IntakeOS vs Intaker: how they compare in 2026
IntakeOS and Intaker both put a qualifying chat on a law firm's website and push the result into the firm's systems, and 2026 roundups of law firm chatbots list them side by side. They are tuned for different firms. Intaker is a chat and intake CRM for firms across practice areas. Lawyers record intro and outro videos that play inside the chat, more than 1,400 prompts and prebuilt scripts drive the conversation, and Live Call Connect turns a chat into a phone transfer. Follow up runs through two way texting, email and text sequences and a virtual inbox. IntakeOS is built for high volume plaintiff practices. Waypoint scores every finished intake against the firm's written criteria, and a live transfer queue and softphone serve an intake team. Retainers are signed in the same session, and mass tort firms group claimants into MDL portfolios. Intaker's price is not on its own site, and directories list it from $80 a month. IntakeOS is quoted after a demo.
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.
Waypoint is the model driven part of IntakeOS. It reads each completed intake and returns a numeric score, a breakdown by category such as case value, liability, evidence quality and urgency, a written summary and red flags. The criteria come from the firm, written in plain language in a criteria editor. Separate rubrics cover mass tort, workers' compensation and personal injury work, and prebuilt sets cover active torts such as Roundup and hair relaxer. Waypoint calls OpenAI with the firm's own API key. The intake chatbot runs on Microsoft Bot Framework and Azure Cognitive Services, and optional Whisper transcription turns recorded calls into text for quality review. A read only connector lets Claude answer staff questions about leads, scores, timelines and documents. Around the models sit branching forms, live transfer, electronic signatures, SMS and email nurture, referral tracking, MDL portfolios and CMS sync, all of which run without them. Case Compass calls the product an operating system for intake rather than a chatbot.
Intaker is a scripted chat and CRM product with AI capability layered across it. The chat runs on more than 1,400 custom prompts and prebuilt scripts for different practice areas, which is written conversational content rather than generated conversation. The surrounding platform, lead management, texting, follow up sequences, virtual inbox workflows and reporting, is fixed automation. The stated AI capabilities are real and specific: natural language processing, language detection and automated responses, and both the vendor and independent directories describe the intake automation as AI driven. Removing the models would leave a working scripted chat widget, CRM and follow up engine, which is most of what a firm buys.
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.
IntakeOS cites no legal authority and runs no legal research. Its legal content belongs to the firm: the branching questions and the Waypoint criteria, which can cover exposure windows, diagnoses and statutes of limitations. Waypoint's output is an assessment of a claimant's case, with a summary and flags that staff use to decide which leads to work first. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or comparison against case outcomes is given for those assessments. A March 2026 release describes faster and more reliable scoring with better handling of edge cases, without a measure. Case Compass's own AI principles say models trained on patterns can miss unusual case types, edge fact patterns and jurisdictional nuance, and that AI can miss the human context behind an intake. Prebuilt tort criteria come from Case Compass, and only one set names a reference standard, NIH benchmarks for a uterine cancer screen. The chatbot's answers to visitors carry no accuracy statement either.
Nothing is published. A chat running on 1,400 written prompts produces less free text than an adaptive conversational agent, so the usual hallucination exposure is smaller; that is a design property, not a disclosure. Nothing addresses what the AI layer does: no accuracy figure for language detection, response selection or qualification, no error rate and no evaluation. Nothing says what happens when a prospective client's message matches no written prompt, which is where a scripted system either falls back gracefully or answers wrongly.
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 chatbot and webforms run unattended around the clock, and the firm's branching rules decide which questions each prospect sees and which leads move on. Waypoint applies the firm's criteria to every submission and presents the result for staff review. It does not accept or decline a case. Case Compass's design principle puts the firm's team in charge: full visibility, override authority and final judgment, with the decision to take a case never left to AI alone. The review points are concrete. Each score arrives with category reasoning and a written summary, and the full transcript stays on the lead. A live transfer queue shows every prospect waiting for an agent, and an agent can take over a bot conversation from the inbox. Automation also reaches the retainer. An April 2026 guide says a lead can go from intake to signed retainer without a person in the loop. When no agent is free, the platform can send the retainer for signature and book a callback. No point is set at which a person must review a lead before a retainer goes out; that depends on how each firm configures its timeline.
Two published mechanisms put a human into the conversation itself. Live Call Connect, a click to call widget, turns a chat lead into a live phone transfer to the firm, so the prospective client reaches a person while still engaged rather than after a record is handed off. The video feature works differently: an attorney records intro and outro videos that play in the chat, so a named person is visibly present in an automated conversation. Nothing is bounded. There is no statement of what triggers a call transfer or whether only the caller can start one, and no threshold on qualification. Nothing says what the chat does outside business hours when no one can take a transfer, and there is no override or review path for a qualification decision.
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.
Case Compass reports three customer results for IntakeOS. Stern & Cohen reports a 75% chat to client conversion rate. McCune Law Group reports a 70% increase in conversions. An unnamed nationwide mass tort firm reports a 90% reduction in case acquisition costs. None of the three carries a date, a baseline or a measurement period, and each is labeled as a reported result that varies by implementation. Across the company, the platform has handled tens of thousands of intakes in mass torts, mass arbitration and personal injury. Waypoint is in use for mass tort, workers' compensation, personal injury and landlord and tenant matters, and the active campaigns named include Roundup and personal injury mass torts. The Clio app directory still lists the product under the Gideon name, describing matter creation in Clio Manage with chat conversations saved as documents. The product lineage runs to February 2017, when Gideon launched; its founder presented it at a Stanford CodeX meeting that May.
Independent listings and verified reviews exist in small numbers, and no customer or outcome figure does. Without relying on the vendor, a reader can find listings on several independent software directories, with provider data stated as verified and reviews moderated for authenticity. There is also a listing in a named legal technology publication, a published starting price and a corporate entity, Intaker, Inc. Directory testimonials are attributed to roles rather than named firms, and volume is thin, with one major platform showing three user reviews. No law firm is named in vendor material, and no case study, usage figure, funding announcement or outcome claim with a figure is published.
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.
No customer agreement or data processing addendum is public, so the confidentiality position comes from the security page, the privacy policy and product posts. Waypoint sends intake data to OpenAI under the firm's own API account, so claimant data does not flow through Case Compass's AI infrastructure. Case Compass says that data never trains a shared or third party model, is never pooled with other customers' data, and that the firm keeps audit rights over its own OpenAI account. Requests are isolated to each customer account, and staff reach leads through role based access. Intake forms, signed retainers and case notes count as client data entered by the firm under the privacy policy, and the firm can ask for that data to be deleted. The policy also keeps a right to build aggregated, anonymized insights to improve the platform. Privilege and work product are not addressed, nor is the treatment of a prospect's account when the firm declines the matter. The chatbot runs on Microsoft's Azure services, and nothing covers what Microsoft keeps from those conversations.
Nothing located. No confidentiality statement, no encryption reference, no data handling description and no treatment of privilege or prospective client confidences was found. The product's own design raises the question more sharply than a text chat would: two way business texting means prospective client communications travel by SMS, which is an unencrypted channel outside the firm's control, and the platform centralizes those communications alongside chat transcripts and lead records in a vendor held CRM. Nothing published addresses the confidentiality of any of it, and nothing distinguishes the status of a chat transcript from a prospective client who never becomes a client.
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.
Case Compass's statement on AI treats the decision to take a case as a legal and business judgment. AI can inform it with scores, flags and summaries, the statement says, and should never make that call alone. The same page says a fully automated experience can feel cold to people seeking help, and that a handoff to a person at the right time matters. That position concerns the firm's own decision. Nothing addresses what the chatbot may tell a prospective client about the merits of a claim, or whether visitors are told they are talking to software. Supervision of the scripts and criteria that drive each conversation by the firm's lawyers is not addressed either. Agent scripts can carry the compliance disclosures a firm writes for each practice area, and those words are the firm's. No bar rule or ethics opinion on advertising, solicitation, prospective clients or AI use is named. No published terms say who may use the product or set its limits, and no jurisdiction is named.
No position is published. The chat qualifies prospective clients against criteria for specific matter types using more than 1,400 written prompts, so the system has a substantive exchange about a person's legal problem and reaches a qualification outcome before any lawyer is involved. Nothing says the chat does not give legal advice, describes what automated responses may say when a prospective client asks a substantive question, or tells the person whether they are talking to software or a human. That last point matters here because the video feature presents a named attorney inside an automated conversation. No bar guidance is engaged.
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.
Under the heading of its approach to AI, Case Compass sets out where it thinks AI helps and where it does not. The help column covers speed at volume, consistent screening, pattern recognition and routine logistics. The shortfall column covers nuance and context, novel situations, final case decisions and client trust. The stated design principle is human in the loop as the architecture, with transparent scores, configurable criteria and nothing treated as a black box. No owner, review body, release testing, monitoring or bias evaluation sits behind those principles. Waypoint applies the same written criteria to every claimant, which Case Compass presents as a consistent and defensible standard. No review of how scores fall across claimant groups, case types or languages is offered. Age based rules, added in March 2026, let criteria screen claimants on an age computed from date of birth, for case types with age eligibility requirements. No guidance on how firms should use them accompanies the feature. ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act are not mentioned.
Nothing is published about how the models are governed, evaluated or monitored. No AI policy, model card, bias or fairness testing, evaluation method, accuracy monitoring, drift statement, named governance body, ISO 42001 or EU AI Act position is published. The chat qualifies leads automatically, so it decides which inquiries reach a firm, and nothing indicates whether qualification outcomes have been examined across different groups of people. Language detection deserves specific mention: these systems perform unevenly, and a misdetection at first contact affects whether a prospective client who does not speak English can proceed at all. No evaluation of it is published.
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.
Case Compass hosts IntakeOS on AWS with all data in United States data centers and least privilege access to infrastructure. Data in transit uses TLS 1.2 or later, data at rest uses AES 256 encryption, and keys rotate on a regular schedule. Users sign in with multifactor authentication and see only what their role allows. Backups run daily with point in time recovery and are kept for 30 days, encrypted. Lead access, intake submissions, user changes and API calls are logged and kept for compliance review, with no log retention period given. A privacy policy effective 1 January 2025 keeps information as long as needed to provide the service, meet legal duties and resolve disputes, and lets a firm ask for client intake data to be deleted. Data about minors gets heightened controls, collection limited to what the service needs and parental review and deletion rights. No subprocessor list is public beyond the providers the security page names, and no incident response or breach notice commitment appears.
No stewardship position located. Nothing states whether chat transcripts, text message threads, lead records or qualification outcomes are used to train or improve models, no retention period is published, and no deletion right is described. The platform is a CRM as well as a chat widget, so it holds a firm's prospective client base durably by design, and two way texting adds a communications archive on top of it. Nothing published addresses any of that, and no privacy policy or data processing statement is published in the material read.
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.
Case Compass offers no public customer agreement, terms of service or service level commitment for IntakeOS. The website has no terms page, and the privacy policy is the only legal document linked from it. No warranty covers chatbot answers or Waypoint scores, and no indemnity, liability cap or remedy is set out. The rebrand note tells existing customers that their agreement with Case Compass is unchanged, since the contracting entity is the same, and that agreement is private. A firm learns how loss is allocated, including for a prospect turned away by its own criteria or a retainer sent without review, only in a negotiated contract. On risk, the privacy policy carries only a statement that no system is completely secure and that Case Compass cannot guarantee absolute security.
No published position on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy is published. One exposure is specific to this product: automated follow up sequences send personalized email and text reminders to leads on the firm's behalf. The vendor's system therefore sends outbound messages to consumers, and texting prospective clients engages consumer protection and messaging rules regardless of AI. Nothing published addresses responsibility for the content or sending of those messages, or for an inquiry wrongly screened out, a failure the firm would not see.
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.
Signed cases and intake data move one way, from IntakeOS into the firm's systems, and the integrations page says what each connection carries. Litify receives practice areas as case types, marketing campaigns, the originating URL, lead status, intake answers and Waypoint scores, with webform leads labeled as such. Filevine matters receive intake answers, lead status, attribution and scores. Lead Docket receives new leads with full answer mapping, scores and referral partner attribution. In Clio, an accepted intake can create a matter in Clio Manage with fields mapped, contacts sync to Clio Grow, and chat conversations are saved as documents. HubSpot, Zapier, CallRail and RingCentral connect as well, and a WordPress plugin and a JavaScript embed place forms inline on any site without an iframe. Setup steps are spelled out for RingCentral, from dial mode to inbound number and call recording, but not for the case management connections. Leads export to CSV, and the Claude connector offers read only access through an MCP endpoint at api.casecompass.io.
Named integrations cover the practice management systems this buyer runs, plus marketing and scheduling. Clio and Filevine are named for practice and case management, Salesforce as the general CRM, Calendly for scheduling, and Google Analytics and Google My Business for traffic and listing attribution. Filevine matters here because plaintiff and high volume consumer firms commonly run it. The Google My Business connection suits an intake product, since many consumer legal inquiries start from a local listing rather than the firm's own site. No integration depth is described for any named system, nothing says whether lead data flows one way or both ways, and no API documentation is published. The integrations are listed, not described as workflows.
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.
IntakeOS runs as a hosted service on AWS, with all data stored in United States data centers. Firms reach it in the browser at app.casecompass.io, and intake forms embed in the firm's own website. Processing happens in more than one place. Chatbot conversations run through Microsoft Bot Framework and Azure Cognitive Services, with no Azure region named. Waypoint sends intake data to OpenAI under the firm's own account, so processing location and retention at OpenAI follow the firm's own agreement with OpenAI. Optional Whisper transcription also runs through OpenAI. No single tenant, private cloud or on premises option is offered, and no region outside the United States. Users outside the United States may have their information transferred to and processed in the United States, according to the privacy policy.
Nothing located. No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no deployment options are described beyond the product being cloud based and embedded on a firm website. The platform holds prospective client chat transcripts, text message history and lead records, and routes text messaging through a carrier layer that is not identified, so neither the location of the data nor the parties handling the messaging can be determined from public material.
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.
No SOC 2 report, ISO 27001 certificate, penetration test summary or named auditor is offered for IntakeOS or for Case Compass, and there is no trust center. The security page cites AWS's SOC 2 Type II certification for the hosting layer. That is Amazon's attestation for its own infrastructure rather than an audit of Case Compass. The controls themselves are described in prose, among them TLS 1.2 or later in transit, AES 256 at rest, rotated keys, multifactor authentication, role based access, audit logging and encrypted daily backups. Case Compass invites a firm's IT team or compliance counsel to contact it for a walkthrough of its security posture, with no report or questionnaire offered in advance.
No certification, attestation, trust center or security page is published. No SOC 2 of either type, ISO 27001, named auditor, penetration testing partner or encryption statement was found on the pages read, and nothing suggests a gated security page exists. The gap matters for a platform holding consumer chat transcripts and text message history for law firms whose own obligations attach to that material.
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.
Three providers are named. Waypoint uses OpenAI through the firm's own API key. Whisper from OpenAI handles optional call transcription for quality review. Microsoft Bot Framework with Azure Cognitive Services carries the chatbot conversations. Because the firm supplies the key, Waypoint traffic is governed by the firm's direct agreement with OpenAI, and the firm can see what was sent, audit usage with OpenAI and revoke access. No model family or version is named for Waypoint or the chatbot. AWS hosts the platform. RingCentral carries calls when a firm connects its own account. Nothing commits Case Compass to notifying customers when a provider or model changes, and no subprocessor list exists to track such a change.
Nothing located. No foundation model provider, model family or version is named, no distinction is drawn between proprietary and third party models, and no subprocessor list was found. The gap is wider than the model layer alone on this product: two way business texting necessarily runs through a messaging carrier or platform, and Live Call Connect necessarily routes through telephony infrastructure, and neither is identified, so a firm cannot determine which third parties carry its prospective clients' messages and calls. The vendor names six integration partners and no processor.
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.
IntakeOS is priced after a demo. No price, plan name, tier or unit of charge is public, so nothing shows whether cost follows seats, leads, conversations or signed cases. A few terms of the deal are described. Onboarding is included: the Case Compass team builds the first intake flow and the Waypoint criteria, and most firms go live within a week. RingCentral calling uses the firm's existing RingCentral plan with no added licensing from Case Compass. Some features are described as available on all plans, but no plan is named. Case Compass's 2026 intake guide quotes general market ranges for intake software, from $50 a month for simple tools to $500 to $2,000 or more for full platforms, without placing IntakeOS in either. Dwellex, the company's landlord and tenant product, carries public per case pricing that does not apply to IntakeOS.
A specific entry price is published by independent sources, and nothing above it. Several independent software directories report a starting price of $80 per month, consistently and with provider data stated as verified by their research teams, and one records that no free trial is available. Nothing describes a tier structure, a unit of charge, what the entry price includes or what raises it. Nothing says whether pricing scales by seats, conversations, leads or messaging volume, which are very different meters for a product that bundles chat, CRM and two way texting. The figure comes from directory listings. No vendor pricing page is published, and one may exist.
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.
IntakeOS is built for high volume plaintiff firms. Personal injury, mass torts and MDL campaigns, mass arbitration, class actions, workers' compensation and consumer litigation are the named practices, and the intake guide adds social security disability. Waypoint ships with prebuilt criteria for active torts and supports custom rubrics for any plaintiff case type. Mass tort firms group claimants into named MDL portfolios with lead counts, score distributions, status breakdowns, deadline tracking and plaintiff fact sheet mapping. Referral partners, including cocounsel and marketing partners, get their own portal. The product sits between marketing and case management and replaces neither, so firms are expected to keep a CMS such as Litify, Filevine or Clio. Every named market is plaintiff work, and defense, transactional and in house use are not mentioned. No jurisdiction limits are given. Landlord and tenant practices are served by a separate Case Compass product, Dwellex, and specialty medical practices by Torvana.
Practice coverage is claimed by volume and described no further. The strongest statement is the prompt library: more than 1,400 custom prompts with prebuilt scripts for different practice areas, which suggests the product ships with qualification logic for specific matter types rather than leaving a firm to write it. No practice area is named, so a firm cannot tell whether its own is scripted. No jurisdiction is stated, and firm coverage is described only as law firms of all sizes, which excludes nobody. A number without a list describes scale, not coverage.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The security page says claimant data sent for Waypoint scoring goes to OpenAI under the firm's own account and never trains a shared or third party model. The February 2026 Waypoint launch post repeats the point: no pooling with other customers' data, and no use by Case Compass for training or model improvement. The commitment sits in policy pages, since no customer agreement is public. The privacy policy separately keeps a right to build aggregated, anonymized insights to improve the platform.
Nothing covers chatbot conversations handled on Microsoft's Azure services. A firm can see what data is sent for evaluation, audit usage directly with OpenAI and revoke the key at any time. The Claude connector is read only, and Case Compass says connector credentials are authenticated by Case Compass and never shared with Anthropic.
Silent. The quoted description is the product's core function as stated across independent directories, and it describes what the system does rather than what happens to what it collects. No statement in either direction was located on whether chat transcripts, text message threads, lead records or qualification outcomes are used to train or improve models. The platform holds this material durably by design, since it is a CRM as well as a chat widget, and two way business texting adds a communications archive alongside the transcripts.
No privacy policy or data processing statement was located in the material read. The people in these conversations are prospective clients who are not the customer and cannot consent, object or ask. Recorded as silent, not as a negative commitment. Checked the vendor material, the blog, the directory listings and independent review on 29 Aug 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged without a period. The privacy policy keeps information only as long as needed to run the service, meet legal duties and resolve disputes, and a firm can ask for its client intake data to be deleted. Backups are kept for 30 days. Transcripts, call recordings and Waypoint summaries stay on the lead record, and audit logs are kept for compliance review, with no period for either. Prompts sent to OpenAI under the firm's key follow the firm's own OpenAI settings.
Signed retainers attach to notification emails and stay downloadable from the client portal. Individuals can ask for access, correction, deletion or portability of their data under the privacy policy, and minors' data can be reviewed or deleted at a parent's request.
Not addressed. No retention period is published for chat transcripts, text message history, lead records or automated follow up sequences, and no deletion right is described. Retention is structural rather than incidental: the platform provides lead tracking, customer history and interaction tracking as named capabilities, all of which require durable storage, and follow up automation depends on a lead record persisting after the conversation ends.
Nothing states what happens to records of prospective clients who never became clients, or to the database on termination. Checked the vendor material, the directory listings and independent review on 29 Aug 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Role based access controls limit each user to what their role needs, and the Claude connector returns only the data a staff member's own account can reach. Referral partners see only the leads they sent. Waypoint requests are isolated to each customer account. No matter level wall, conflict screen or hold on a new intake until a conflicts check runs is described, and live transfer sends prospects to any available intake agent with the transcript attached.
Agent scripts are assigned per intake form, and supervisors see every agent's queue and callbacks. Each staff member who connects Claude signs in with their own credentials, so connector answers follow that person's access.
Not addressed. No permission model, access restriction or segregation description was located. The chat captures a person's account of their legal problem and creates a lead record before any conflicts check, and nothing says whether that record is held back, restricted within the firm, or immediately visible to whoever works the queue. No conflict checking feature is named, and nothing addresses segregation between customers. Checked the vendor material, the directory listings and independent review on 29 Aug 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The privacy policy lists legal compliance as a ground for sharing information when law, regulation or valid legal process requires it. The information it covers includes the case and client data firms enter, such as intake forms, signed retainers and case notes. No commitment to tell the firm before or after a disclosure appears, and there is no transparency report. Waypoint data held in the firm's own OpenAI account falls under the firm's agreement with OpenAI.
The same section allows transfer of information in a merger, acquisition or asset sale and sharing with hosting, payment and analytics providers under confidentiality agreements, and says Case Compass does not sell personal information.
Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The vendor holds chat transcripts and two way text message threads in which prospective clients describe legal problems, and the messaging path traverses an unidentified carrier layer, so a request could reach either the vendor or a processor the firm cannot name.
Nothing published addresses any of it. Checked the vendor material, the directory listings and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
IntakeOS does not answer legal questions from a body of law. Its legal content is the firm's own intake questions and Waypoint criteria. Prebuilt criteria for active mass torts come from Case Compass, and one set screens for uterine cancer and fibroids against NIH benchmarks, with no source or update schedule given for the others. Plaintiff fact sheet templates are loaded from the court filed document for each MDL. Statute of limitations, exposure window and diagnosis rules inside Waypoint carry no citation to the law or study behind each rule, whether the firm writes them or they come from a Case Compass tort set.
Not addressed, and largely inapplicable with one live residue. The platform has no primary law corpus: the conversational content is the vendor's library of more than 1,400 authored prompts plus whatever the firm configures, so the substance is authored rather than retrieved. The residue is what the AI layer was built on. Natural language processing and language detection are stated capabilities and both are learned behaviors, and nothing published states what corpus supports either, whether the prompt library was derived from prior customer conversations, or whether qualification logic reflects aggregated intake data across firms. Checked the vendor material, the blog, the directory listings and independent review on 29 Aug 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
IntakeOS produces no citations to case law or statutes, so no citator is involved. Waypoint criteria can include statute of limitations rules that the firm writes, and nothing describes how those rules are kept current when limitation periods or tolling rules change. Plaintiff fact sheet exports follow the field order of the court filed form for each MDL, which Case Compass loads from the docket. MDL portfolios track discovery cutoffs, expert disclosure dates, bellwether trials and fact sheet deadlines that the firm records.
Not addressed, and not applicable. Intaker runs intake chat, manages leads and sends follow up messages. It produces no legal research or citation to authority, so there is nothing for a citator to check. Checked the vendor material and the directory listings on 29 Aug 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing describes what the chatbot says when a question falls outside its script or when it cannot answer. A prospect can ask for a live agent by phone, chat or form, the request lands in the transfer queue with the transcript attached, and an agent can take over a bot conversation. Waypoint raises the red flags a firm defines, and claimants see a status message while their case is being evaluated. Case Compass's AI principles name novel situations and nuance as weak spots for AI without tying them to a product behavior.
When no agent is free, the firm's configured workflow decides the next step, such as an electronic retainer or a scheduled callback. Leads that do not clear the firm's rules move into SMS and email nurture sequences rather than a closing message.
Not addressed, and the scripted design makes the gap specific. A chat running on more than 1,400 written prompts will meet inquiries that match none of them, and nothing says what happens then. The system might say it cannot help, offer a human, give a generic response, or pick the nearest prompt and answer something next to the question. Language detection adds to it, since a misdetected language produces a reply in the wrong language, and nothing says whether low confidence detection is handled differently.
Live Call Connect offers a route out of a stuck exchange through a phone transfer, but nothing says whether the system offers it when it cannot proceed or only when the prospective client asks.
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 IntakeOS, Case Compass, Waypoint or Gideon Legal. IntakeOS writes intake conversations and case scores for a firm's own staff rather than court filings.
None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction and complaint terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026, and no named docket database, court record tracker or state consumer protection register was searched. Recorded as a statement about what this search found, not as a clearance. The exposure shape is not fabricated citations, since no legal authority is generated: the analogous adverse findings would be a complaint arising from an automated intake exchange, or a dispute over automated text messages sent to prospective clients under messaging and consumer protection regulation, and neither would surface through a citation focused search.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Case Compass refers to law firms' ethical and regulatory obligations around client data, and says Waypoint was built so that using AI adds no new compliance exposure for a firm. Agent scripts can carry the compliance disclosures a firm writes for each practice area. No ABA opinion, state bar opinion or advertising rule is named, including the solicitation and prospective client rules that apply to live transfer and chatbot intake.
Referral fees to cocounsel and other referral partners are tracked in the product, and no fee sharing rule is mentioned beside them.
Not addressed. No ethics opinion, ABA Formal Opinion 512, state bar guidance or engagement with professional conduct rules was located, although the vendor publishes a blog for law firms comparing chat options and advising on intake practice. Two features engage professional rules directly and neither is addressed. Automated email and text follow up to prospective clients falls under lawyer advertising and solicitation rules that vary by state.
The video feature presents a named attorney inside an automated conversation, which engages rules on communications about a lawyer's services. Checked the blog, the vendor material, the directory listings and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
IntakeOS works before an engagement exists. It closes intake with a prefilled retainer for electronic signature, and the fee terms in that retainer are the firm's own. Referral fees owed to referral partners are tracked as pending or paid in the referrals module. Savings claims face the firm's own costs, such as a 90% cut in case acquisition cost at a mass tort firm and higher chat to client conversion, and no client bill is involved.
Retainers are prefilled from intake answers and can bundle several documents in one signing step. Unsigned retainers trigger SMS reminders, and signed copies download from the client portal.
The product works before an engagement exists, so it sits outside the fee relationship, and its savings claims are framed as revenue rather than cost. The vendor says its workflow sequences and automation tools help law firms maximize revenue, and its positioning is signing more cases with less effort and better lead conversion. Independent directory material notes that buyers judge total cost on lead conversion and automation depth rather than subscription price.
No figure, method or baseline supports those revenue claims, and no customer outcome number was located. Nothing addresses whether an automated intake exchange or follow up sequence is disclosed to the prospective client as machine generated, and no record shows which part of a first interaction was automated. Checked the vendor material, the directory listings and independent review on 29 Aug 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No subprocessor list, data processing addendum or disclosure pack is public. The security page names AWS for hosting, Microsoft Bot Framework and Azure Cognitive Services for chatbot conversations and OpenAI for Waypoint. It invites a firm's IT team or compliance counsel to contact Case Compass for a walkthrough of its security posture. The privacy policy refers to hosting, payment processing and analytics providers bound by confidentiality agreements without naming them. No security questionnaire, insurance certificate or audit report is offered in advance.
Not addressed. No trust center, security page, named certification, subprocessor list, named model provider, data processing agreement or documentation request route was located, so a firm has nothing to forward to a client. The gap goes beyond the model. A firm asked which third parties handle its prospective clients' text messages and phone transfers could not answer, because neither the messaging carrier nor the telephony provider behind Live Call Connect is named. Checked the vendor material, the blog, the directory listings and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Each lead keeps its chatbot transcript, intake answers, call recordings and Waypoint score with its written reasoning, and the platform logs lead access, submissions and user changes. Leads export to CSV with scores and individual intake answers as columns. Mass tort firms can export plaintiff fact sheet data in the court's field order from a mapped intake. Nothing records which model produced a score, and no export is tied to a court's AI disclosure rule.
MDL portfolio dashboards show AI scored lead counts, average scores and score distributions for each litigation. Call recordings and optional Whisper transcripts attach to the lead profile beside the agent's notes and disposition.
Not addressed. Nothing indicates that output records which model produced it, no human verification record is captured, and no export or audit record was located. The platform keeps a lot of raw material by design: customer history and interaction tracking are named capabilities, and chat transcripts and text threads sit in the CRM, so evidence of what was said exists in principle. Nothing states that it can be produced as a record or that it separates automated responses from human ones.
That distinction matters here, because one conversation can contain automated prompts, a recorded attorney video and a live call, and nothing describes a record showing which was which. The likely forum is a bar complaint, a fee dispute or a malpractice claim rather than a court filing.
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.
- Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
- AI Liability and Recourse
- Security Certifications and Trust Center
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose IntakeOS if
- Your firm runs paid campaigns at plaintiff volume and needs leads ranked. Waypoint scores every intake against your written criteria, with tort specific sets for mass tort campaigns.
- You want the retainer signed before the prospect leaves. IntakeOS prefills it from intake answers and collects the electronic signature in the same session.
- You run an intake team on the phones. The agent workspace adds a live transfer queue, a RingCentral softphone, scripts by practice area and speed to lead dashboards.
Choose Intaker if
- You want the attorney visible in the chat. Intaker plays lawyer recorded intro and outro videos inside the conversation.
- You want a wide library of ready scripts. More than 1,400 prompts and prebuilt practice area scripts cover firms outside plaintiff work.
- You want follow up and texting in the same tool. Two way texting, automated email and text sequences, a virtual inbox and staff reminders are built in.
In summary
IntakeOS
IntakeOS is Case Compass's intake platform for plaintiff firms working personal injury, mass tort, workers' compensation and consumer cases, formerly sold as Gideon. Chatbots, webforms and live transfer capture each prospect, and Waypoint returns a score, a written summary and red flags against criteria the firm writes, using the firm's own OpenAI key. According to the AI Legal Index, signed retainers and intake data sync to Litify, Filevine, Clio, Lead Docket or HubSpot, and the platform runs on AWS in the United States. Named customers include Stern & Cohen and McCune Law Group. No price is published.
Intaker
Intaker is a cloud intake and client relationship platform for law firms, built around website chat that qualifies leads around the clock. Lawyers record intro and outro videos that play inside the chat, and more than 1,400 custom prompts and prebuilt practice area scripts run the conversation. According to the AI Legal Index, Live Call Connect turns a chat lead into a live phone transfer, and the platform adds lead tracking, two way texting, automated follow up sequences and reporting. Named integrations are Clio, Filevine, Salesforce, Calendly, Google Analytics and Google My Business. Software directories list pricing from $80 a month.
Questions buyers ask
IntakeOS vs Intaker: which suits a small general practice?
Intaker is sold to law firms across practice areas, with prebuilt scripts and lawyer videos in the chat. IntakeOS is built for high volume plaintiff practices and assumes an intake team and a case management system such as Litify, Filevine or Clio. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do IntakeOS and Intaker cost?
Neither publishes a price on its own site. Software directories list Intaker from $80 a month with no free trial. Case Compass quotes IntakeOS after a demo and includes onboarding. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can a prospect reach a person from the chat?
Both connect the chat to a phone call. Intaker's Live Call Connect turns a chat lead into a live transfer to the firm. IntakeOS sends prospects who ask for an agent to a live transfer queue with the transcript attached, and agents answer in the browser through RingCentral. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Is IntakeOS the same as Gideon?
Yes. Gideon Legal became Case Compass, which later renamed its intake platform IntakeOS without changing logins, data or contracts. The old gideonlegal.com address now carries unrelated content. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does each say about client data?
Case Compass hosts IntakeOS on AWS in the United States, runs Waypoint on the firm's own OpenAI key and says intake data never trains a shared model. Intaker's documents do not say whether chat conversations train a model or how long they are kept, and neither vendor publishes a security attestation. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 12, 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.
Both chats talk with prospective clients before anyone at the firm does. Neither names a bar rule on solicitation or prospective clients, and neither describes telling visitors they are talking to software. Intaker's price comes from software directories rather than its own site. IntakeOS was sold as Gideon before its company became Case Compass. Neither vendor reviewed this page.