HAQQ vs Legora: how they compare in 2026
Firm size and what sits around the AI decide this pairing. Legora is an agentic operating system for large law firms and in house teams. Its Agent plans, executes and checks multistep work across documents, email and research. Tabular Review turns a data room into a grid where each cell opens to its reasoning and source, and Portal gives clients a branded workspace where they run the firm's workflows. Legora holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 and counts more than 1,800 teams in over 50 markets, White & Case and Crowell among them. HAQQ, built in Beirut, puts a legal AI chat beside eFirm, its own practice management, so research and drafting feed matters, time and invoices in one system. It keeps maintained statutes for 33 countries, works natively in Arabic and publishes per user prices from a free tier. Legora fits a firm that reviews large document sets and shares work with clients at scale. HAQQ fits a Middle Eastern firm that wants one system to run its matters and to research and draft under local law in Arabic.
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.
Legal AI Chat is the product HAQQ leads with, and it exists to answer, draft and review with a model. Justinian, the engine underneath, rewrites the prompt, classifies intent, detects language, extracts entities, reads documents with OCR and routes the request to tools and a model, all before generation. It then runs sub agents, memory, deeper reasoning with lookahead and rollback, a citation audit and human approval steps. A third party frontier model writes the final answer, and HAQQ says so plainly. Orchestration, retrieval, memory and safety stay in HAQQ's own layer. eFirm, the practice management product, is sold on its own subscription and would still run matters, time and billing without the AI. With both products, the AI reaches the firm's matters, documents and contacts, and the Legal AI Twin drafts in the firm's own style and templates inside its tenant.
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 cite the provision or case behind each line. Justinian retrieves statutes, case law, gazettes and regulatory databases for the detected jurisdiction before it writes, and where sources conflict or the law is unsettled it flags the uncertainty rather than picking a side. HAQQ runs two benchmarks of its own. The task benchmark puts 19 systems through 11 legal task categories and marks each output out of 50 against criteria that include hallucination and source linking. In the July 2026 run Justinian averages 45.8, with Spellbook, LexisNexis +AI and ChatGPT ahead of it on contract drafting, legal research and plain language explanation. A cross domain study draws on public sets such as LegalBench, CUAD and LegalCiteBench. The individual tasks are not published, and nothing describes a check of whether a cited case was later overturned. A claim of 85% fewer hallucinations in HAQQ testing appears without a method beside it.
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.
Human review is written into the terms. Court submissions, legal advice, regulatory analysis, client communications, settlement analysis, deadline calculation and professional opinions need review by a professional before anyone relies on them. Users stay responsible for verifying citations, dates, calculations and deadlines. In the product, the agent harness carries guardrails, audit trails, lookahead with rollback, and configurable human approval before consequential agent actions. Each answer shows the sources behind it and the credits it used. A contract review returns the analysis first, then the corrected draft and a comparison of what changed. Which agent actions pause for approval by default, and what happens after an agent step goes wrong, are not published.
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.
More than 17,000 legal teams across law firms, in house departments and enterprises use the product by HAQQ's count, and the mobile app reached 7,500 downloads after its July 2026 launch. Named users are few. Zouhdi Yakan, a partner at Yakan Law Firm, recommends eFirm to other firms for practice management, and the president of the Beirut Bar Association is quoted on the home page. In October 2026 HAQQ signed a protocol to become the exclusive technology partner of the New Cairo Bar Association, which has about 22,000 lawyers, with the association's requirements still to be worked out. Partnerships with the Jordanian Arbitrators Association, Amman Arab University and ONEIC in Oman were announced without a published deployment or result. Outcome figures such as 70% less drafting time and a 95% review pass rate come from HAQQ's internal benchmarking. The claim that firms move from one contract a day to ten or fifteen comes from what firms report, with no firm named.
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.
The terms give matter data its own section on confidentiality and privilege. HAQQ acknowledges that matter data may carry attorney client privilege, work product protection and professional secrecy. It limits its own access to support, security, customer instruction and legal compulsion, and states that such access waives no privilege. The agreement bars training or fine tuning any foundation, cross customer or third party model on customer data, prompts or outputs without a separately signed agreement. Each firm is its own tenant, eFirm permissions run record by record, and HAQQ describes ethical walls and cross matter isolation as part of the platform. Before a Legal AI Chat request reaches an outside model provider, HAQQ's servers swap names, emails, phone numbers, addresses, company names and account numbers for stand ins. The request stops if that step fails. The rest of the content still goes to the provider, and the terms do not say what the provider retains.
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.
As the terms put it, HAQQ is a technology provider, not a law firm, giving no legal advice, opinions or representation. Users keep responsibility for professional judgment, client advice, filings, deadlines, conflicts and the supervision of staff and technology, and higher risk output needs a professional's review before use. The product is also sold to people who are not lawyers. The mobile app and the plans for everyone promise a clear answer to any legal question, a reading of a lease or a drafted contract, and HAQQ estimates $25K a year in legal fees avoided per consumer. Its consumer guides carry a line saying they are legal information, not legal advice. Jurisdiction limits are stated: 33 countries have a maintained set of statutes and codes, and more than 200 others get general reasoning only. A guide walks lawyers through ABA Formal Opinion 512 and the duties of competence, confidentiality, candor and supervision.
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.
Controls are described as aligned with ISO 42001, the AI management standard, without certification, and no AI policy, governance framework or accountable owner is published. Testing is public in outline. The task benchmark gives 19 systems the same prompt for each of 11 legal task categories and marks every output out of 50. The criteria include Sharia, statute, forum, clause construction, risk, hallucination, partner readiness and source linking. A second study runs 25 benchmarks across legal, tax, journalism, general and safety work, including political neutrality, robustness and adversarial testing. The limits are stated alongside the results. HAQQ builds the benchmark, runs it and competes in it, and coverage leans toward corporate and commercial drafting and research, leaving some practice areas covered lightly or not at all. Who marks the outputs is not stated. An open source model router under AGPL 3.0 recommends a model for each legal task from the same results.
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.
Customers set their own retention period. Deletion runs automatically when it ends and produces a verification log, and data can be exported at any time. After a subscription ends there is a 90 day export window, the customer chooses return or deletion, and deletion is the default. Data that cannot yet be deleted is anonymized or made inaccessible until it can be. HAQQ staff have no access to customer matters by default, and support access to a matter needs the customer's approval and is time limited. Book III of the terms serves as the data processing agreement. It lists subprocessor categories (hosting, storage, AI infrastructure, identity, payments, communications, analytics and security tools) and gives customers 15 days to object to a new one. The named subprocessor list is sent on request. Breaches affecting personal data are reported without undue delay, within 72 hours where feasible, and data is encrypted in transit and at rest.
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 terms, last updated 29 June 2026 and governed by Delaware law, set out the allocation of loss. Each party's total liability in any 12 month period is capped at the fees paid or payable for the services behind the claim, and indirect and consequential losses are excluded. Fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, indemnity obligations, material breach of confidentiality and misuse of the other party's intellectual property sit outside the cap. Against claims that the services infringe third party intellectual property, HAQQ defends customers, excluding customer data and materials, third party integrations, unsupported changes and combinations it did not supply. It warrants that the services are provided in a professional and workmanlike manner and offers the rest as is. For AI output the terms are explicit. HAQQ is not liable for inaccuracies, hallucinations or bias, or for reliance without human review, and customers indemnify HAQQ for claims arising from their own professional services.
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.
eFirm connects to Microsoft SharePoint, its only document storage integration today. With SharePoint linked, a Word file opens and edits in place from eFirm and saves back to both systems, keeping version history and tracked changes. Without it, files sit in eFirm's own storage and are downloaded, edited and uploaded again. Email is sent and received inside eFirm and logged to the right client and matter, and eFirm syncs with the Outlook calendar. NetDocuments and World-Check screening appear among eFirm's connections with no description of what moves between them. Legal AI Chat exports drafts to Word and PDF without a watermark on paid plans, and track changes editing with eFirm integration comes with the Pro plan. HAQQ also offers an API and an MCP server so other tools can call the engine, and payments run through its own eWallet.
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 same software runs three ways. HAQQ Cloud is operated by HAQQ in a region the customer picks and isolated per firm. A private cloud runs inside the customer's own tenancy with customer held keys. A third option is fully on premises. Hosting regions are the European Union, the United States and the Middle East. Default residency is global; the Business plan adds regional residency in the GCC, the EU or the United States, and Enterprise adds custom residency, on premises deployment and customer managed keys. Contractual residency is written into the order form. Coverage is kept separate from residency, since serving a country does not mean processing there, and cross border transfers may happen for support, security, billing, subprocessors and redundancy under standard contractual clauses or adequacy decisions. Legal AI Chat requests still go, with personal details replaced, to an outside model provider whose processing region is not given.
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.
Controls are designed to align with the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001, and HAQQ meets GDPR obligations as a processor. It is explicit that this is alignment and not certification: it holds no SOC 2 Type II report and no ISO certificate. The SOC 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 badges on the site are each marked compliant and not certified. Security questionnaires, evidence packs and audit requests go through a contact form, and HAQQ offers to confirm the exact scope in writing where a certificate is a procurement requirement. A responsible disclosure policy and a security.txt file are published. Book III gives customers an audit right at most once in any 12 month period, with the customer paying HAQQ's reasonable costs.
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.
A third party frontier model writes each final answer, and Justinian is shown routing across models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google. The specific models in production are not named; the models in HAQQ's benchmarks are competitors, not its stack. Model choice is a configuration setting, so a change of model is not a rebuild. AI infrastructure providers are one of the subprocessor categories in Book III, which gives customers 15 days to object to a new subprocessor. The named list is sent only on request, and no notice covers a change of model within a provider. Under the terms, customer data, prompts and outputs may not train any third party model.
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.
Prices are published in USD, and the self serve plans start without a sales call. Legal AI Chat is priced per user with a monthly allowance of credits. Free comes with 20 credits as a sign up gift, and Starter is $30 a month with 100 credits. Pro is $100 with 360, and Business is $300 with 1,080 plus regional residency and the firm wide Legal AI Twin. Top up packs run from $1 to $100 and do not expire. Larger packs and higher tiers buy more credits for the same money. eFirm is priced per seat with a two seat minimum, Boutique at $25 and Purple at $60 per user a month, with free trials of three to seven days. Annual billing gives two months free, students get 60 credits a month for $15, and Enterprise is quoted. The credits a request uses depend on the prompt, attachments and research depth, so its cost is not known before it runs.
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.
Buyers range from lawyers and law firms to in house legal teams, founders, students and individuals. Enterprise is aimed at law firms, corporate legal teams and regulated businesses in banking, telecom and government. The prompt library spans 391 prompts across 23 practice areas, and use case pages cover contract drafting and review, litigation support, due diligence, and banking and finance. Jurisdiction depth is stated. Thirty three countries across the Middle East, Europe, Latin America and Asia have a maintained set of named statutes and codes, while more than 200 get general reasoning and drafting only. The interface runs in seven languages, with native right to left Arabic. eFirm shapes matter types and fields for litigation, arbitration and government procedures. Practice areas the product does not support are not listed, and HAQQ's own benchmark leans toward corporate and commercial work.
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?
The terms bar HAQQ from using customer data, matter data, prompts, inputs, outputs, user content, client data or support data to train, fine tune or improve any model. The ban covers foundation, cross customer and third party models, and lifts only with a separately signed agreement. Service improvement relies on anonymized, aggregated telemetry with no customer content. The Legal AI Twin in eFirm adapts to a firm's own knowledge inside that firm's tenant and feeds no other model.
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?
Customers set the retention period, and purging runs automatically when it lapses, with a verification log. eFirm adds retention schedules and legal holds per document class. After a subscription ends the customer has 90 days to export, then data is deleted from production systems, subject to backups and legal holds. No zero retention setting is described for Legal AI Chat, and what the outside model provider keeps is not stated.
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?
eFirm keeps its own permission model. Read, add, update and delete rights are set per feature and scoped to everyone, no one, the records assigned to a user or the parent record, and every action is logged against a name. Each firm is a separate tenant, and HAQQ describes cross matter isolation and ethical walls across the platform. The firm configures these permissions in eFirm during onboarding; access rules are not inherited from a document management system.
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?
The terms let HAQQ access matter data where law, a court order, a regulator, a sanctions obligation, a security investigation or legal process requires it. They contain no commitment to tell the customer about such a request or to resist it, and HAQQ publishes no transparency report. Book III does require HAQQ to warn the customer when an instruction would breach data protection law.
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?
The coverage list, last reviewed 26 August 2026, names the statutes and codes maintained for 33 countries. Examples are the French Code civil and Code du travail, Germany's BGB and HGB, and Lebanon's Labor Code, Civil Code and Rental Law. Justinian also draws on case law, gazettes, regulatory databases and the USPTO, EUIPO and WIPO registers, and can look things up on the web. Where the case law comes from, the license behind each source and how often the sources are updated are 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?
Each claim in an answer carries a citation the user can open, and Justinian runs a citation audit and flags conflicting or ambiguous authority. Nothing describes a check of whether a cited case has been overturned or a provision amended since. The terms leave verification of citations and authorities to the user.
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?
Justinian works inside legal domains and declines to speculate outside them. Where sources conflict or the law is ambiguous, it flags the uncertainty instead of choosing an answer, and legal claims are generated against retrieved sources so an unsupported claim is visible. HAQQ's benchmark marks hallucination as one criterion, but no published result isolates how often the engine declines to answer. Its engine page tells lawyers to test any legal AI on unsettled law, where a system built for professional work should say the ground is uncertain.
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 HAQQ or its Justinian engine. HAQQ's answers attach a citation to each claim, and its terms require users to verify citations before relying on them.
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?
A HAQQ guide on AI ethics in law, published in May 2026, walks through ABA Formal Opinion 512 and the duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision and reasonable fees. It sets them beside UN and EU frameworks and the EU AI Act, and notes that the opinion asks lawyers to discuss AI use where a client would reasonably want to know. The terms leave bar, court and client consent obligations with the user. No mapping of the product to guidance from the Gulf, Levant or North African bars HAQQ serves is published.
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?
eFirm ties AI work to the matter. Chats, drafts and documents live on the matter record, time is tracked against the matter as the work happens, and invoices are built from the same record. Every action is logged to a named user and can be exported. HAQQ claims 70% less drafting time and a jump from one contract a day to ten or fifteen. It offers a billable hours calculator but no guidance on how firms should bill or disclose AI assisted work.
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?
Book III commits HAQQ to keep a list of material subprocessors with their function and processing region, and the named list is sent on request through the contact form. The subprocessor categories, the data processing terms and the security overview are published, and an executed DPA or standard contractual clauses can be requested. Model providers appear on the engine page without a list tied to the contract. Customers who need a certificate rather than a control set are asked to say so early, and HAQQ confirms the compliance scope in writing.
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?
Each answer shows the sources behind it and the credits it used, chats stay on the matter, and the platform logs every action to a named user, with log exports depending on the subscription tier. No export ties a filing to the model used, the sources retrieved and the person who verified it, and no court disclosure template is published.
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.
Which one fits
Choose HAQQ if
- You want AI and practice management in one system. eFirm keeps matters, hearings, time and invoices, and Legal AI Chat drafts against the firm's own records.
- Your work runs under Middle Eastern law and in Arabic. HAQQ detects the jurisdiction and language of each request, keeps named statutes and codes for 33 countries, and runs in seven languages with full right to left Arabic.
- You need to see the price first or host on premises. HAQQ publishes every self serve tier, offers hosting in the EU, the United States or the Middle East, and deploys on premises for enterprise customers.
Choose Legora if
- You review data rooms and large document sets. Tabular Review turns each document into a row and each prompt into a column, and every cell expands to its reasoning and source. Mark as Reviewed, Lock Cells and Review Mode keep team review in order.
- You want an agent that carries work through to a deliverable. Legora's Agent proposes a plan, works across documents, data sources and tools, checks its own result and produces Word, Excel or PowerPoint output for review, following Skills that encode a team's standards.
- Your clients want to draw on your know how directly. Portal gives them a branded workspace with no guest license, where they run the firm's workflows without seeing the prompts and get cited answers from the files you share.
In summary
HAQQ
HAQQ Inc. builds a legal AI platform in Beirut for law firms, in house teams and individuals. Legal AI Chat runs on its Justinian engine, which replaces personal details with stand ins before an outside model writes the answer, and eFirm handles matters, hearings, time, billing and client intake. According to the AI Legal Index, HAQQ's terms bar training on customer data, and its prices are published, from a free tier to Starter at $30 a user a month. Its interface runs in seven languages with full right to left Arabic.
Legora
Legora, founded in Stockholm in 2023, sells an agentic operating system for law firms and in house legal teams. The Agent plans and carries out multistep work across Legora's tools, and Tabular Review structures large document sets with a source behind every cell. Legal research checks each finding against primary law, and Portal shares work with clients under the firm's brand. According to the AI Legal Index, Legora holds ISO 42001 for AI governance beside SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, and it does not use customer data to train or fine tune models. It publishes no price.
Questions buyers ask
HAQQ vs Legora: which suits a law firm?
It depends on the firm's size, market and systems. Legora is built for large firms and legal departments that review big document sets, collaborate with clients and want an agent working across their tools. HAQQ is built for firms that want AI and practice management in one product, priced in the open, with depth in Middle Eastern law and Arabic. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Legora run a firm's matters and billing?
No. Legora covers documents, email, research and client delivery, with Lists, Intake and Workflows to organize legal work, and sells no time capture, invoicing or accounting module. HAQQ's eFirm covers matters, time, invoices, a financial ledger and a client portal, and HAQQ's own comparison page makes that its main point against Legora. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does each keep client data out of model training?
HAQQ's terms bar it from training, fine tuning or improving AI models on customer data, matter data, prompts, outputs or user content unless a separate signed agreement allows it. Its engine also swaps personal details for stand ins before an outside model sees a request. Legora states that it will not use customer data to train or fine tune any AI model, and its engineers reach customer data only with the customer's written approval for support. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What security certifications does each hold?
Legora holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001, runs penetration tests twice a year across the full platform and builds its access control on the Zanzibar authorization model. HAQQ presents itself as compliant with SOC 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 and holds no audit report or certificate for them. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which legal sources does each draw on?
Legora's research covers federal law and all 50 states in the United States, plus partner and official sources across Europe, from France's Cour de cassation to the Swedish and Nordic court and statute portals. Each finding is checked against primary law before the answer comes back. HAQQ keeps a coverage list of named statutes and codes for 33 countries, many in the Middle East, with general reasoning for more than 200. 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.
HAQQ is made by HAQQ Inc., which announced a $3M seed round, and HAQQ publishes its own comparison of the two products. Legora was founded in Stockholm in 2023 as Leya, took its current name in 2025, and bought Qura and Wexler in 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.