Imagility vs LegalBridge: how they compare in 2026
Imagility and LegalBridge are both immigration case platforms for law firms and corporate mobility teams, running intake, evidence, petition drafting and filing in one place. LegalBridge sits in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen axes and Imagility on four of fifteen. The gap is almost entirely published terms. LegalBridge's data processing addendum forbids training any model on customer data, commits to breach notice within 72 hours and deletion within 30 days, and its subprocessor list names OpenAI and Anthropic. Its terms state that it gives no legal advice, recognize privileged material, and publish a liability position with indemnities. Imagility's license agreement has no confidentiality clause, and nothing it publishes addresses training, model providers or data location. Imagility's counterweight is its reach beyond the petition. It adds an employer compliance suite for I-9, LCA and public access files, a petition analysis report that checks fees and job descriptions, and a route for individual applicants.
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.
AI features sit inside an immigration case and practice management platform that would work without them. The attorney page describes AI-driven intake, OCR and language-processing extraction of data from resumes and immigration documents, automated petition drafting, predictive case analysis and an interactive Immigration Wizard. Petition analysis is described as rule checks on fees, job descriptions and required documents, and case management, e-filing, compliance tracking and payments are workflow. Verified 22 September 2026.
The models power the headline capabilities on a case management platform that would still run without them. LegalBridge's AI drafts petition, support, recommendation and RFE response letters from a case's documents and questionnaires in the firm's own style, reads passports and other identity documents to fill intake fields, categorises uploaded evidence, flags missing documents, analyses RFEs, and gives prospective clients an eligibility evaluation from a résumé. Questionnaires, form population, the client portal, scheduling, e-signature, invoicing, deadline tracking and filing are workflow a firm could run without the models. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. The site drafts petitions and says petition analysis increases success rates hugely, but publishes nothing on the accuracy of drafted content or extracted data, how drafts are grounded, or how errors are caught. Verified 22 September 2026.
Accuracy is asserted, not measured. The site says the AI drafts high-quality letters that partners approve with minimal edits, catches typos humans miss, and applies quality safeguards ensuring accuracy before filing, without describing those safeguards or publishing any error rate or test. Drafts draw on the case's own documents, and RFE responses cite the case's exhibit numbers. The Terms of Service warn plainly that output may be incomplete or inaccurate and may contain hallucinations, including fabricated citations, and require review before any use. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Review is implied, not built out. Petition analysis produces a report of gaps and recommendations that can be re-run until the petition is complete, and attorneys build and file petitions themselves. Nothing states what the AI features do on their own, how drafted content is reviewed, or any limit on the applicant-facing assistant. Verified 22 September 2026.
Drafting runs through review surfaces; some client-facing actions run without one. For letters, the published flow is AI draft, attorney edit in a built-in editor, multi-stage review and approval, then client approval and signature, and a published guide splits the work so that final review, accuracy verification and legal judgment stay with the attorney. The Terms of Service make the firm responsible for reviewing all output before filing. Elsewhere the product acts on its own: it texts clients reminders and follow-ups automatically, and its website evaluation gives prospective clients an eligibility assessment before any lawyer is involved. No limits or thresholds on those actions are published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Unattributed results. The case studies, dated 2023, describe unnamed customers such as a medium-sized Dallas immigration firm, a Cambridge law firm and a global technology company, and the home page cites 60% faster petition preparation, more than 50,000 workflows and a 4.9 rating on G2 without a basis. No named customer with results was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Named firms with dated figures, on the customers' own account. Case studies dated December 2025 describe SMA Law Firm cutting case preparation time by about half, with a before-and-after breakdown of hours by task; USA Immigration Attorneys growing from 150 to 450 active cases without new hires and cutting the time from retention to filing from four months to six weeks; and Ascend HSI converting 70% of completed evaluations into paying clients. The figures are reported results rather than measurements with a stated method, and one study refers to the firm by two different names. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Asserted in general terms only. The site says client data is protected with enterprise-grade encryption, SOC 2 standards, strict access controls and multi-factor authentication. The published end-user licence agreement contains no confidentiality clause, and nothing addresses whether customer data trains any model, which AI providers process it, privilege, or how long case files are kept. Verified 22 September 2026.
Written commitments a buyer can read before signing, short of the full picture. The Terms of Service bind LegalBridge to confidentiality, bar sharing customer data with other subscribers, and recognise that it may include privileged information and work product. The Data Processing Addendum forbids using customer data to train or improve any AI model, LegalBridge's or a third party's, and commits to limit human access to privileged material. The AI providers are named, and the site says they may keep security logs for up to 30 days without training on them. Three gaps remain: access within a firm is set by roles and case assignment described on product pages rather than in the agreement; the OpenRouter gateway is listed without the models or providers it routes to; and the Privacy Policy's retention of up to seven years after account closure conflicts with the addendum's 30-day deletion. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, attorney, Individual and About pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The platform drafts immigration petitions and serves individual applicants as well as attorneys, but nothing states whether it gives legal advice, who may use which features, or how attorney review and supervision are supported. Verified 22 September 2026.
A real position in the agreement, with a gap where the product meets the public. The Terms of Service say LegalBridge is a tool for legal professionals that gives no legal advice and creates no attorney-client relationship; make the firm responsible for reviewing all output and filings, for complying with professional conduct rules, and for any AI disclosures owed to clients; bar using the service to give unauthorised legal advice; and require users to be licensed to practise. The website evaluation, though, gives prospective clients an instant visa eligibility assessment, and no disclosure on that surface was located; one published case study features an immigration coaching and consulting firm using it. Jurisdiction limits are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, About, attorney and petition analysis pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how predictive analysis performs across visa types or applicants was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Checked the home, security, product feature and case study pages, the Terms of Service, the Data Processing Addendum and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how the eligibility evaluation or the drafting performs across applicants' countries, languages or visa categories was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Security claims and a generic privacy policy. The site mentions encryption, multi-factor authentication and access controls; the Privacy Policy says reasonable measures protect personal information and that it is kept as long as relevant, with backups kept longer. Nothing states how long uploaded case documents are kept or how they are deleted, and no subprocessor list or incident notification commitment was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Most of the ground is covered in binding documents, which conflict in places. The Data Processing Addendum requires encryption, role-based access, multi-factor authentication, penetration testing and staff background checks; commits to notify a confirmed breach within 72 hours with set contents; requires 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor, with a right to object and terminate; and requires deletion within 30 days after the agreement ends, with written certification on request. A current subprocessor list names 17 entries with their purpose. Held short: the Privacy Policy, last updated January 2025, says information may be kept up to seven years after account closure; and where data sits is stated differently, US and South Asia data centres by default in the terms, across the globe in the addendum. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Addressed only through a standard limitation clause. The end-user licence agreement disclaims all warranties, including that the platform will achieve any intended results, excludes consequential and other damages, and requires the user to indemnify Imagility for claims arising from use of the platform and submitted content. Nothing stands behind a petition drafted or analysed with the platform. Verified 22 September 2026.
A published position with scope and caps, and output errors left with the firm. The Terms of Service warrant that the service performs materially as documented and that security measures are as described. LegalBridge defends the firm against third-party claims of infringement, of breach of its confidentiality obligations, or of a security breach caused by its failure to implement the stated measures, and these indemnities sit outside the liability cap of twelve months' fees. Output accuracy is expressly disclaimed, and the firm indemnifies LegalBridge for claims arising from reliance on inaccurate output and from any unauthorised practice claim. A 99% uptime target carries service credits of up to 10% of the monthly fee. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Named connections into the immigration workflow, short of documented depth. The attorney page lists a LawPay payments integration, direct electronic filing, OCR bulk upload of documents and a mobile app for law firms. What each connection moves and how it is configured is not described. Verified 22 September 2026.
Named connections into the systems immigration work runs through, some with the flow described. The site names Google Calendar and Outlook for scheduling, Stripe, QuickBooks and Xero for payments and accounting, e-signature, Zoom, an open API for CRM and other systems, and government filing with USCIS, the Department of Labor for LCAs and the State Department's DS-160, where questionnaire answers populate the forms. What syncs in each direction and what a firm must configure are not documented, connections to practice management systems are offered as custom work, and one FAQ describes the Stripe connection as in alpha testing while another calls it PCI compliant. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, About, attorney and contact pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Hosting and default regions are stated, not the tenancy. The Terms of Service say customer data is stored in US and South Asia data centres by default, with other regions available by separate agreement, and the security page says the platform runs on AWS. The Data Processing Addendum says instead that data may be stored and processed in data centres across the globe unless agreed otherwise. Whether infrastructure is shared or dedicated, and where AI processing takes place, is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
A named attestation without a report route, stated inconsistently. The home and About pages display SOC 2 Type II and GDPR, while the attorney FAQ says the platform meets SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards. No auditor, scope, date, trust centre or way to obtain a report is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Named standards, stated inconsistently. The security page says LegalBridge is SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certified and lists 72-hour breach notice and two-factor authentication, while the security panel on every product feature page says SOC 2 Type I and Type II certification is in progress. No auditor, scope, date or way to obtain a report is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, About and attorney pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The site describes AI-enabled features but names no model, model provider, inference location or change notification. Verified 22 September 2026.
Providers named, models not. The subprocessor list names OpenAI and Anthropic for language model services and OpenRouter as a model gateway, and the home page adds open-weight models through AWS Bedrock; the Enterprise plan advertises access to premium models. The Data Processing Addendum requires 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor is added, which covers a new provider. Which models serve which features, and where they run, is not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, attorney, sign-up and Fulfillment Policy pages on 22 September 2026. No price, unit or tier is published; every route to a price is a demo request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Plans and charging units are published; paid prices are not. The home page sets out Free, Pro and Enterprise plans with their features, and the free plan's limits: unlimited users, one application and five evaluations, with no credit card. The Terms of Service set out how charges work: per module, with credits metering AI features, a case counted when it is created, usage allowances with overage billing, and 60 days' notice of changes to AI pricing during a term. No paid rate appears anywhere, and every route to a paid plan is a demo. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Visa categories and buyers are named, short of limits. The site covers employment-based work such as H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN and PERM, family-based, humanitarian and asylum petitions, removal defense and naturalization, for immigration law firms, corporate HR and mobility teams and individual applicants, plus I-9 and LCA compliance for employers. What it does not handle is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
Buyers and visa categories are set out in detail, short of limits. The site addresses immigration law firms from solo practitioners to large firms, corporate global mobility teams and in-house immigration professionals, and lists the US case types supported: employment-based visas and green cards such as H-1B, O-1, L-1, EB-1, EB-2 NIW, EB-3 and EB-5; family-based petitions such as IR-1/CR-1, F-2A/F-2B and K-1; and humanitarian relief including asylum, VAWA, U visas and TPS, plus consular processing and DS-160. The terms refer to a Family Law Module the site does not describe. What the product does not handle is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 end-user license agreement and the Privacy Policy are published and neither says whether customer content is used to train any model. The Privacy Policy reserves use of personal information for internal business purposes, including to improve the products; that improvement right never names training.
The Data Processing Addendum, which forms part of the agreement, forbids using customer data, personal data or anything derived from them to train, fine-tune, develop or improve any AI or machine learning model, whether LegalBridge's or a third party's. The Terms of Service say more narrowly that customer data is not used to train generalized AI models and that de-identified, aggregated data may be used to improve service quality; the addendum prevails on personal data. The home page says the named AI providers may keep security logs for up to 30 days but do not train on customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The Privacy Policy keeps personal information as long as it may be relevant to its stated purposes, or longer where the law requires, and says deleted information may persist on backups. No retention period for case documents, prompts or generated drafts is stated.
The Data Processing Addendum keeps personal data for the term of the agreement and requires deletion within 30 days after it ends, on the customer's request or automatically, with certification on request; the Terms of Service allow export for 90 days after termination, and the Privacy Policy gives users a right to delete their account and data. The home page says AI providers may keep security logs for up to 30 days.
The Privacy Policy, last updated January 2025, also says information may be kept up to seven years after account closure for legal purposes. No setting for keeping prompts or AI outputs for less than the life of the account is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Checked the home, attorney, About and Company pages on 22 September 2026. The site mentions strict access controls in general terms; nothing describes separating matters or users within a firm or an employer account.
Access inside a firm is set in LegalBridge's own permission model, which the firm maintains: role management, case assignment, immediate deactivation of users and optional mandatory two-factor authentication, with outside counsel given access to specific cases only. The Terms of Service bar sharing customer data with other subscribers. Nothing describes inheriting permissions from a document management system.
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 says Imagility uses and discloses personal information as necessary to comply with legal process and to respond to requests from public and government authorities, including outside the user's country. Nothing addresses notifying the customer.
The Privacy Policy lists legal authorities, when required by law, among those LegalBridge may share information with, and the Data Processing Addendum allows processing required by applicable law. Neither document, nor the Terms of Service, says whether the firm will be told of a request for its data.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Checked the attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. The site says the platform evolves with USCIS policy updates, but no source of the rules, regulations or policy guidance behind drafting and analysis is identified.
Checked the home, product feature and case study pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Drafts draw on each case's documents and the firm's past letters, and the site says a compliance team tracks changes to USCIS forms; no body of statutes, regulations, policy guidance or decisions behind the drafting or the eligibility evaluation is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Checked the attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses checking any authority cited in drafted petitions or RFE responses for currency.
Checked the home and product feature pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The terms warn that output may contain fabricated citations and require review; nothing describes checking authority cited in drafts for currency or subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Checked the attorney, petition analysis and Individual pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what the drafting, predictive analysis or applicant-facing assistant does when it cannot support an answer.
Checked the home and product feature pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what the drafting does when a case record does not support an argument, or what the eligibility evaluation tells a prospect whose eligibility it cannot assess.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Imagility, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for LegalBridge, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Checked the home, attorney and About pages, the end-user license agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No material engages with lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.
The Terms of Service require use in compliance with court rules, professional responsibility rules and bar regulations, and leave to the firm any disclosures about AI use owed to clients under professional ethics rules. No ethics opinion is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The site claims 60% faster petition preparation for law firms and includes LawPay billing. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is charged.
The site and case studies claim large time savings, such as about eight hours saved per case and case preparation cut by half, and value the recovered time at hourly rates. The product also issues invoices and retainers. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is charged; the terms leave any AI disclosures to clients with the firm.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Checked the home, About and attorney pages and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material was located.
A subprocessor list current as of 25 April 2026 names 17 entries with their purpose, including OpenAI and Anthropic for language model services and OpenRouter as a model gateway, and the Data Processing Addendum commits to 30 days' notice before a new one is added. No client-facing disclosure material is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Checked the attorney, petition builder and petition analysis pages on 22 September 2026. Petitions go to USCIS; nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in filings.
The site says all activity on a case is logged for audit trails, and drafts pass through a review and approval workflow before filing. Nothing records which parts of a filing were drafted by AI, which model produced them or who verified them, and no disclosure guidance is published.
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.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Imagility if
- You manage immigration compliance for an employer. Imagility adds a compliance suite for I-9, LCA and public access file obligations alongside petition work for corporate HR and mobility teams, and covers employment based, family, humanitarian and naturalization cases.
- You want a petition checked before filing. Imagility's petition analysis report checks filing fees, compares job descriptions with specialty occupation requirements and lists missing documents, and can be rerun until the petition is complete.
- You take payments and file electronically from one tool. Imagility integrates LawPay payments, direct electronic filing and bulk OCR upload of documents, and offers a mobile app for law firms.
Choose LegalBridge if
- You need training, deletion and breach terms in writing. LegalBridge's data processing addendum forbids using customer data to train any model, requires deletion within 30 days of the agreement ending with certification, commits to breach notice within 72 hours, and gives 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor.
- You want letters drafted in your firm's style and reviewed before filing. LegalBridge drafts petition, support, recommendation and RFE response letters from the case's documents, routes them through attorney edit and multi stage approval, and populates USCIS, Department of Labor and DS-160 forms.
- You want evidence of results from firms like yours. LegalBridge's December 2025 case studies name SMA Law Firm halving case preparation time and USA Immigration Attorneys growing from 150 to 450 active cases without new hires, and a free plan lets you try it without a card.
In summary
Imagility
Imagility, from Imagility LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an immigration platform for law firms, corporate HR and mobility teams, and individual applicants. For attorneys it combines intake, extraction of data from resumes and immigration documents, petition building with automated drafting, a petition analysis report, RFE response building, case management, LawPay payments and electronic filing, and a separate suite covers employer I-9, LCA and public access file compliance. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on four of fifteen capability axes. It names SOC 2 Type II and GDPR on its site. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no training position, named model provider, advice line statement, data location or price.
LegalBridge
LegalBridge, from LegalBridge Technologies Inc. of Newark, Delaware, is an immigration case management platform for law firms from solo practitioners to large firms and for corporate mobility teams. It runs a case from a website eligibility evaluation and retainer through a multilingual client portal, AI extraction of identity data, evidence categorization, AI drafting of petition and RFE letters in the firm's style, exhibit assembly and USCIS, Department of Labor and DS-160 forms. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen capability axes. Its data processing addendum forbids training on customer data and names OpenAI and Anthropic among subprocessors, and a free plan is published. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no paid price or accuracy measure.
Questions buyers ask
Imagility vs LegalBridge: which is better for immigration law firms?
On published evidence LegalBridge sits in the top two bands on thirteen of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Imagility on four of fifteen, because LegalBridge publishes binding terms on training, deletion, breach notice, privilege and liability and names its AI providers. Imagility adds an employer compliance suite and a petition analysis report. Firms that need vendor terms in writing have far more to read from LegalBridge.
Does LegalBridge train AI on immigration case files?
No, under its data processing addendum, which forbids using customer data, personal data or anything derived from them to train, fine tune or improve any AI model, LegalBridge's or a third party's. Its home page says its AI providers may keep security logs for up to 30 days without training on them. Imagility's license agreement and privacy policy do not address training. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Imagility give legal advice to individual applicants?
Imagility serves individual applicants as well as attorneys, and its published license agreement and privacy policy say nothing about whether the platform gives legal advice, who may use which features, or how attorney review is supported. LegalBridge's terms state that it gives no legal advice, require users to be licensed, and bar using the service to give unauthorized legal advice. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How is LegalBridge priced?
LegalBridge publishes a free plan with unlimited users, one application and five evaluations and no credit card, and lists Pro and Enterprise features without prices. Its terms price per module, meter AI features in credits, count a case when it is created, and give 60 days' notice of changes to AI pricing. Imagility publishes no price or unit. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Imagility and LegalBridge both leave unpublished?
Any AI governance position and any measure of accuracy. Neither names an accountable owner for its AI, describes testing before release, or reports whether drafting or eligibility analysis performs evenly across countries, languages or visa types. Neither measures how often drafts or extracted data are wrong, checks cited authority for currency, or says what its AI does when a case record cannot support an argument. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. LegalBridge's documents disagree with each other in places: its privacy policy allows keeping information up to seven years after account closure while its addendum requires deletion within 30 days, and its terms and addendum describe data location differently. Its security page states SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 while its product pages say SOC 2 is in progress. Imagility's security badges and FAQ name different standards. Both records were verified on 22 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.