GC AI vs Legora: how they compare in 2026
Legora and GC AI are both AI workspaces sold to in house teams, built for different rooms. Legora started in Stockholm in 2023 as a collaborative workspace for law firms and legal departments, and now calls its platform an agentic operating system for legal work. A matter team and the AI share one surface. Tabular Review turns large document sets into a cited grid, an Agent plans and carries out multistep work, and Monitors track regulatory change. Portal lets a firm and its client draft together in a shared Editor. GC AI sells only to in house departments, from a single general counsel upward. It combines chat, playbook review in Word, Contract Intelligence, legal databases and Agent Connectors into business apps. Legora holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system and publishes its general terms openly. GC AI names every model provider, hosts in the United States only and lists a $500 seat. Teams running large reviews with outside counsel fit Legora's shared surface, while lean departments that want a published price and named providers fit GC AI.
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.
Chat answers questions and drafts documents, playbooks run first pass contract reviews, and Contract Intelligence extracts and reconciles terms across a whole portfolio. The Word add in redlines selected clauses or entire agreements, Automations rerun saved instructions on a schedule, and Easy Prompt rewrites a plain request into a detailed legal prompt before it runs. Chats can also draft and send email, build PowerPoint decks and bring earlier conversations back into a new one on request. Requests route across models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI, with automatic fallback to another provider when one fails. Complex tasks run through a five step reasoning sequence of scoping, systematic review, pattern tracing, completeness accounting and reconciliation. Cohere's embedding model handles retrieval over uploaded files, and GC AI describes a 20,000 line system prompt tuned for concise, business focused answers. Files, projects, vaults and the skill library hold the material and instructions the models work from. Inside a project, each chat can read the project's files and its sibling chats.
Everything Legora sells is generative. The Agent plans and executes legal work across the platform's tools, Tabular Review extracts answers from each document into a grid, research answers questions across jurisdictions, and drafting runs in Word, Outlook and the built in editor. An orchestration layer handles tool routing, memory, model selection and guardrails beneath them. Without the models there is no product left to sell.
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.
Answers carry numbered citations that open the source with the quoted passage highlighted, so a lawyer can read the exact text behind each statement. Exact Quote works across uploaded files, web research and the legal databases, and an exported chat can include a citations section listing each quote and its source file. More than 14 million federal and state opinions, supplied by Midpage AI, back the case law answers. Each cited case opens in full in an Opinion Reader, with treatment flags where later history exists. The International Law database links each authority to its official portal, shows how often later decisions cite a case and marks some statutes as in force or not. The Research Agent ranks primary law ahead of secondary sources and uses reference sites such as Wikipedia only for background, never as citations. On GC AI's own In-House Legal Bench of 100 in house tasks, published in May 2026, GC AI passed 86.8% of attorney written criteria, against 79.8% for ChatGPT, 68.4% for Claude and 57.5% for Gemini. Its widest margins came on legal research, regulatory tracking and checklists, and only example tasks and answer keys are released. GC AI tells Word add in users to double check output because hallucinations and errors can occur.
Each cell in Tabular Review expands to its reasoning and the source documents behind it, and Portal answers carry links back to the exact source. Legal research works several sources in parallel, ranks them by authority and checks each finding against primary law before the answer returns. The rebuilt research layer announced on 14 September 2026 runs on an ontology of the law that maps how authorities rank and relate, including amendments and temporal validity. Its AI native citator follows a standard set and audited by former publisher attorney editors. Legora says it has cataloged more than 50 ways AI fails at legal research without publishing the list. The layer is in limited beta, and no accuracy figure, evaluation framework or hallucination rate is 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.
Agent Connectors split every app action into read tools and write tools. Reads default to Always allow, while writes and deletes default to Needs approval, so GC AI asks before an email goes out or a record changes. A member can set any tool to Always allow, Needs approval or Block, and each approval card offers Approve, Always approve or Deny, with the draft open for editing first. Admins set each connector to Disabled, Read only or Full access for everyone or for named members. Changes inside GC AI follow the same pattern. Creating, renaming, moving or deleting a project appears as a proposal to approve or deny, and files added from chat wait for approval. Contract Intelligence links an amendment to its parent agreement on its own only when the match is high confidence, and offers the rest as suggestions to confirm or dismiss. Any extracted value can be corrected by hand and later reverted to the AI value with its citations. Stakeholder seats give outside counsel and business partners a restricted vault chat. It answers factual questions about shared contracts and sends questions of legal or commercial judgment back to the legal team. Automations run unattended and deliver each result as a new chat for review, and the services agreement requires the customer to make sure users review output.
The Agent proposes a plan before it acts, carries out the work across documents, data sources and tools, checks whether it met the goal, and delivers work product into the project workspace for the lawyer's review and approval. It can also act without being asked, watching email, documents and projects and starting work when something needs attention. Tabular Review adds Mark as Reviewed, Lock Cells and Review Mode for team review, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. ISO 42001 covers the AI management system, with human oversight named as a principle. No threshold at which the Agent stops for a person, and no route after a wrong output, is described.
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.
Eight customer stories name both the company and the lawyer. Tipalti's senior director of corporate legal reports 609 hours saved year to date. Snyk's senior managing counsel says time on core legal tasks fell by half or more, and Interface's head of compliance estimates major tasks take about half the time. Helix's chief privacy officer says productivity doubled, and Jasper's head of commercial legal says tasks that took an hour now take ten minutes. Arc'teryx, Columbia Sportswear and Viant Technology describe how their teams use the product without figures. Viant's chief legal officer, for example, runs HR and privacy questions through GC AI before deciding whether to call outside counsel. Customer logos in the trust center include Vercel, Wayfair, Bass Pro Shops, Eventbrite and Post Holdings. More than 2,100 legal teams in 53 countries use the product by GC AI's count, over 200 of them public companies, and more than 12 million contracts have been reviewed. A December 2025 ROI study of more than 100 active customers reports 14 hours saved per lawyer each week and outside counsel spend down 14%, while GC AI's FAQ puts that cut at 30%. The story figures are the quoted lawyers' own accounts, and an unnamed Fortune 500 technology company is cited as saving 400 hours a month on NDA review.
Legora counts more than 1,800 teams in over 50 markets and 100,000 lawyers on the platform. Named customers include White & Case, Crowell, Accor, Dentons Europe, Trowers & Hamlins and Grant Thornton UK, whose forensic investigations team has a published story. The customers page reports that users see a 25 percent improvement in work quality, that experienced users save 80 percent of non billable hours weekly, and that firms bill $6.4 million more per 100 lawyers a year. None of those figures carries a date, sample or method. An in house study with the analyst Ari Kaplan drew on conversations with 30 customers in nine countries.
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.
Section 4.9 of the services agreement bars GC AI from using customer data to train generative AI models, and section 5 binds both sides to confidentiality, with notice before any compelled disclosure. Customer data is logically separated from other customers' data, encrypted with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, and hosted in the United States. Its privilege guidance centers on United States v. Heppner, the February 2026 Southern District of New York ruling that a defendant's exchanges with a consumer AI tool were not privileged. GC AI points out that the court left room for tools used at counsel's direction under enforceable confidentiality terms. It tells lawyers they can treat GC AI like any trusted cloud tool, such as Google Workspace, Slack or Asana. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Cohere and Reducto process customer content on zero retention terms. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, with Anthropic keeping its data for 30 days, and it stays off until an admin enables it. Users delete inputs and outputs whenever they choose, and an organization's full erasure follows a written request.
The general terms bar Legora from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and require the same of its subcontractors. The terms, the data processing agreement and the security measures annex are published in versions for the EU and the United States, and the annex covers least privilege access, personnel confidentiality, authorization controls and retention on customer instruction. Ethical walls and role based access are stated to keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, on access control built on the Zanzibar authorization model, and engineers reach customer data only with the customer's written approval. Privilege and work product handling are not addressed.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
The product is sold to lawyers for in house legal work, and GC AI states that it does not give legal advice; it helps attorneys and their companies deliver advice more efficiently. The services agreement makes the customer responsible for having users review output and for meeting their own legal, regulatory, professional licensing and fiduciary duties. Exact Quote is presented as support for the lawyer's duty to verify sources. GC AI also quotes New York Formal Opinion 2024-5, which says a lawyer must review all generative AI output, citations included, before using it for a client or a tribunal. Lawyers are pointed to their local bar for current rules. Stakeholder seats keep non lawyers to factual questions about shared contracts and send judgment questions to the legal team. GC AI states that it assists with legal work in every jurisdiction, and users set the governing law in each request.
Legora sells to lawyers, firms and in house teams and describes the product as working with lawyers rather than replacing them, with the Agent's output delivered for a lawyer's review and approval. No position on the advice line, no treatment of competence and supervision duties and no jurisdiction limit appears in the acceptable use policy, the general terms or the product pages.
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.
The In-House Legal Bench, published in May 2026, is how the company evaluates its own output. Six R&D attorneys wrote 100 in house tasks across ten categories, with answer keys averaging 12 criteria each. An LLM judge marks each criterion pass or fail, and attorneys reviewed a sample of its verdicts by hand. Pass rates are published by category, from 81.6% on summarizing documents to 91.4% on comparison and benchmarking, and GC AI says the results drive product changes. Claude Fable 5 led every other model in GC AI's suite on a benchmark of 100 demanding in house tasks, by GC AI's account. Admins on Team and Enterprise plans can switch off Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI models for the whole organization, and a settings table records who changed each provider and when. An AI Governance and Risk Management Policy sits in the trust center beside the security, conduct and acceptable use policies, shared on request. Who inside GC AI answers for model behavior is not stated.
Legora holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system, independently audited with ongoing surveillance, and publishes what the certification covers: how AI is designed, deployed, supervised and monitored, with human oversight and structured governance as the operating principles. No internal owner of AI governance is named, no results of testing on model behavior before release are published, and nothing covers uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.
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.
Version 4.0 of the data processing agreement, from June 2026, and an information security addendum set the data rules. GC AI processes personal data only on the customer's instructions. After the term ends it deletes all customer data within 30 days of a written request, at downstream vendors too, and clears backups within 90 days. Users can delete inputs and outputs from the app at any time, and data is kept only while the account is active. The subprocessor list names each provider with its purpose, data types and hosting location, and was last updated 18 September 2026. GC AI emails customers before adding or replacing one, allows 30 days to object, and lets the customer terminate if no solution is agreed within 90 days. A confirmed security incident is reported without undue delay, with cause, mitigation and updates as they become available. Sign in runs through WorkOS with SSO over SAML or OIDC, multifactor authentication and organization roles, and custom roles limit what each member can use. Production code is scanned daily for malware, a third party penetration test runs at least once a year, and backups are encrypted and replicated.
The security measures annex sets least privilege and role based access, and centrally stored logs traceable to unique usernames, with security logs kept at least 12 months. It adds data integrity signing, background checks and confidentiality agreements for staff, and retention as the customer instructs. Subscriber environments are logically separated and full production backups run every four hours. The data processing agreement has Legora report a personal data breach within 36 hours and delete or return personal data at the subscriber's choice when it ends. The subprocessor list, last updated 6 July 2026, names each provider with its purpose, data and residency, and a new subprocessor comes with 30 days to object. Penetration tests cover the full platform twice a year.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The self serve services agreement, version 10.0 of 24 September 2026, sets the allocation of loss, and customers buying through an order form sign separate terms. Each party's liability is capped at the fees paid or payable for the affected services in the 12 months before the claim, or $100 if that is greater. Indirect and consequential losses are excluded. Gross negligence, willful misconduct and indemnity obligations sit outside the cap. Against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property, GC AI defends the customer and pays agreed settlements and awarded damages. The indemnity excludes customer data, connected third party apps, modified output, third party web content and misuse. Its remedies run from securing the right to continue, to replacing the technology, to ending access with a refund of prepaid fees. The warranty covers professional, workmanlike service and a platform that materially performs as documented, with correction or a refund as the remedy. The agreement disclaims output, saying AI accuracy can never be guaranteed and that GC AI has no liability for use of or reliance on output. No insurance is stated.
General terms and conditions are published openly in an EU version and a version for the United States. They carry numbered liability clauses, aggregate caps that apply across the subscriber and its affiliates, a separate cap of €100,000 on beta features, and a carve out the terms call an Enhanced Claim. No indemnity for third party claims arising from output, warranty on output or insurance position is stated.
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.
About 20 apps sit behind Agent Connectors, among them Gmail, Outlook, Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Notion, Confluence, HubSpot, Asana, Linear, GitHub and Granola. Legal workflow systems include Ironclad, Agiloft and Checkbox, along with ServiceNow, Jira and the USPTO. Each member connects through OAuth, and GC AI acts only with that member's existing access in the source app. For Microsoft 365, GC AI publishes every delegated Graph permission it requests, from Mail.Send to Sites.ReadWrite.All, with the feature each one serves and why it needs that level. Checkbox, ServiceNow, Google Workspace and the USPTO have their own setup guides covering keys, OAuth apps and admin approval. Contract Intelligence syncs vaults from Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox or Ironclad, picking up new files every 15 minutes, with import rules and manual resync. The Word add in installs from AppSource or an XML manifest. A REST API, an MCP server for ChatGPT, Claude and Cursor, and the gcai command line tool expose chats, files, projects, playbooks, skills and vaults, with inference capped at 60 requests a minute per organization. A machine client such as Salesforce Agentforce can reach the MCP server with OAuth client credentials. No connector reaches iManage or NetDocuments.
Legora integrates with document management systems rather than replacing them. An iManage technology partnership works through iManage APIs, and SharePoint, Box, virtual data rooms and contract lifecycle systems feed documents in. Add ins bring the Agent and playbooks into Word and Outlook, EDGAR sits among the research sources, and MCP connectors and third party legal services feed the Agent's context. A plugin released on 17 September 2026 brings Legora's grounded answers into ChatGPT Enterprise. What each connection moves, in which direction and what an administrator configures is not documented.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The service runs on Google Cloud, with Vercel hosting the application and Cloudflare routing traffic. Each organization's data is logically separated, with its own access controls and encryption. Under the data processing agreement, customer personal data is hosted in the United States at all times, and GC AI states that all of its servers are in the United States. Every subprocessor, model providers included, lists the United States as its hosting location. Processing may happen elsewhere. The agreement lets GC AI and its subprocessors process personal data wherever they operate when needed to provide the service, with transfers covered by the Data Privacy Framework or standard contractual clauses. The United States is the only hosting location offered, on every plan.
Legora runs separate arrangements for the EU, the United States and Asia Pacific. Its subprocessor list sets out hosting and AI model providers by region, Microsoft, AWS and Google among them, with EU customers' data held in the EU and EEA. Storage is tiered to data sensitivity, technical teams in the EU and the United States support local clients, and subscriber environments are logically separated. No customer selection of region inside a tier is described, and where processing happens is not separated from where data is stored.
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 certification, renewed through annual audits, sits alongside a SOC 3 report and a SOC 2 Type I report. GC AI's SafeBase trust center holds the SOC reports, a penetration test summary and policies covering AI governance, acceptable use, anti bribery and conduct. Documents are released through an access request, under a nondisclosure agreement. The information security addendum commits to third party penetration testing of a representative instance at least once a year, vulnerability ranking with CVSS and daily malware scanning of GC AI managed code. Business continuity plans are reviewed each year, and staff with access to customer data are background screened and trained on hire and annually. The reports themselves are released only through that request.
ISO 27001:2022 with a yearly audit, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 for the AI management system are all current. The trust center at security.legora.com carries a resources section and a data flow diagram, and the security whitepapers and security measures annex are published without a gate. Penetration tests run twice a year under an assume breach method. The certifying auditor is not named.
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.
Anthropic's Claude family, OpenAI's models, Google's Gemini and xAI's Grok handle chat and analysis. Cohere's embedding model powers retrieval over files, and Reducto parses documents. Requests go to the model best suited to each task and fall back across providers during an outage, and users do not choose a model. Each provider appears on the subprocessor list with zero retention and United States hosting. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, since Anthropic keeps its data for 30 days for safety work, and it stays off until an admin accepts those terms. Admins on Team and Enterprise plans can switch off Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI, with each change logged by person and time, while Gemini cannot be switched off. Before adding or replacing a subprocessor, GC AI emails customers and gives them 30 days to object.
The subprocessor list names Microsoft, AWS and Google for hosting, infrastructure and AI models and OpenAI for AI models, with DeepL for optional translation and Linkup Labs for web results, each with its residency. New subprocessors are announced by updating the list, with 30 days for the subscriber to object. An orchestration layer handles model selection across tasks. No model or model version is named, and nothing states which provider serves which feature.
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.
An individual seat costs $500 a month, billed monthly or yearly by card, and can be bought without a sales call after a 14 day free trial. GC AI says individual pricing is standard and not negotiable. The seat includes unlimited chats and skills, the Word add in, Easy Prompt, analytics on usage and time saved, AI Academy and CLE courses, and the Slack community. Team plans are annual and priced on request, with enterprise SSO, a team skill library, Contract Intelligence, shared chats, solutions attorney support and one legal database. Enterprise pricing is custom. On individual seats, the case law and international law databases are add ons at an unpublished price, each with a one time 30 day trial. API and other usage based features draw on prepaid credits, priced in the platform at purchase and pooled across the organization. Credits expire at the end of the term, usage stops when they run out, and nothing is billed in arrears. Fees are non refundable and renew at the current published price.
No pricing page, rate, unit of charge or tier structure is published, and the commercial route is a demo request. The general terms are published openly, so contract terms can be read before a sales conversation even though price cannot.
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.
In house legal departments are the only market, from solo and fractional general counsel on the individual plan to enterprise legal teams. Customers range from startups to Fortune 500 companies across technology, finance, retail and apparel, manufacturing and healthcare, including Hitachi, Vercel, Snyk, Tipalti, Gusto, Arc'teryx, Columbia Sportswear and Wayfair. The named work runs from commercial contracts, NDAs, DPAs and MSAs to privacy, employment, corporate governance, board materials, regulatory research and portfolio contract review. Ready made playbooks cover NDAs, DPAs and MSAs for SaaS and for commercial use. A playbook run can take the deal stage into account when it suggests fallback language, and it works on drafts that carry tracked changes from earlier rounds. Generalist in house lawyers are the best fit, GC AI says, and it will recommend other platforms to specialized practices. Some teams, it notes, keep a traditional research seat for exhaustive litigation research. The legal databases cover United States federal, state and specialized courts and more than 30 jurisdictions in Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America.
Legora serves large law firms, small and mid sized firms, in house legal departments, the public sector and professional services, with solution pages for M&A, litigation, banking, insurance, private equity and tax. Multi jurisdiction and cross border work are stated strengths, with research sources across Europe and federal and state law in the United States. No firm size or practice area is named as outside its scope.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Section 4.9 of the services agreement says GC AI will not use customer data to train generative AI models, including large language models. GC AI adds that its model providers do not train on that data either, and that data from connected apps is used only to answer the user's requests.
Three carve outs apply. GC AI may use deidentified, aggregated content to improve the service and to build insights on market terms, contract positions and industry benchmarks, and once deidentified it is no longer treated as customer data. Material submitted to a preview feature may be used to develop the service, and feedback given through thumbs up or down belongs to GC AI.
Under the heading Feedback, Usage Data and no training, Legora's general terms bar it from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and bar its subcontractors from doing so. Legora may use usage data to develop and improve the services, and shares it outside the company only when aggregated and anonymized. The home page and security page repeat the commitment as zero AI training on customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Users delete their own inputs and outputs from the app at any time, and an organization can have all of its data erased by written request. GC AI keeps customer data only while the account is active and describes its retention policies as customer managed. After the term ends it deletes everything within 30 days of a request, including at downstream vendors, and clears backups within 90 days.
Model providers process prompts on zero retention terms and keep nothing after a response. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, with Anthropic keeping its data for 30 days once an admin enables it. Citation snippets and case metadata stay in chat history for display.
Section 17 of the security measures annex, dated 31 January 2025, keeps personal data under whatever retention the subscriber instructs during the data processing agreement, and clause 11 of that agreement governs return or deletion after it ends. No default retention period or zero retention setting is published. Backups of the full production environment run every four hours, and each subscriber's environment stays logically separate.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Permissions in GC AI follow its own model. New chats, skills and company profiles are private to their creator until shared, and a project is either private to invited members or open to the whole organization, with View, Edit and Owner levels. Contract Intelligence vaults start access controlled, and linking a vault to a project gives nobody new access.
Custom roles, access tiers and user groups set what each member can use, and Stakeholder seats confine outside counsel to the vaults they are added to. Under the services agreement, organization admins may access any member's data. Agent Connectors act with each member's own access in the source app, so retrieval from Gmail, SharePoint or Drive follows that app's permissions, while content copied into GC AI follows GC AI's model.
Ethical walls and role based access control keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. Access control is built on the Zanzibar authorization model. How a wall is set up, and whether retrieval applies document management permissions per user at query time, is not described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 5.2 of the data processing agreement commits GC AI to tell the customer promptly of any valid subpoena, warrant or court order compelling disclosure of customer personal data, unless the law forbids it. The notice gives the customer time to seek a protective order. Where notice is barred and GC AI judges a demand unlawful, it will take reasonable steps to challenge it. Other inquiries, from regulators or individuals, are redirected to the customer.
The services agreement adds a mutual confidentiality term covering all customer data. A party compelled by a court or regulator gives notice before disclosing where time allows, helps seek protection and shares only what is legally required. No transparency report is published.
Legora's general terms let a party disclose confidential information when law or an order of an authority, regulator or court compels it. The compelled party gives the other notice of the proceeding where the law allows and cooperates in seeking confidential treatment. The data processing agreement adds notice of any communication with a data protection authority about Legora's processing. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Midpage AI supplies the case law, drawing opinions from court websites and government records and updating daily. GC AI holds no case law collection of its own and fetches opinions live from Midpage's API. The International Law database takes case law and legislation from court websites, government legal portals and official gazettes through Moonlit, refreshed daily, and links each authority to its official portal.
United States coverage runs to federal courts at every level and to state supreme and appellate courts in all 50 states and DC. Some state trial courts are included, along with tribunals such as the Tax Court, PTAB, TTAB and NLRB. Abroad it reaches more than 30 jurisdictions, some with case law only or legislation only, and a coverage view inside the app lists current sources. The rights basis for the material is not stated.
Legora names the sources behind its research. Federal law and all 50 states in the United States are hosted on Legora, beside SEC EDGAR. European sources include France's Cour de cassation, Germany's federal statutes, Sweden's court portal, Lovdata, Retsinformation, Finland's legal database and Portugal's official gazette, and content partnerships bring in publishers. The Qura acquisition adds a Swedish database of case law, legislation and regulation. No license basis or update lag is stated for any source.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Treatment flags appear beside cited cases where later history exists. Negative marks a case reversed or overruled, cautionary one that was distinguished, questioned or criticized, positive one followed or affirmed, and neutral history with no clear direction. GC AI reads the full opinions and checks treatment status as it answers.
Recent decisions and cases with little later history may carry no flag, and users are told to verify critical citations themselves. Midpage AI supplies the case law, and where the treatment data comes from is not said. International authorities show how often later decisions cite them, and some statutes show whether a provision is in force.
Legora is building its own AI native citator on an ontology of the law, announced on 14 September 2026. The ontology captures the hierarchy of authority, how sources relate and temporal validity, so an amended rule or an overruled case is recognized as such, and former publisher attorney editors set and audit the standard. The technology comes from the Qura and Wexler acquisitions. The citator is in limited beta, with general availability planned for the fourth quarter of 2026, and no coverage figure or error rate is published.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Exact Quote ties statements to highlighted source text, the Research Agent runs further rounds of research until it has a thorough answer, and complex tasks end with a completeness check before findings are reconciled. On statutes, in force badges come with a note that a missing badge says nothing about current status.
Stakeholder vault chat answers factual questions about shared contracts and sends questions of legal or commercial judgment back to the legal team. No behavior is described for a question the sources cannot answer.
The Agent checks whether it met the goal and loops back to adjust, and research ranks sources by authority before answering. No explicit no answer path, abstention behavior or confidence value shown to the user is described.
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 GC AI. GC AI is sold to in house teams for contracts, research and advice to the business rather than court filings, and its blog keeps a tracker of AI hallucination sanctions decisions.
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 Legora or Leya. Legora's research checks findings against primary law, and its Tabular Review links every answer to the document it came from.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The security FAQ names ABA Formal Opinion 512 and New York Formal Opinion 2024-5. It quotes the New York opinion on reviewing all generative AI output before relying on it, and tells lawyers to check their local bar for current rules. It also points to the Northern District of Texas rules on disclosing AI use to a court.
The July 2026 sanctions tracker on GC AI's blog restates Opinion 512's point that the duty to verify stays with the lawyer, and its privilege guidance rests on United States v. Heppner. No document maps product features to the duties in each opinion.
Legora publishes material on its own AI governance and ISO 42001 certification, and none of it engages ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or national bar guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
GC AI is sold to in house legal teams. Its customers page quotes legal leaders at Vercel, Arc'teryx and Interface, and its workflows, output style and pricing are built for corporate counsel. Savings land in the company's own legal budget. GC AI says customers often cut outside counsel spend by 30%, offers an ROI calculator, and gives admins analytics on usage and time saved. Its December 2025 ROI study of more than 100 customers reports 14 hours saved per lawyer each week. Viant's chief legal officer describes working an issue through GC AI before paying outside counsel by the hour.
Legora sells to law firms and in house teams, and its customers page reports 80 percent of non billable hours saved weekly by experienced users and $6.4 million in additional billing per 100 lawyers a year. The small and mid sized firm page pitches more matters handled without more headcount. No record of AI assisted work by matter for fee purposes, and no billing or client disclosure guidance, is offered.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A public subprocessor list gives each provider's purpose, data types, hosting location and retention status, beside GC AI's data processing agreement, information security addendum, services agreement and privacy policy. A models page names Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI and Cohere and explains how each handles data, and the security FAQ answers common procurement questions.
The trust center adds SOC reports, a penetration test summary and policies through an access request. GC AI completes custom security questionnaires at its discretion and may charge for extensive ones. No disclosure statement is published for a legal team to give the business units it serves.
Legora publishes its subprocessor list by region, last updated 6 July 2026, naming Microsoft, AWS, Google and OpenAI as AI model and hosting providers with their purpose, data categories and residency, and offers email updates. Its general terms, data processing agreement, security measures annex and acceptable use policy are published without a gate. No client facing consent or notice pack is offered, and trust center documents come through a request.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Chats export as PDF, DOCX or Markdown, whole or one message at a time, with an optional citations section listing each citation's number, quoted text and source file. Tables export to CSV or XLSX, and an API chat can be saved into history with a shareable link. Admins see organization usage analytics and a log of model provider changes.
For court rules on AI disclosure, GC AI points lawyers to examples such as the Northern District of Texas and to their local bar. The export names no model.
Full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action, Tabular Review cells link to their source documents, and Portal answers cite the exact source. No export for each document records the model used and the human verification, and no court disclosure template is offered.
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.
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose GC AI if
- You want to start without talking to sales. GC AI sells single seats online, after a 14 day trial.
- Procurement asks which models touch your data. GC AI names Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI and Cohere on its subprocessor list, and admins can switch off a provider.
- Your work lives in Gmail, Slack and HubSpot as much as in documents. GC AI's Agent Connectors read and act in those apps, with each write held for approval by default.
Choose Legora if
- You review large document sets as a team. Legora's Tabular Review turns a data room into a grid with each cell linked to its source.
- You draft and review alongside clients. Legora's Portal gives a firm and its client a shared workspace with a built in Editor for joint drafting.
- Your security team asks for AI management certification. Legora holds ISO 42001 alongside ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II.
In summary
GC AI
Made only for in house legal departments, GC AI is a San Francisco platform where lawyers chat, redline in Word against their own playbooks and extract terms across a synced contract portfolio. Agent Connectors act in about 20 business apps, with approval before each write. According to the AI Legal Index, GC AI names every model provider on its subprocessor list, lets admins switch off a provider, and hosts customer data in the United States only.
Legora
Founded in Stockholm in 2023 as Leya and renamed in February 2025, Legora sells a collaborative AI workspace to law firms and in house legal teams. Its products include Tabular Review, an Agent for end to end legal work, Monitors for regulatory change, Lists, Skills, a Word add in and Portal for working with clients. According to the AI Legal Index, Legora publishes its general terms, data processing agreement and security annex openly, and holds ISO 42001, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II.
Questions buyers ask
GC AI vs Legora: what is the main difference?
Legora is a shared workspace where a matter team and the AI work together on reviews, research and drafting, sold to law firms and legal departments. GC AI serves in house departments alone, adding Agent Connectors into business apps and a published individual price. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one publishes pricing?
Only GC AI does, with an individual seat at $500 a month. Legora publishes no price and sells through a demo. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do they name their model providers?
GC AI names Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, Cohere and Reducto on its subprocessor list, with zero retention terms. Legora names Microsoft, AWS, Google and OpenAI as model providers without naming the models, and its general terms bar training on customer data. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can either track regulatory change?
Legora's Monitors scan regulation continuously and surface changes that bear on a business. GC AI does it through Automations, scheduled chats that rerun research instructions weekly or monthly and deliver each result as a new chat. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where is data stored?
GC AI keeps customer data in the United States, on Google Cloud. Legora offers storage tiered to data sensitivity and lists its providers' residency for the EU, the United States and Asia Pacific. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 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.
Legora was founded in Stockholm in 2023 as Leya and acquired Qura and Wexler in 2026, and no parent company is stated. General Counsel AI, Inc., the San Francisco maker of GC AI, is venture backed with no parent. Both sell to in house teams, Legora alongside law firms. Neither vendor reviewed this page.