit of charge is published. The terms mention monthly and annual plans and trials in general terms, and the Microsoft Marketplace listing says a paid subscription is required and points to a demo.
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 buyer is the enterprise in house legal team, with a law firm offering that runs a firm's non billable drafting from its own precedents and packages the same agents as a client service. Seven task types are offered: triage and routing, third party review with redlines, drafting from templates, objection handling on the customer's own paper, research and Q&A from approved sources, custom prompts and bespoke workflows. Templates named include NDAs, MSAs, DPAs, statements of work, term sheets and franchise agreements, and the deepest drafting deployment runs franchise packs for global hotel groups. A first deployment covers one document type in one region. No contract type, jurisdiction or company size is named as out of scope.
The buyer and the work are clear: in house legal teams, from fast growing technology companies to the Fortune 500, handling regulatory research, employment and privacy questions, contract review and redlining, due diligence and regulatory monitoring. The Microsoft Marketplace listing also names law firms and individual legal professionals, and the terms allow consumer accounts, without saying how the product differs for them. What it does not cover is not stated.
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?
Customer data never trains any model, according to the home page, and the legal front door page repeats no training. No contract term says so. The data processing addendum of March 2026 confines processing to the customer's documented instructions without naming training, and the customer agreement is not published. An LLM FAQ covering training assurances is released through the trust center on request.
The Platform Terms of Service, last modified 2 February 2026, exclude customer data from training by default. If a customer opts in through an express mechanism, Ruli may train on deidentified data only. The customer can opt out at any time, though training already done cannot be reversed, and customer data is never shared with third party AI providers for training. Ruli may also use deidentified, aggregated analytics to improve the service.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The product privacy policy, effective 17 March 2026, keeps data only as long as its purposes or the law require, then deletes or anonymizes it, with earlier deletion on request under the data processing addendum. Zero data retention applies at the model providers. Flank Record keeps a current record of every executed contract by design.
Users can delete content or their account, after which the Platform Terms say most data is deleted within 30 days and backups are typically removed within 90 days, with some information kept for legal compliance, disputes and enforcement. A setting that retains nothing is not described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Each customer has a dedicated regional tenant. Inside it, role based access, single sign on with all major identity providers and audit logs are included, and Flank Record answers each question filtered to what the asker's role can see. Walls between matters inside one tenant, including for a law firm running the agents for clients, are not described.
Each customer's data is described as kept separate from other customers', and nothing addresses walls or permissions between matters or users within a customer.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Clause 12.1 of the data processing addendum requires Flank to tell the customer without undue delay if its data is endangered by seizure, attachment or other third party measures. Clause 3.1 requires notice before any processing the law compels outside the customer's instructions, where notice is permitted. The product privacy policy allows disclosure in response to valid requests from courts or government agencies. No transparency report is offered.
The confidentiality clause of the Platform Terms allows confidential information to be disclosed when required by law only with notice where the law permits. The Privacy Notice adds that information may be disclosed to comply with valid legal process.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Agents draft, review and answer from the customer's own templates, playbooks, policies and approved sources. No primary law source or license is named.
The research coverage is described by jurisdiction: US, EU and UK federal and state laws and regulations, with trusted sources from the rest of the world cited and primary source citations. No database, publisher or license behind that coverage is named.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Output is contract drafts, redlines, negotiation positions and answers drawn from the customer's own material. No citation status check is part of the product.
Results carry citations for the user to verify, and the terms warn that output may not reflect current law. No citator or check on whether cited authority remains good law is described; the Monitor feature tracks regulatory change for the company rather than checking cited authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Agents apply the customer's escalation rules, risk tolerances and thresholds by topic, uncertainty or counterparty ask, and hold anything outside them for review. In drafting, everything the agent could not resolve is highlighted rather than guessed, so the lawyer resolves the flags instead of rereading the document.
Flagged contract issues carry a status, but no confidence indicator is described, nor any path by which the Assistant declines a question it cannot answer.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Flank or Legal OS GmbH. Its agents draft and negotiate contracts for enterprise legal teams.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Ruli as the tool used. Ruli reviews contracts and flags issues, with an Assistant that answers questions.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Professional responsibility appears as the customer's final authority over outcomes and the supervision controls around it. No public material engages ABA Formal Opinion 512, a European bar rule or other ethics guidance.
The no legal advice statement in the Platform Terms, with its direction to consult qualified professionals as appropriate, is the only professional reference. No bar or ethics opinion is named on any surface read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Flank sells supervised agents to in house legal teams and, through a law firm offering, to firms for client drafting they cannot bill for, so that associates and paralegals return to chargeable work. Simmons & Simmons, its partner, says the agents are live for its teams and its clients. The home page puts a supervised request at five minutes of a lawyer's time rather than sixty. Every agent decision, edit and negotiation point is logged in an audit trail.
No per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes is described, and no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published.
The product is built for in house legal teams, whose work bills no client, and its savings claims concern the buyer's own spend, including a customer story on replacing outside counsel for research. Law firms are among the users named on the Marketplace listing, and nothing addresses how a firm would bill or disclose work done with the product.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Clause 9.3 of the data processing addendum lists Google Cloud Platform, MongoDB, Mailgun, Azure OpenAI in eight regions, OpenAI and Anthropic. Three carry executed standard contractual clauses, and changes come with a two week objection window. The trust center repeats the list and marks each model provider. The addendum can be read in full without an agreement in place and is written for a customer to forward.
The Security Policy publishes a subprocessor table with each provider's service and data center location, from Amazon Web Services for hosting and OpenAI for AI models to Pinecone. No disclosure pack on AI use for clients is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Every agent decision, edit and negotiation point is logged, and the supervision queue keeps each request with the agent's reasoning and the reviewer's action. Model names do not appear in that record, and no export for a court filing is offered.
No record of AI involvement in a document, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described on the home page, the product pages or the Platform Terms, checked on 22 September 2026.
Product updates
The latest logged changes from each vendor, newest first, each linked to its source.
Ruli
-
Performance evidence
Ruli published its results from the 2026 Legal Benchmarks evaluation, a test designed by lawyers that uses real in house contract and extraction tasks.
Source
In summary
Flank
Flank, from Legal OS GmbH of Berlin, deploys supervised AI agents that take over high volume work for enterprise in house legal teams. They triage business requests, draft NDAs and statements of work from the team's templates, redline vendor paper against its playbook, run negotiation rounds and answer recurring questions, through Outlook, Teams, Slack and an intranet portal. According to the AI Legal Index, the legal team sets approval thresholds by matter type, counterparty and risk, and each customer runs in a dedicated tenant in a chosen region. Flank holds ISO 42001 and SOC 2 Type 2 and names Simmons & Simmons, Axel Springer and the Financial Times among customers.
Ruli
Ruli, from Ruli, Inc. of Austin, Texas, is an AI legal platform for in house legal teams. Its Assistant answers research questions across US, EU and UK law and the team's own playbooks with citations, and drafts memos. A Word and Google Docs extension reviews and redlines contracts against playbooks, Tabular Review extracts terms across large contract sets, and Monitor tracks regulatory change. According to the AI Legal Index, Ruli's terms exclude customer data from training by default and state that outputs are not legal advice. It names Sequoia, MasterClass and Newsweek among customers.
Questions buyers ask
Flank vs Ruli: which is better for an in house legal team?
They are close, and each is stronger in a different place. Flank publishes a fuller control structure for agents that act on their own, plus ISO 42001 and regional tenancy. Ruli publishes cited research across three legal systems and clearer terms on advice and training. Teams wanting agents to complete work end to end have more to read from Flank. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Flank keep its agents under control?
The legal team chooses which tasks agents handle, sets approval thresholds by matter type, counterparty and risk, and reviews supervised work in a queue that shows flagged items with the agent's reasoning. Complex or high risk requests are escalated rather than completed. Every decision, edit and negotiation point is logged, and corrections feed back into the agent. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Ruli train AI on customer data?
Not by default. Ruli's platform terms, last modified 2 February 2026, state that customer data is not used to train its models unless the customer opts in, and then only with identifiers removed, that training already done cannot be reversed after an opt out, and that customer data is never shared with third party AI providers for training. Flank states on its website that it never trains on customer data. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which AI models do Flank and Ruli use?
Flank's data processing agreement names OpenAI and Anthropic in the United States, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure OpenAI across eight named regions, with written notice and a two week objection window before any change. Ruli's security policy names OpenAI through its API platform in the United States. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 26, 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.
Three points to weigh. Flank's agents answer legal and compliance questions directly to business teams, and nothing published tells those users the answers are not legal advice. Ruli's terms cap its liability at the greater of $100 or a year's fees, and run the only indemnity from the customer to Ruli. Flank's principal customer agreement is not published, and its privacy policy's claim to add retention periods is not borne out in the text. Neither vendor reviewed this page.