Jhana.ai vs LBOX: how they compare in 2026

The models are the product and the corpus was built to feed them. The vendor describes itself as a frontier legal intelligence lab and names its proprietary work as verifier models, graph models for legal ontologies, a national legal archive of more than 16 million machine enhanced documents, and research and drafting agents. Machine enhanced is the operative phrase: the corpus was not licensed and wrapped, it was processed into a model asset, and the stated use of seed capital was to build proprietary datasets and models and to hire researchers in law and AI. Every product is an agent pipeline rather than a workflow tool with a model attached, including the public sector agents running extraction, synopsis and forensic scrutiny. Remove the models and there is no product left. Same shape as Reveal, reached from the opposite direction: Reveal acquired model capability into a platform, Jhana built the corpus and the models first and the interface after.

The models are the engine of a core capability on a product that would still function without them, which is the B band exactly, and the vendor's own history makes the boundary unusually easy to see. LBOX began as a judgment database. The AI arrived later as LBOX AI and was then rebuilt: the company's own product announcement describes the shift to an agent architecture as the most fundamental product change since LBOX AI launched, with every step from receiving the question to delivering the final answer now running on an agent, and it claims this as the first legal AI agent in Korea. The current positioning is AI-first, the platform being sold as the single AI working environment for lawyers covering case law and statute search, AI answers and document drafting. What keeps it off A is the A band's own test: remove the models and there is nothing left to sell. Remove them here and a Korean case law and statute database remains, with search, projects, folders and the instance linking that users single out, and it is that database the company treats as the durable asset, grounding its AI in its own legal data rather than in a general corpus. The AI is also not universally available within the product, being gated to occupationally verified legal professionals and to supervised staff, so some subscribers hold the platform without holding the agent. Recorded and not credited toward this axis: LCUBE, the Korean legal language model the company released with KAIST at NeurIPS 2022 on a 147,000-judgment corpus, is real and is the company's own, but it is a research artifact and is not what the seed's AI line implies is shipped. Verified 13 September 2026.

Grounding is architectural and demonstrated, short of any published measurement. The vendor states plainly that its agents always cite their work, and names a verifier model as proprietary technology, which puts a checking mechanism in the architecture rather than in the marketing. Published product material shows source linked output where each conclusion sits one click from the underlying source page and each extracted figure is anchored to page and paragraph, which is a demonstrable behavior a reader can inspect rather than a claim about accuracy. Held at B because nothing measured is published: no accuracy figure, no precision or recall on retrieval or extraction, no hallucination rate, no test set, no independent benchmark participation, and no statement of what the verifier catches or how often. Searched the home page, the product pages, the published blog material, the privacy policy and the terms and conditions on 29 Aug 2026. For a vendor whose named innovation is a verifier, the absence of a measured verification result is the gap.

Grounding is real and documented with linked primary sources, and no measured accuracy is published, which is the B band. The grounding is described as the point of the product rather than as a footnote: answers are generated from the company's own legal data so that the question's intent is understood in context, and the vendor states in terms that this minimizes the hallucination that can occur with general-purpose AI. The index's rule governs rather than the D limb, because the claim sits alongside architecture rather than in place of it. The verification path is concrete. Cited precedents and statutes are linked and openable from the answer. Where a commentary or practice text from the company's own LBOX Scholar imprint supports an answer, the original text is reachable directly from the AI query so a reader can check the basis of the answer against the source, and authors are shown how often their material is cited by the AI. That is a closer coupling between answer and authority than most records in this corpus publish. What is absent is measurement. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation is published on any first-party surface for the agent, for search or for drafting, and nothing states what proportion of answers carry support. Recorded and expressly not credited because it is not first-party: press coverage reports the company claiming its agentic AI outperformed human candidates on the bar examination and beats general-purpose AI on accuracy, which is a measurement claim made to a newspaper rather than published with a test set the reader can assess. The A band also asks whether the system states when it found no support, and nothing addresses that. Verified 13 September 2026.

The positioning implies an oversight model and no document describes one. Calling the product a paralegal rather than a lawyer is a deliberate and meaningful choice: a paralegal works under supervision, and the naming carries that. But naming is not a published model. Nothing states where a human must review agent output before it is used, whether any step can complete without review, what the agents may do unattended in the Courtroom and PUBSEC pipelines running extraction, synopsis and forensic scrutiny for courts, or what happens when an agent is wrong inside a registry workflow. No confidence threshold, escalation path or human confirmation requirement was located. Checked the home page, the product pages, the public sector material, the terms and conditions and the blog on 29 Aug 2026. The gap matters more here than for a research tool sold only to private practice, because the deployed users include judges and registrars.

A written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, short of the full control structure, which is the B band, and the commitment here takes an unusual form worth setting out. Rather than describing a review step inside the product, the vendor controls who is permitted to operate the agent at all. Its published eligibility rules limit LBOX AI to members who have completed occupational verification as lawyers, judicial scriveners, labor attorneys, tax accountants, patent attorneys or accountants; to staff of courts, prosecution offices, police and legal research institutions the company recognizes as appropriate; to employees of other organizations only where a qualified legal professional has given prior approval and the work is performed under that professional's direction, supervision and review; and to public institutions using the IP-authenticated Public plan. Verification requires documentary proof by profession. So the supervising-lawyer requirement is not a sentence of marketing but an access control with an enrollment process behind it, and the vendor frames it as continuing work to keep use of legal AI lawful. Against that, the autonomy being supervised is real and broad: the agent plans and executes the entire sequence itself, from interpreting the question through searching and verifying to producing the answer and drafting documents. What the A band asks for is absent. No mode distinction is published, no confidence threshold, no statement of when the agent stops or escalates, no described review surface between generation and use, and nothing on what happens after the system is wrong. The verification affordance that exists, opening the cited authority, is the user's own diligence rather than a control the vendor operates. Verified 13 September 2026.

Adoption is quantified and unusually institutional. Stated: more than 10,000 users, over 150 judges and registrars across five or more courts, more than 100,000 paralegal sessions and over 200,000 searches. Judicial adoption is the strongest element and the second instance on this index of a public authority using the product rather than merely appearing as a logo, after FinregE and the FCA Handbook. Also dated and attributable: a $1.6m seed led by Together Fund with named participants, a January 2026 partnership with CADRE ODR for online arbitration, and support from Jio GenNext, the AWS Public Sector Startup Hub, Microsoft Founders Hub and the Google Cloud Startups Program. Held at B on three gaps. Every usage figure is self reported with no methodology, period or definition, so a paralegal session is whatever the vendor counts. No court, institution or firm is named. No outcome measure of any kind is published: nothing on time saved, error reduction or research quality, only volume.

Unattributed testimonials and store metrics stand in for deployment evidence on first-party surfaces, which is the C band. What the vendor publishes itself is thin for a company of this standing. The pricing page carries user quotes attributed only by role, an in-house counsel and unnamed practitioners, with competitor names redacted; a testimonial is named customer evidence only where the customer is named, and none is. The Google Play listing gives 10,000-plus downloads and a 4.6 rating from 155 reviews, which measures an app rather than a platform. LBOX Scholar names authors, including senior academics and practitioners whose commentaries it publishes, but an author is a supplier rather than a customer and is not credited here. No named law firm, corporation, court or public institution was located on any first-party surface, no case study, and no outcome figure of any kind. Recorded and expressly not credited, because they are third-party and would breach the first-party floor: press coverage reports the company serving ten of the largest domestic law firms, corporations and major judicial institutions, and an aggregator profile reports some 23,000 lawyers using the service. Aggregator listings are excluded outright as evidence, and the press figures are neither published by the vendor nor attributable to a named customer. The gap is the interesting part of this record: a vendor with what its own market plainly treats as the leading position publishes almost nothing a buyer could verify about who uses it. Verified 13 September 2026.

Real documentation exists and none of it is about privilege, and one disclosed practice cuts against the posture. The privacy policy is a genuine product document framed against the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Information Technology Act 2000, with erasure on request by email, retention carve outs for fraud prevention and for tax, legal reporting and audit obligations, and a security section. That is more than several better funded vendors on this index publish. What is absent: any treatment of legal professional privilege or work product, any statement about the confidentiality of case files uploaded to AI Paralegal or Document Intelligence, and any segregation model. Named as a concern rather than buried: the privacy policy states that personal information may be disclosed to data processors including marketing and advertising agencies and web analytics companies. For a platform holding client matter documents, disclosure to advertising and analytics categories is a real posture question, and the policy does not distinguish account level personal data from uploaded matter content.

Four of the five A limbs are met and the fifth is not addressed at all, which holds this at B under R33 and makes it the second record in this pull to sit one word short. What is published is strong and specific. On training, the vendor states that personal information in queries and uploaded files is not used to train AI models. On retention and deletion, query text and uploaded files are stated to be used only while the answer is being generated and deleted immediately once the purpose is met, with the privacy policy setting a further ceiling of 30 days at each overseas processor. On segregation, documents a user creates are visible only to that user and to Business plan colleagues expressly granted sharing rights, and all material is stated to be held encrypted in customer-dedicated storage. On third party model providers, the position is not merely explicit but enumerated: the privacy policy names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Amazon and Microsoft as recipients of user input to LBOX AI, with the purpose and the retention period for each. That last limb is answered more completely here than on any other record in this pull. The limb that fails is privilege and work product, and it fails by absence rather than by weakness. Neither privilege, professional secrecy nor work product is addressed anywhere located, on a platform whose users are verified lawyers uploading case documents for analysis, and nothing states what happens to that material if it is demanded. Two further limits belong on the record: the no-training sentence is written about personal information within queries and files rather than about the content itself, and the deletion commitment is what closes that gap in practice; and the customer agreement, which would be the natural home for all of this, is published and could not be read by this index. Verified 13 September 2026.

Not addressed in any located material. The product generates propositions, advisories and memos from natural language input, which is output shaped like advice, and the user base explicitly extends beyond advocates to founders, tax professionals and compliance teams. That combination is precisely where the question bites: a non lawyer receiving an advisory generated from case law is the unauthorised practice scenario, and nothing published addresses it. No statement that output is not legal advice, no positioning on the supervising advocate's role, and no engagement with Bar Council of India rules on advocate conduct or advertising. Checked the home page, the product pages, the terms and conditions, the privacy policy and the blog on 29 Aug 2026. The paralegal naming is the closest thing to a position and it is a brand choice rather than a disclosure.

A real published position, short of full treatment, which is the B band, and this record is the inverse of the usual shape. The B band anticipates a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension. Here the supervision dimension is the strongest thing on the axis and the disclaimer is what could not be found. Who may use the product is stated with more precision than any record in this corpus and is enforced rather than asserted. The AI agent is available only to members who have completed occupational verification against documentary proof as lawyers, judicial scriveners, labor attorneys, tax accountants, patent attorneys or accountants; to staff of courts, prosecution offices, police and legal research institutes the company recognizes; and to employees of other organizations only where a qualified legal professional has approved the use in advance and the work proceeds under that professional's direction, supervision and review. Public institutions reach it through an IP-authenticated plan. The vendor frames this as ongoing work so that those doing legal work can use legal AI lawfully, which engages the Korean regulation of legal services without naming it. That is the competence and supervision limb, answered operationally. What is missing is the rest of the A band. No statement was located of what the product is and is not, no advice disclaimer on any readable surface, and no jurisdiction limit stated, though the content is Korean law throughout. The customer agreement, where such a statement would ordinarily sit, is published and unreadable to this index. Recorded so the grade is read correctly: the consumer-facing lawyer directory the company also operates is a separate product and is not this record. Verified 13 September 2026.

Nothing published about how the models are governed, evaluated or monitored. No AI policy, no evaluation methodology, no bias or fairness assessment, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no model card, no named governance body and no external standard such as ISO 42001. The absence is conspicuous against the vendor's own subject matter expertise, since its published blog material analyses the DPDP Act and DPDP Rules compliance obligations in structured detail for its customers, and none of that analytic rigour is turned on its own system. Also unaddressed: whether a corpus described as machine enhanced introduces systematic error into the archive itself, which for a research product built on a proprietary dataset is the governance question that matters most. Checked the home page, the company and funding material, the product pages, the blog and the terms and conditions on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing published on AI governance was located, which is the D band, and the contrast with what this vendor does publish is the finding. On data protection the governance is documented in detail: a named protection officer who is the chief executive, a named handler, a named responsible department, an internal management plan with inspection, a dedicated organization, regular staff training, and a statutory grievance route. None of that reaches AI. No responsible AI or ethics statement, no AI policy, no acceptable use position, no accountable owner for model behavior, no description of what is tested before a model or agent change ships, and no disclosure of evaluation results of any kind was located on any readable surface. Bias is not addressed anywhere. That matters on this product for a specific reason worth naming rather than leaving general: the agent ranks and selects which precedents surface in answer to a legal question, and a systematic tilt in retrieval, toward particular courts, particular periods or particular outcomes, would be invisible to the user and would shape the authority a lawyer relies on. Nothing published would let a buyer test it. The vendor did publish a benchmark and model of its own with an academic partner in 2022, which shows the capability to evaluate exists internally, and no evaluation of the shipped agent has been published in the four years since. The absence is not explained by retrieval difficulty: the help center and policy estate are fully readable and carry nothing on this. Verified 13 September 2026.

The vendor speaks to stewardship directly, which most of this roster does not, and what it says does not hold together. The home page states that customer data is not used for training, and in the next sentence that free users have the choice to opt out of sharing data for model training. Those two statements cannot both be complete. The privacy policy supports erasure on request, discloses processor categories, and states that appropriate security measures and generally accepted industry standards are applied. Held at C because the operative rule is unclear from public material: no retention period is stated for prompts or generated output, no distinction is drawn between account data and uploaded matter content, and the training position depends on which sentence a reader stops at. The signal row records the contradiction with the quote. Credited above D because a vendor that addresses training at all, and gives free users a control, is materially ahead of one that is silent.

Retention, deletion, access control and subprocessors are all published and specific, and no incident practice was located, which is the B band and precisely the second of the two gaps it names. The published material is detailed because Korean data protection law requires it to be, and the record benefits either way. Retention: query text and uploaded files used only during answer generation and deleted immediately afterwards, with a stated ceiling of 30 days at each overseas processor, behavioral logs held until withdrawal, and statutory periods set out instrument by instrument. Destruction: a stated procedure, electronic records rendered unrecoverable and paper shredded or incinerated, with credential documents destroyed immediately once verification is complete. Access control: access rights management, an access control system, encryption, security software, access logs retained and periodically inspected, plus physical control of server and archive rooms and locked storage, all under an internal management plan with a dedicated organization and regular training. Subprocessors: fully enumerated, domestic and overseas, including re-delegated parties, with the company committing to notify without delay through the privacy policy if a processor or the scope of its work changes and to consent to any re-delegation. What is absent is incident practice. No breach notification commitment to customers was located, no notification window, no description of incident response, and nothing states what a subscriber would be told or when. Verified 13 September 2026.

Terms exist, were read, and run one way. The terms and conditions contain an indemnity under which the user holds the company and its officers, agents and employees harmless against third party claims, demands, damages, penalties, losses and actions including reasonable attorneys' fees, together with an entire agreement clause incorporating the privacy policy. No corresponding vendor commitment was located: no warranty as to output, no accuracy undertaking, no service level, no liability position, and no remedy where a generated citation, advisory or memo is wrong. This is graded on published material rather than on absence, which is why the basis is Vendor Published: the document exists and allocates risk in one direction. Checked the terms and conditions and the privacy policy on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing published on who bears the loss when the output is wrong could be located, and the note records the reason precisely so the grade is read as the state of the located record rather than as a finding about the vendor's contract. A customer agreement exists and is published. The integrated service terms, the paid service terms and the operating policy are all linked from the vendor's own footer and help center. The paid service terms and operating policy are hosted on Notion and return the JavaScript shell rather than a body, and the terms page on the main domain sits behind the same bot detection that blocks the rest of the site to this index. The index's rule governs: a document that is published and machine-unreadable is a limit on the reader, not an absence by the vendor, and it is never graded as a finding against them. The R8 ladder was run in full, including recovery through the vendor's own Korean document vocabulary, which opened the whole help center and policy estate but did not surface the operative liability clauses. So what is recorded is that no warranty position, no liability cap, no indemnity and no insurance statement was located on any readable surface. What was located is commercial rather than liability material and is not credited here: refunds where a paid plan is unused within seven days of payment, or within thirty days on a switch from Standard to Business or Public, no fee reduction where a Business plan's active user count falls mid-term, and a notice-and-objection process for fee changes. The grade would move on a reading of the agreement, and the note says so. Verified 13 September 2026.

Interoperability is claimed at the right level for the public sector product and documented nowhere. The vendor states that Courtroom and PUBSEC are interoperable with existing and new systems and are transacted with over API, which is the correct shape for selling into court registries, and the January 2026 CADRE ODR partnership is a named integration into an online arbitration workflow. What does not exist: any API documentation, any authentication or scope detail, any statement of what moves in which direction, and any named integration for private practice. No document management system, no practice management platform, and nothing addressing how a firm gets its own matter files in and its work product out. Checked the home page, the public sector material, the product pages and the blog on 29 Aug 2026.

No integration into the systems legal work already lives in was located, which is the D band, and the product's own shape is part of the explanation. LBOX is built to be the place the work happens rather than a layer over something else: the vendor's own framing is a single AI working environment for lawyers, running search, AI answers and drafting inside its own interface, with projects and folders for organizing matters and sharing within a Business plan. Nothing published describes moving that work anywhere else. No practice management system, document management system, billing system or CRM used by Korean firms is named as supported. No public API reference, developer documentation, connector catalog or authentication model was located, and there is no integrations page anywhere in the navigation or the help center, which is a page-inventory finding rather than an unreachable page. The only external touchpoints located are a mobile application on iOS and Android, which is the same product on another device rather than an integration, and third-party services in the vendor's own processing chain, being optical character recognition and payments, which are supplier arrangements and are not capabilities offered to a customer. Recorded so the D is read correctly: a firm adopting this platform is adopting a destination, and nothing published tells it how the work leaves. Verified 13 September 2026.

One genuinely strong deployment disclosure sits beside a complete absence for everyone else. For the public sector products the vendor states that the agents are owned and hosted by the courts themselves, which is customer hosted deployment stated plainly and is the strongest such position located in this pull. It is also the correct answer for a judiciary that cannot put case data on a startup's infrastructure. For the commercial product nothing equivalent exists: no hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no private or single tenant option is described for firms. Cloud vendor program memberships with AWS, Microsoft and Google are startup support programs and are not a hosting disclosure, and are not credited as one. Data residency is a live question in India under the DPDP framework the vendor itself writes about. Checked the home page, the public sector material, the privacy policy and the terms and conditions on 29 Aug 2026.

Cloud delivery with a genuinely detailed answer on where data goes and a partial one on tenancy, which is B on either limb and is comfortably clear of C on both. Residency is answered with more precision than almost any record in this corpus, because the privacy policy carries a statutory cross-border transfer table naming each recipient, the destination country, the transfer method, what is transferred, the purpose and the retention period. A buyer can therefore establish that text and files entered into LBOX AI are transmitted to the United States to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Amazon and Microsoft, that transfers to Amazon and Microsoft are described as traveling over an encrypted network, and that retention at each is capped at 30 days after the purpose is met except Google at 180 days. The policy also states plainly that refusing the overseas transfer means the service cannot be used, and that the only remedy is to close the account, which is an unusually candid statement of the trade-off. Tenancy is claimed rather than described: all material is stated to be held encrypted in customer-dedicated storage, and document visibility is limited to the creator and to Business plan colleagues given sharing rights. What is absent is the domestic half of the picture. No data center, region, cloud provider or hosting arrangement is named for the primary platform, nothing distinguishes storage from processing for Korean-resident data, no residency option or on-premises deployment is offered or refused, and the dedicated-storage claim carries no description of how the separation is implemented. Verified 13 September 2026.

No certification of any kind was located, and the security language is the unfalsifiable shape this index does not credit. The privacy policy states that appropriate security measures are taken against unauthorised access, alteration, modification, disclosure or destruction, and that generally accepted industry standards are followed. Neither statement names a standard, an auditor, a scope or a date, and generally accepted industry standards is a phrase that cannot be checked or falsified by any reader. Located nothing on SOC 2 of either type, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, CERT-In empanelment or any Indian assurance framework, and no trust center, security page or documentation request route exists. Checked the privacy policy, the terms and conditions, the home page, the product pages and the site footer on 29 Aug 2026. Under the three tier test the artifact is absent rather than gated. Weighed against the deployment position: a vendor whose court customers host the software themselves has offloaded the hardest part of this question for those customers, and published nothing for the rest.

No certification held by this vendor and no trust center were located, which is the D band, and the reason the grade is not higher needs stating because the site invites the opposite reading. The home page tells a buyer that all data is processed on verified infrastructure that has obtained global security certification. Read carefully, that is a statement about the infrastructure provider, not about LBOX. The ground rules and R16 both bite here: a cloud provider's certification is infrastructure rather than the vendor's own attestation, and credit follows scope that a buyer can establish. No certificate, attestation or audit report of LBOX itself was located under any standard, whether ISO 27001, ISO 27701, SOC 2 or Korea's own ISMS-P, which is the certification a Korean information service provider of this size would ordinarily hold and publish. No auditor is named, no report period or certificate number appears, no penetration test summary exists, and there is no trust center, security page or compliance page anywhere in the navigation or the help center. What is published instead is a description of controls without third-party validation, and it is substantive: administrative, technical and physical measures set out by category, an internal management plan with inspection, a dedicated organization, regular training, access rights management, an access control system, encryption, security software, access log retention and periodic inspection, and controlled physical access to server and archive rooms. Statutory compliance with the Personal Information Protection Act is asserted and a protection officer is named, and neither is an independent attestation. Verified 13 September 2026.

Processor categories are disclosed, a list is promised, and no entity is named. The privacy policy states that personal information may be disclosed to entities that may qualify as data processors under the DPDP Act, listing categories including hosting service providers, cloud computing entities, IT service firms, marketing and advertising agencies and web analytics companies, and states that the vendor will make efforts to disclose an updated list of key processors. A promise to publish is not a publication, and no such list was located. On the model layer specifically: the vendor claims proprietary verifier and graph models, which is a supply chain statement of a kind, and never says whether any third party foundation model sits underneath the agents, which is the question a buyer needs answered. Compare Onspring at B, the only record on this index that names its model provider outright.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, which is the B band by design, and the part that is disclosed is the most complete provider naming located in this pull. The privacy policy's cross-border transfer table identifies, by legal entity and contact address, every party that receives what a user types into LBOX AI: OpenAI LLC, Anthropic PBC, Google, Amazon and Microsoft, each with the purpose stated as generating the answer to the user's question, and Microsoft additionally for optical character recognition of uploaded files. Upstage is named as the domestic processor performing the same OCR conversion. Each entry carries a retention period, 30 days after the purpose is met for all but Google, which is 180. Change notification, which R34 counts as a distinct limb and which most records lack entirely, is committed: the vendor undertakes to disclose without delay through the privacy policy any change of processor or of the scope of the work, and states that re-delegation requires its consent and is published. What holds this off A is the limb the index's rule makes decisive: providers are identified and the models themselves are not. No model or version is named for any of the five providers, nothing states which provider serves which function or how requests are routed between them, and nothing distinguishes the vendor's own retrieval layer from the frontier models it calls. The company's own LCUBE model, released with an academic partner in 2022, is not described as part of the current stack and is not credited as one. So a buyer learns exactly whose infrastructure sees its content, and not what is running on it. Verified 13 September 2026.

A free tier is quantified and the paid ladder is behind a login. Published free tier limits are specific: ten paralegal sessions, fifteen searches and thirty file document intelligence per month, which tells a buyer both the unit of consumption and the shape of the meter, and is more structural disclosure than most of this roster offers. Beyond that, plan details require signing in, and no price, currency or range for any paid tier was located. Held at C rather than higher because the headline is visible and the actual cost is not, and a buyer cannot compare against an incumbent subscription without creating an account. Source basis recorded as Third Party Estimated: the free tier limits come from an independent review platform's product assessment dated July 2026 rather than from a vendor pricing page read directly, and that assessment itself notes pricing is not fully public and may be out of date.

Real pricing is published for part of the range with the enterprise tiers withheld, which is the B band in its own words. The structure is fully published and ungated: an individual Standard plan, Business and Enterprise plans for firms and legal departments, a Law School plan for students, and a Public plan offered to government and public institutions on IP authentication, with discounts published for members of bar associations and of the labor attorney and loss adjuster bodies under partnership arrangements. The unit of charge is clear, being per user per month for Standard, per seat with volume discounting for Business and Enterprise, and institution-wide by IP for Public. The commercial mechanics are published in the operating policy rather than hidden: refund where a paid plan is unused within seven days of payment, or within thirty days on a switch from Standard to Business or Public, expressly no fee reduction or refund where a Business plan's active user count falls during a term, and fee changes announced in advance with an objection window and an opt-in for preferential rates. Figures exist and are the vendor's own, published in its fee-change notices: a Standard monthly rate moving from 29,900 won to a six-month preferential 39,900 won and then to 69,900 won. Two limits keep it off A and are stated rather than implied. Those figures come from a fee-change notice rather than from a current rate card, so their age goes in the note under the standing rule that age never enters the grade; and the live pricing page, which exists and is ungated, sits behind the bot detection that blocks the whole main domain to this index, so what a buyer sees there today could not be read. Business and Enterprise pricing is quoted rather than published in any event. Verified 13 September 2026.

Corpus scale and jurisdiction are stated precisely and the vendor is candid that the scope is one country. More than 16 million judgments and statutes in a corpus described as India's National Legal Archive, with the explicit positioning that this is purpose built for the Indian legal context rather than a general model with a legal skin. Named user populations span private practice lawyers, law firms, in house teams, judges and registrars across five or more courts, founders, tax professionals and compliance teams, and published subject matter reaches SEBI regulations, AML and CFT, the DPDP Act and Rules, the IT Act and Supreme Court authority on Section 65B evidence certification. Single jurisdiction scope is a limitation for a buyer outside India and is not a disclosure failure. Held at B rather than A because the corpus is not broken down: no list of which courts, tribunals and forums are included, no statement of historical depth, and no update lag or refresh frequency, so a practitioner cannot confirm their own forum is covered or how current it is.

Segment coverage is described with real substance and the practice boundaries are left open, which is the B band. Who this is for is set out more precisely than most records manage, and it is set out as an enforced eligibility rule rather than as marketing. Named professional segments are lawyers, judicial scriveners, labor attorneys, tax accountants, patent attorneys and accountants, each with its own verification route. Institutional segments are named too: courts, prosecution offices, police and legal research institutions, reached through recognition by the vendor, and government and public bodies through an IP-authenticated Public plan the company describes as a social contribution. Law firms and in-house legal departments are addressed through Business and Enterprise plans with an administrator and user distinction, students through a Law School plan with defined eligibility including repeat bar candidates and doctoral students, and non-lawyer staff only under a qualified professional's supervision. Content coverage is Korean, spanning court precedents, statutes and administrative rules, with the company's own commentary and practice texts layered over it through its Scholar imprint. What is left open is the practice dimension. No practice area is named as supported or unsupported, nothing states which courts or which years the judgment database reaches, and nothing says whether the AI agent covers the whole corpus or only parts of it. Jurisdiction is Korea throughout and is never stated as a limit, which matters for a buyer with cross-border work. Verified 13 September 2026.