Irys vs StrongSuit: how they compare in 2026
Irys and StrongSuit are both AI platforms for litigators at smaller firms that research case law, draft motions and memos, and check cited cases. Irys sits in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen axes and StrongSuit on twelve of fifteen, identical on nine. Both bar training on client content in their terms, and both state that they are not law firms and that a lawyer must review the work. Irys pulls ahead on recourse and supply chain. Its terms lift the liability cap for confidentiality breaches and defend customers against intellectual property claims over output as delivered. It names each model provider, including OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, with a location and 30 days' notice of changes. It also publishes what each research mode will not do, stating that its Quick mode does not verify authority. StrongSuit's counterweight is privilege and retention. Its terms make it the user's confidential agent so access does not waive privilege, and inputs are discarded after each output unless the lawyer chooses to save them.
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.
The models are the product. Irys One researches case law, drafts motions, memos and contracts in a firm's voice, redlines against playbooks, analyses documents across a matter through a knowledge graph built from the matter's files, and checks citations; Workbench agents gather material from connected email and files and return finished documents. Matter management, the document library and e-signature support that work; without the models there is little left to sell. Verified 22 September 2026.
The artificial intelligence is the product. Every module the site sells, research over the proprietary case database, memo and brief drafting, the assistant, contract drafting and redlining, discovery review, the timeline generator, proofreading and the oral argument simulator, is generative or agentic execution, and the home page describes the foundation as frontier models with retrieval-grounded reasoning. The case database is the one asset that would survive removing the models, and it is sold only as the corpus the research agents retrieve from rather than as a search product in its own right. The company was AI-native from its 2023 founding as Callidus Legal AI. Home page, solutions navigation and the November 2025 rebrand release read 6 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.
Grounding and checking are real and described; the published measurement is not of citation accuracy. Research runs against retrieved legal sources, results link to the opinions and documents relied on, and Cite Check checks identified citations against legal-source databases, flags those it cannot match, and surfaces available treatment signals such as negative history. The Thorough mode checks case-law citations against source as it writes, while the Quick mode is disclosed as not cite-backed, and the Responsible AI page says plainly that no mode makes output correct and that Cite Check does not verify every citation. The company has published a run of its research system against a public 1,251-task legal agent benchmark, with an 83.74% criteria pass rate, a 17.75% strict all-pass rate, its departures from the benchmark's method, and the code and traces released; that measures agentic legal work, not the accuracy of Irys One's citations. Verified 22 September 2026.
Grounding is real and documented, and the accuracy figures are asserted rather than tested. Research output cites and links the authorities relied on, the home page states 100 per cent reference links to legal authorities and describes retrieval-grounded reasoning over a proprietary database of more than ten million federal and state cases enriched with summaries and issue tags, sample memos and a sample brief are downloadable, and the Search Cases pages show the underlying case records. Case validation, added at the November 2025 rebrand, checks whether cited cases have been overturned. Against that, the home page publishes 0 per cent hallucinations of case names in the research module with no test set, sample size, period or method, and the FAQ refers to proprietary anti-hallucination checks and rigorous evaluations without publishing any. Under the standing reading the bare-claim limb does not fire where architectural controls are documented alongside the claim, and they are here, but a percentage with nothing behind it does not reach the measured limb either. A Vals AI benchmark from February 2025 under the Callidus name exists as third-party material and is not credited to the current product. Home page, FAQ, solutions pages and rebrand release read 6 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.
Modes, limits and review surfaces are published. The Quick mode is stated not to retrieve or verify authority and never to be the basis for authority cited in a filing; the Standard research mode is to be paired with Cite Check before its citations are relied on; the Thorough mode checks citations as it works. Workbench agents gather material and build documents, but emails are left in drafts and never sent without the user. Drafts arrive as tracked changes, Cite Check returns flags for an attorney to resolve, and an audit trail records what was run, when and in which mode. Verified 22 September 2026.
A written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure. The home page's lawyer-in-the-loop section states that every draft, review and decision stays under the lawyer's strategic control, the FAQ describes work traditionally handled by junior associates while the user retains final judgement, and the terms of service make the user solely responsible for reviewing, verifying and editing generated work before relying on it. Review surfaces are concrete: redlined Word files from proofreading, tracked edits through the Word add-in, and inline citations on research output. What is absent is the control structure the A band asks for: no thresholds, modes or escalation rules are described because the product does not act unattended, and nothing states what happens after an output is found wrong beyond the user's own correction. Home page, FAQ and terms section 2 read 6 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.
Named users without measured results. The site quotes Omer Er, Partner at Michelman & Robinson, lists users at Falls Counsel, Cox O'Brien and the Law Offices of Li Yang, and says more than 300 legal teams use the platform. Its outcome figures, 41% fewer hours and turnaround cut from 3.9 to 2.3 days, are attributed to two unnamed legal teams in their first weeks on the product. Verified 22 September 2026.
Named customers without figures, and figures without named customers. Seven testimonials carry full names and roles: Erin Abrams, Chief Legal Officer at Via; Doug Johnston, a former general counsel; and five solo or small-firm attorneys including Yandy Reyes, Bryan Schwartz, Andrew Ayers, David Holt and Lindsey Lewis, each describing use in practice. Logos include Cooley and Klinedinst. None is joined to a measured change. The figures sit elsewhere and unattributed: 80 per cent time savings on a first redline, a 30-page memo in 15 minutes, and a CEO quote in the November 2025 awards release that many attorneys report doubling their output. A claim of 1,000-plus legal organisations is a count rather than evidence. Home page and rebrand-period releases read 6 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.
Close to the full picture, with privilege left to the user. The Data Processing Addendum and Terms of Service commit that customer content is not used to train Irys's or third-party models, is segregated per tenant and per user profile and never commingled with other customers, and is deleted within 30 days of termination or earlier on request; the terms bind Irys to confidentiality, with prompt notice before any compelled disclosure. Third-party models are named, used for stateless inference with vendor-side retention disabled, and bound by no-training terms, and administrators cannot see a user's personal workspace unless it is shared. Held short: the security page presents the platform as designed to preserve confidentiality and support privilege, while the terms leave compliance with privilege obligations to the user, and matter-level separation is described on product pages rather than in the agreement. Verified 22 September 2026.
All five limbs are in writing a buyer can read before signing, and the privilege limb is addressed in the agreement itself. No training: terms of service section 5.6 states that StrongSuit will not train any AI model with User Content, and the privacy policy of 16 March 2026 extends the guarantee to third-party models including sub-processors. Privilege and work product: terms section 5.3 acknowledges that user content may be privileged, deems StrongSuit a confidential agent of the user for support and maintenance, and states that any access is not intended to waive privilege, invoking Federal Rule of Evidence 502; the privacy policy repeats the position and treats sub-processors as functional equivalents of internal staff for that purpose. Segregation at the firm level: the FAQ states role-based permissions confine access to specific projects or documents within an organisation, and the security page describes session management and encryption to prevent leakage between sessions. Retention and deletion: unsaved inputs are discarded after generating the output, saved content is retained until subscription end and deleted after an administrative wind-down the policy gives as, for example, 90 days. Third-party providers: OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are named, processing occurs in a private tenant, and content is stated never to enter their public training sets. This is the first record in the pull to reach every limb and the note says so; the segregation limb rests on an FAQ description rather than a documented mechanism, which is the softest of the five. Terms, privacy policy, security page and FAQ read 6 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.
The advice line, the audience and the supervision duties are all addressed. The Terms of Service and a separate Disclaimer state that Irys gives no legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship and is an assistive tool for legal professionals. A Professional Responsibility and Ethics section requires independent judgment, review of material output including authorities, quotations and subsequent treatment, review before anything goes to a court, client or regulator, and firm policies, training and supervision for AI tools. A Responsible AI page explains in plain language why attorney review is not optional, and an AI Rules by State guide sets out disclosure requirements, ethics guidance, sanctions and CLE rules state by state, with sources. No consumer-facing surface was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
The vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports supervision duties. Terms of service section 2 states in capitals that StrongSuit is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice and does not practise law, that the services function only as a research, drafting and review tool, that they are intended solely for use by or under the supervision of a licensed attorney aged 18 or over, that no attorney-client relationship is created, and that the user is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying generated work. The security and ethics page names ABA Formal Opinion 512, Model Rule 1.6 and Resolution 604 and states that they require human oversight of AI-generated work and reasonable safeguards, which is the supervision and competence dimension stated with its source. The jurisdiction limb is met by scope rather than by a named exclusion: the corpus is United States federal and state law and the terms bar use from sanctioned jurisdictions. There is no consumer-facing surface, so that limb does not bite. One claim is carried as a claim: the page states the product is 100 per cent compliant with every US state's ethical rules as of March 2025, which is an assertion about the vendor's own review rather than a published mapping. Terms, security and ethics page read 6 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.
Principles and product safeguards, not an internal governance framework. The Responsible AI page sets out what Irys does and does not claim, how its safeguards are layered and what strong firm practice looks like; policies name Legal & Security at Iqidis, Inc. as their owner, and the security page says the architecture was audited by Guidepost Solutions. No accountable individual, testing before release, or finding on whether output differs across matter types, jurisdictions or practice areas was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
Responsible AI statements without a mechanism, a testing regime or anything a buyer could audit. The security and ethics page carries a Responsible Use of Generative AI section, but its content is data handling, that inputs are not trained on, not shared and discarded after output, and the home page refers to rigorous evaluations engineered for professional practice without publishing any. No governance framework, accountable owner, pre-release testing description, or statement about uneven output across practice areas or jurisdictions is published, and no ISO 42001 or equivalent certification is claimed. Security controls are graded elsewhere and do not count here. Home page, security and ethics page, FAQ and terms read 6 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.
Retention, deletion, access, subprocessors and incidents are all published and specific. Cancelled accounts stay exportable for up to 90 days and are then deleted within 30; the Data Processing Addendum commits to deletion within 30 days of termination or earlier on written request; users can delete data at any time. MFA is enforced for all accounts, with least-privilege roles, SSO and SCIM, idle-session expiry and an exportable audit trail. A subprocessor policy names every service provider and subprocessor with purpose, location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of changes with a right to object. Breaches are notified within 72 hours with set contents and equivalent obligations on subprocessors, and government requests are notified where lawful and challenged if overbroad. Verified 22 September 2026.
Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of a stated incident practice and a formal sub-processor list. Retention: the security page states inputs are processed to generate the output and then discarded unless the user saves them, and privacy policy section 3 states client data is retained for an administrative wind-down after subscription end, given as for example 90 days, then permanently deleted subject to legal hold; user account data is deleted or anonymised within 90 days of closure and billing records kept seven years. Deletion: stated as above and made unrecoverable. Access control: two-factor authentication for staff touching customer data, role-based permissions, least-access support policy in the privacy policy, and audit trails on infrastructure and application activity. Sub-processors: Microsoft Azure for hosting and OpenAI, Google and Anthropic for models are named in prose in the privacy policy and terms section 6, with an open-ended and others and no list, locations or change notice. Incident practice: no breach notification commitment or incident process was located on any surface. Privacy policy, terms, security page and FAQ read 6 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.
A published position with scope and caps; output accuracy disclaimed. The Terms of Service cap each party's liability at twelve months' fees or $100, whichever is greater, but lift the cap for breaches of confidentiality and for gross negligence or wilful misconduct. Irys defends customers against US patent, copyright and trademark claims over the service, including output used as delivered, and the Data Processing Addendum adds an indemnity for data subject or regulator claims caused by a security incident in Irys's systems. Irys does not warrant that output is accurate or that verification features catch every issue. Verified 22 September 2026.
Liability is addressed through a published limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates, and a buyer can read the allocation of loss before signing, which is what separates this from D. Terms of service section 7.1 disclaims all warranties including any warranty about accuracy, completeness or reliability; section 7.2 excludes indirect and consequential damages including court-imposed fines and caps aggregate liability at fees paid in the twelve months before the claim; section 2 has the user assume all risk for decisions taken on the output, acknowledge that output may contain errors, and hold StrongSuit harmless for them; section 7.3 provides beta features without warranty or indemnity; section 8 is an indemnity running from the user to the vendor only. No vendor indemnity, insurance or warranty on output exists, and the terms state that a signed master services agreement governs over them where one exists, which is not published. Terms of service of 26 March 2026 read in full 6 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 tools lawyers work in, short of documented depth. Irys runs inside Microsoft Word through an add-in on AppSource, and connects on the user's authorisation to Google Drive, Gmail, OneDrive, Outlook and Dropbox for import and export, as listed in its subprocessor policy. Product pages also show iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and Slack, but the FAQ says document management integrations are in development, and what syncs and what a firm must configure is not documented on the pages read. Verified 22 September 2026.
The integration surface is Microsoft Word and nothing else located. A Word add-in is sold as the Negotiate module and on the pricing page as seamless Word integration, and the terms define software add-ins such as for Microsoft Word as part of the services; the home page says it drafts contracts in Word and provides insights and clause suggestions on a document open there. That is a feature description rather than implementer documentation, though a Help Documents section exists and was not opened. No document management, practice management, e-billing, filing or matter system integration is named anywhere, and the FAQ's answer on replacing a patchwork of tools describes consolidation inside StrongSuit rather than connection to the systems a firm already runs. Home page, pricing page, solutions navigation, FAQ and terms read 6 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.
Hosting, processing locations and tenancy are stated, short of option and tier detail. The subprocessor policy says data is processed primarily in the US and EU with regional routing on request, hosted and stored on AWS in the US, and gives each AI provider's processing location, US and EU for the main models. Product pages describe hard tenant isolation with per-tenant and per-user containers and name cloud, VPC and on-premises options. What each deployment option involves, and which plans include which, is not described beyond Enterprise being priced to scope. Verified 22 September 2026.
Tenancy and region are both stated, with the residency detail partial. The security page states hosting on a Microsoft Azure private tenant with high availability across multiple data centres, and the privacy policy states that all client data is stored on geographically redundant servers located exclusively in the United States and that model processing occurs within a secure private tenant environment. That gives the tenancy model, a single region and the processing location. What is not published is any region option beyond the United States, or any deployment difference between the Individual and Firm plans, although the home page refers to flexible licensing and deployment without saying what varies. Security page, privacy policy and pricing page read 6 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.
Named standards, reports on request under NDA. The security page lists SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 (the subprocessor policy specifies ISO/IEC 27001:2022), HIPAA, GDPR and CPRA compliance, and an architecture audit by Guidepost Solutions; current reports and certificates are available to customers and prospects under NDA on request. The linked trust centre could not be viewed on the date shown, and no auditor, scope or report date is published on the pages read. Verified 22 September 2026.
Certification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence. The security page states the company is SOC 2 certified with independent third-party verification, the pricing page lists SOC 2 Type II as a feature of every plan, and the home page carries a SOC 2 Type II image. No auditor, coverage period, scope or route to the report is published, no trust centre or request portal exists, and the security page's offer to walk through architecture and protocols is a sales conversation. The control descriptions themselves are specific, naming AES encryption at rest and in transit, two-factor authentication, routine vulnerability assessments, blue-green deployment and audit trails, and an optional PII scrub and end-to-end encryption for customers with heightened needs. Security page, pricing page and home page read 6 September 2026; security@strongsuit.com was not contacted.
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.
Providers, models, locations and change notice are published. The subprocessor policy names OpenAI for inference and embeddings, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini on Vertex AI for inference, Mistral AI for OCR, Perplexity AI and Linkup for research lookups and CourtListener for case-law and citation lookup, each with processing location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of any new subprocessor or material change, with a right to object. It also describes the architecture: most requests are handled by Irys's own knowledge graph, retrieval and orchestration layers, with external models called only for discrete, stateless inference steps. Specific model versions are not listed. Verified 22 September 2026.
Providers are named and the models are not. The privacy policy states the intelligence layer uses third-party large language models from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and others under contracts requiring confidentiality, with processing in a private tenant so that data never enters the providers' public training sets, and that hosting is on Microsoft Azure; terms section 6 repeats OpenAI, Anthropic and Google as external providers whose terms the user must respect. The home page adds that the platform is powered by frontier models. No model is named, the list is open-ended, and no commitment to notify customers when a provider or model changes is published. Under the standing reading naming the provider does not satisfy the separate limb that the models are named. Privacy policy, terms and home page read 6 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.
Nearly the whole range is priced; Enterprise is quoted. The pricing page publishes a free plan, Irys Lite and Irys Student at $19.99 a month, Irys One at $299 per seat a month or $3,049 a year, and Irys Teams at $329 per seat a month for 2 to 25 seats, with usage limits by plan and no metered overage on Irys One. Enterprise, for 25 or more seats, is priced to scope, and the enterprise deployment programme is not priced. Verified 22 September 2026.
Real pricing is published for part of the range with the firm tier withheld. The pricing page states an Individual plan at 249 dollars per month with its feature set, a Firm plan on custom quote adding onboarding, a success manager, centralised billing, user access management and collaboration, and a five-day free trial with a card required; the FAQ repeats the figure and mentions volume discounts. Terms section 4 publishes the mechanics: monthly or annual auto-renewal, 30 days' notice of price changes, no refunds, a fair usage policy on plans marketed as unlimited, and usage caps on documents, module use and model tokens whose limits are not published. Nothing states what implementation adds, and the Firm price is not published. Pricing page, FAQ and terms read 6 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.
Segments and practice areas are set out with substance, short of limits. Pages address solo practitioners, small, mid-size and large firms, in-house teams and insurance defense firms, with use-case pages for litigation, corporate and contracts, insurance defense, employment, mass tort and ADA compliance, and law students have their own plan. Citation checking is described against federal and state opinions. The jurisdictions, courts and practice areas it does not support are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
Segment and practice coverage described with substance, with the boundaries left open. Segments are stated as solos and boutiques on the Individual plan and larger firms on the Firm plan, with in-house use evidenced by a chief legal officer testimonial; practice pages exist for family law, litigation and corporate work with an All Practice Areas page and a Topical Expertise page, and the corpus is stated as United States federal and state law with more than ten million cases. The vendor does not say where the product stops: no practice area, court or jurisdiction is named as unsupported, and coverage outside the United States is neither claimed nor excluded beyond the sanctioned-jurisdiction bar in the terms. Home page, pricing page, footer practice links and terms read 6 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 Data Processing Addendum states that customer content is not used to train Irys's own or third-party models, and that third-party models are used only for stateless inference with vendor caching and retention disabled under no-training commitments. The Terms of Service add that training could occur only if expressly agreed in writing. Usage data is limited to aggregated or anonymized telemetry that excludes prompts, outputs and documents.
The commitment is in the agreement. Terms of service section 5.6, last updated 26 March 2026, states that StrongSuit will not train any artificial intelligence models with User Content, defined in section 5.4 as the content and data the user provides to and creates with the services. The privacy policy of 16 March 2026 extends it as an explicit, non-negotiable guarantee covering proprietary and third-party large language models including those of sub-processors, and the security page and pricing page repeat it.
Usage Data, defined in section 5.7 to exclude confidential information, may be used to develop and improve the services, which is telemetry rather than customer content. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Users can delete their data at any time; the pricing page says every plan includes 90-day retention with automatic deletion; canceled accounts stay exportable for up to 90 days and are then deleted within 30; and a data retention policy describing settings and default periods is available on request. Model-provider inference is configured for zero retention, and telemetry excludes prompts and outputs. A setting that keeps nothing inside Irys is not described.
The customer decides what is retained and no retention is the default path: the security page states the AI processes an input only to generate the output and then discards it unless the user explicitly chooses to save it to their own account history. Saved content is governed by privacy policy section 3, which retains it for the subscription term, then for an administrative wind-down given as, for example, 90 days, before permanent deletion subject to legal hold; the customer is responsible for exporting before termination.
The control is a per-output save decision rather than a configurable window, and the post-termination wind-down is the vendor's, which is why this value is recorded with that qualification rather than as a clean fit. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Access is set in Irys's own role model, maintained by the firm: organization administrators, matter owners and contributors, with matter-level team collaboration and shared workspaces per team or practice group. The terms say administrators cannot see a user's personal workspace unless it is shared, and the agreement commits to separation per tenant and per user profile. Permissions are not inherited from a document management system; those integrations are described as in development.
The product maintains its own permission model and documents it at the level of a description. The data privacy FAQ states that access is controlled by role-based permissions so that only authorized users within an organization can access specific projects or documents, the Firm plan lists user access management, and the security page describes session management and encryption to prevent leakage between sessions.
Nothing describes how walls are enforced at query time or whether the model's retrieval respects project permissions, and the product does not inherit a document management system's access model because it connects to none. Surfaces checked 6 September 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 Data Processing Addendum commits Irys, where legally permitted, to notify the customer promptly of a government request for customer personal data, to challenge unlawful or overbroad demands and to disclose only the minimum required; the Terms of Service commit to prompt notice and assistance before any compelled disclosure of confidential information. No transparency report was located.
Disclosure to authorities is addressed and customer notice is not reached. Privacy policy section 2 permits employee access to client data to comply with a legal order or regulatory obligation, and section 5 permits sharing user data to comply with laws, legal processes or other governmental requests; terms of service section 5.4 licenses processing of user content as may be required by applicable law. No commitment or reservation regarding notice to the customer appears in the terms, the privacy policy or the security page, and no transparency report is published. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The subprocessor policy names CourtListener, from the Free Law Project, for case-law and citation lookup, and Perplexity AI and Linkup for legal and web research lookups; the pricing page describes citation checking against federal and state opinions. The rights basis for each source, its coverage and how often it is updated are not stated.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction and scale without identifying the underlying corpus or its rights basis. The home page and pricing page state a comprehensive database of more than ten million federal and state cases, the rebrand release adds that the company gathered the cases and built agents to enrich them with metadata, summaries and issue tags, and a Search Cases section exposes individual case records. Nothing states where the opinions were sourced, under what license or public domain basis, or how often the corpus is updated; statutory and local materials are mentioned in third-party descriptions but not characterized on the estate. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Cite Check checks identified citations against legal-source databases, flags those it cannot match, and surfaces available treatment signals such as negative history, for attorney review. Irys states that it is not connected to, or a substitute for, any third-party citator a firm licenses, and the terms say a passing check does not establish that all subsequent treatment has been identified.
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself. The rebrand release of 12 November 2025 introduces automated case validation, described as the most requested feature, which checks whether cases cited have been overturned, superseded or otherwise invalidated by later rulings, work the release says traditionally takes hours of tracing case history chains. No commercial citator is named, so the signal is the vendor's own.
The method is described only at that level of generality; nothing published states how the history chain is computed, what sources feed it or how a negative treatment is surfaced to the user. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Cite Check flags citations it cannot match against its sources, and the Quick mode is disclosed as not retrieving or verifying authority. No behavior in which the system declines to answer, or says it found no support, is described for research or drafting.
No located public material describes what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. The home page refers to proprietary anti-hallucination checks and retrieval-grounded reasoning and publishes a 0 percent hallucination figure for case names, and the terms require the user to verify all output, but nothing describes an abstention path, a confidence signal or the behavior when the case database returns no support for a proposition. Home page, FAQ, solutions pages, security page and terms checked 6 September 2026.
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 Irys and for its former name, Iqidis. The database lists one matter naming the product: in a declaration filed on 11 August 2026, counsel for a defendant states that she used the product, believed it was connected to her firm's legal research subscription, and did not check the citations before filing. No court order or finding addressing the citations had been located as of 22 September 2026.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming StrongSuit or Callidus Legal AI was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on both names together with a general search for court findings; results returned sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots and other named legal tools, none of which is this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Irys publishes an AI Rules by State guide that names the governing ethics guidance in each state covered, such as NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5, Texas Ethics Opinion 705 and WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05, alongside disclosure rules, sanctions cases and CLE requirements, with sources. It maps state rules rather than the product's features to each opinion.
Public materials engage with named ethics guidance. The security and ethics page states the company follows all ABA guidance including Formal Opinion 512 of July 2024, Model Rule 1.6 and Resolution 604, and summarizes what they require as confidentiality, human oversight of AI-generated work and safeguards against unauthorised disclosure. It also claims the product is 100 percent compliant with every US state's ethical rules as of March 2025 and that every relevant rule has been reviewed and mapped, but the mapping itself is not published; the linked slides covering the ABA, Texas and Florida opinions are attributed to another panellist rather than to the vendor. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Irys publishes billing guidance covering hourly, fixed-fee, value-based and blended arrangements, including how to describe AI-assisted work on invoices and how to answer clients who ask whether AI is used, with invoice, client disclosure and engagement letter templates provided in enterprise deployments. The platform keeps an exportable audit trail of what was run, when and in which mode. The guidance frames hourly work as freed capacity rather than addressing time billed.
Time savings are published and nothing addresses the bill. The home page states 80 percent time savings on a first contract redline, a well-cited memo of up to 30 pages in 15 minutes, guidance on a legal question in one minute, and the awards release quotes the CEO that many attorneys report doubling their output; the rebrand release describes good-law verification as frequently unbillable work now automated. The buyer is a law firm or solo practitioner billing clients, so the product sits inside the fee relationship.
No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available, and no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor policy lists every service provider and model provider with purpose, location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of changes. Audit report summaries and certificates are offered under NDA on request. No client-facing disclosure material was located on the public site.
A current statement of which model providers see client content is published, as prose rather than a register. Privacy policy section 2 names Microsoft Azure for hosting and OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and others for models, states that processing occurs in a private tenant and that content never enters the providers' public training sets, and terms section 6 names the same three providers. The list is open-ended, carries no locations or change notice, and no client-facing disclosure pack or data processing agreement is published that a firm could forward; the privacy policy's privilege and no-training language would serve that purpose in part but is not drafted as a forwardable annex. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
An exportable audit trail records what was run, when and in which mode; research citations link to their sources, Cite Check flags are kept for review, and drafts arrive as tracked changes. No per-document export recording the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification is described.
Some elements of a disclosure record are available and no document-level export is described. Research and drafting output carries inline citations with links to the authorities relied on, the home page states 100 percent reference links and full traceability, and the security page describes audit trails at the application level. Nothing states that a per-document record of the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification performed can be exported, and the models are not named on the estate.
The terms require the user to verify output before relying on it but supply no certification template. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Which one fits
Choose Irys if
- You want to know what each research mode will and will not do. Irys states that its Quick mode does not retrieve or verify authority and must never support a filing, that Standard research should be paired with Cite Check, and that Thorough mode checks citations against source as it writes.
- Your client's AI clause asks whose models see its data. Irys's subprocessor policy names OpenAI, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini on Vertex AI, Mistral, Perplexity, Linkup and CourtListener, each with purpose, location and retention, with 30 days' notice of changes and a right to object.
- You want to start small and grow. Irys publishes a free plan, Irys Lite at $19.99 a month, Irys One at $299 per seat a month or $3,049 a year, and Irys Teams at $329 per seat for 2 to 25 seats, and connects to Word, Outlook, Gmail, OneDrive and Dropbox.
Choose StrongSuit if
- You need privilege protected in the contract. StrongSuit's terms acknowledge that user content may be privileged, make StrongSuit the user's confidential agent for support so that access is not intended to waive privilege, invoke Federal Rule of Evidence 502, and bar training any model on user content.
- You want nothing kept unless you choose to keep it. StrongSuit processes each input to generate the output and then discards it unless the user saves it, hosts in a private Microsoft Azure tenant, and stores data only in the United States.
- You want research over a large US case database at a flat monthly price. StrongSuit's research runs over more than ten million federal and state cases with linked citations and a case validation check for overturned authority, at $249 a month for one lawyer.
In summary
Irys
Irys, formerly Iqidis, from Iqidis, Inc. of New York, is a legal AI platform organized around matters: case law research linked to the opinions relied on, drafting of motions, memos and contracts in a firm's voice, playbook redlining, analysis across a matter's documents, Cite Check, and Workbench agents that return finished documents. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on AI centrality, autonomy and oversight, professional responsibility, data stewardship and model supply chain disclosure. Its data processing addendum bars training on customer content and names each model provider. It serves solo practitioners through large firms, from a free plan to $299 per seat a month. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no named AI governance owner.
StrongSuit
StrongSuit, from StrongSuit AI, Inc. of McKinney, Texas, formerly Callidus Legal AI, is a legal AI platform for litigators and transactional lawyers, with research over a proprietary database of more than ten million US federal and state cases, memo and brief drafting, a case validation check for overturned authority, contract drafting and redlining in Word, discovery review and an oral argument simulator. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on twelve of fifteen capability axes, with A grades on AI centrality, privilege and professional responsibility. Its terms bar training on user content and address privilege directly, and it costs $249 a month for one lawyer. As of 6 September 2026 the index located no breach notice commitment or integration beyond Word.
Questions buyers ask
Irys vs StrongSuit: which is better for a small litigation firm?
The grid barely separates them: Irys sits in the top two bands on fourteen of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and StrongSuit on twelve of fifteen, identical on nine. Irys publishes more on liability, its model providers and what each research mode does. StrongSuit addresses privilege more directly in its terms and discards inputs unless saved. Both publish prices a solo lawyer can compare.
Do Irys and StrongSuit check whether cited cases are still good law?
Both run their own check rather than a licensed citator. Irys's Cite Check matches citations against legal sources, flags those it cannot match and surfaces negative history, and Irys says a passing check does not prove all later treatment was found. StrongSuit's case validation, launched in November 2025, checks whether cited cases have been overturned or superseded. Neither describes its method in detail. 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 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does StrongSuit protect attorney client privilege?
Its terms address it directly. Section 5.3 acknowledges that user content may be privileged, deems StrongSuit a confidential agent of the user for support and maintenance, states that its access is not intended to waive privilege, and invokes Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Irys's terms leave compliance with privilege obligations to the user, though its security page describes the platform as designed to support privilege. 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 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do Irys and StrongSuit cost?
Irys publishes a free plan, Irys Lite and Student at $19.99 a month, Irys One at $299 per seat a month or $3,049 a year, and Irys Teams at $329 per seat for 2 to 25 seats, with Enterprise priced to scope. StrongSuit charges $249 a month for one lawyer after a five day trial that requires a card, with its firm plan quoted. 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 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Irys and StrongSuit both leave unpublished?
A tested accuracy figure for their citations and an internal owner for AI governance. Neither publishes a measured error rate for the citations its research returns, and neither names who inside the company is accountable for model behavior or describes testing before release. Neither describes an export that records which model produced a document and who verified it. 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 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. StrongSuit's terms disclaim any warranty of accuracy, exclude court imposed fines from recoverable damages and cap liability at a year's fees, and its only indemnity runs from the user; those are published terms. Irys also disclaims output accuracy and states that Cite Check does not verify every citation. StrongSuit names its model providers in prose with an open list and no change notice. Irys was verified on 22 September 2026 and StrongSuit on 6 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.