Jusbrasil vs Turivius: how they compare in 2026
Jusbrasil and Turivius both offer Brazilian lawyers AI research and drafting over large national case law collections, and both document their products well. Jusbrasil goes deeper on accuracy, the advice line and price. It published a blind evaluation in which 48 Brazilian lawyers scored its assistant against ChatGPT and Gemini, and it checks every citation against its corpus at the end of each answer. Its terms draw the advice line by statute, bar training on user data, and publish prices from R$78.90 a month. Turivius answers with named clients such as Nestlé and Machado Meyer, a choice of GPT, Claude or Gemini for each task, and storage kept in Brazil. Turivius also takes responsibility in its terms for the legality of its court database. Its privacy policy permits using customer data in AI models to improve the service, while Jusbrasil discloses that data may be stored in the United States.
Which one fits
Choose Jusbrasil if
- You want evidence of how the assistant compares. Jusbrasil published a blind study in which 48 practicing Brazilian lawyers scored Jus IA against ChatGPT and Gemini on five kinds of legal task, reporting it preferred in 70 percent of cases and naming where it lost.
- You need citations checked before you rely on them. Jus IA checks every cited statute, decision and súmula against the Jusbrasil corpus at the end of each response, flags references it cannot find, and links each one to its source.
- You want to price it yourself. Jusbrasil publishes three tiers at R$78.90, R$108.90 and R$208.90 a month, priced by AI messages with document limits for each, self serve cancellation and a seven day refund.
Choose Turivius if
- You want to choose the model for each task. Turivius's GPTuri offers GPT, Claude and Gemini in one interface, all reading the same corpus of more than 130 million decisions, and states that customer data is stored exclusively in Brazil.
- You need jurimetrics on a legal thesis. Turivius's Jurimetria Agent analyzes up to 500 selected decisions and returns tables, trend charts, divergences between courts and outcome predictions, alongside the established case law search and jurimetrics product.
- You want named peers and a vendor that stands behind its data. Turivius names clients including Nestlé, Deloitte, Suzano and Machado Meyer, and its terms assume full responsibility for the legality of its court database, relieving the user of that exposure.
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.
Models do substantial work on top of a system of record that would function without them, and the vendor is explicit about which half is which. Jus IA is a generative assistant launched in March 2025 with three skills: conversational legal research, drafting of pleadings and other documents, and reference analysis, all grounded in a database the vendor states exceeds 1.2 billion documents. The vendor states it built its own foundational model on that database with Maritaca AI, alongside established third party models, and that legal specialists calibrate the assistant continuously. A second generative assistant serves people who are not lawyers as a triage chatbot. The other half is not models and long predates them. The platform has indexed official gazettes and court systems for roughly two decades, and its search, case tracking, legislation, doctrine, pleadings and community publishing products all work without generative AI. Without the models, a very large legal database business remains.
Case law search, jurimetrics and knowledge management over more than 130 million decisions from over 100 Brazilian courts make up Turivius Clássica. GPTuri+, launched in 2025, is the AI environment, with its own login and subdomain, and Turivius says the two accesses are independent, so a customer can hold the platform without the AI. The assistant builds searches from a plain language or spoken description, answers against uploaded contracts and pleadings with the exact source passage, and drafts opinions, tables, risk maps and pleading outlines. The Jurimetria Agent analyzes up to 500 decisions on a thesis and returns tables, charts, divergences between courts and outcome predictions; Turivius calls it the first of its kind in Brazil. Without the models, the corpus, search, collections and jurimetrics remain, which is what Turivius sold for six years before GPTuri.
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.
Accuracy is measured, the method is published, and the vendor names where it loses. In a blind evaluation, Jus IA was tested on real legal tasks against ChatGPT on GPT-5 and against Gemini 2.5 Pro. The outputs were scored by 48 practicing Brazilian lawyers who did not know which system produced them; 89.58 percent hold a postgraduate qualification, with one to ten years in practice. Five task types and four scoring criteria are defined, one of them reliability, which checks whether cited sources exist and support the claim. Results are published by criterion with means and standard deviations, and Jus IA came out ahead in 70 percent of cases. The vendor publishes that Gemini beat it on fluency when drafting documents and that it tied on completeness for summaries. In the product, every citation is checked against the database at the end of each response, unmatched references are flagged, and each reference links to its source. The 70 percent is a preference rate against general models, not an absolute error rate. The charts are images, and the full study sits behind a link shortener.
Every answer is built on Turivius's own corpus of Brazilian decisions, each analysis cites the decision it rests on, and source tracing is a named feature. Answers on uploaded documents point to the exact passage. The assistant identifies the legal elements in a plain language description and builds the search itself. Turivius publishes a comparison with general purpose assistants on whether each works from real case law, shows full text and traces sources. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation of GPTuri is published; the one figure, up to 70 percent time saved, measures effort, not correctness. Turivius's terms say it exercises no editorial control over the database and gives no warranty on its quality or content, and that automatic reports, charts and classifications may contain errors, are not exact predictions and are only a guide.
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.
Clause 4.4.2 of the terms of use states that no AI feature substitutes for a qualified lawyer and that the user must always review or consult one. Clause 5.2.1 says responses may contain errors and places verification on the user, including where outputs are used before a public body. Clause 5.6.2 makes final responsibility for Jus IA use and its content the user's alone. The enterprise terms at clause 4.3.2 require the client to analyze and validate AI generated content. The assistant for people who are not lawyers is fenced at clause 6.2.1 as informational and educational only, never legal advice. The vendor also describes continuous calibration by legal specialists. Nothing published describes an escalation path, a point at which the system declines on substance rather than policy, or what a user sees when the model works outside the database. The product is a chat assistant with no autonomous action: nothing is filed, sent or committed without the user.
Turivius frames the work as you direct, it prepares, you finalize: the assistant delivers material for the user to review. Each analysis cites the decision it rests on, and users are told to verify before using it. Answers on uploaded documents carry the exact source passage, and the full text of every cited decision is in the platform. Turivius publishes its own guide to validating a legal AI, aiming for answers that can be checked rather than trusted blindly. Users choose GPT, Claude or Gemini per task. Nothing describes a point where the system stops or escalates, a confidence signal, or what happens when it is wrong or when the Jurimetria Agent's evidence across 500 decisions is thin. The terms say automatic reports may contain errors and are only a guide, but those terms date from 21 September 2020 and cover the older jurimetrics reports, not the 2025 assistant. For GPTuri itself, the only commitment is a general promise of human review.
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.
Scale is shown in the vendor's own numbers, and named customers are absent. The vendor reports more than 1.5 million searches and more than 4 million pleadings written through Jus IA, an average satisfaction score of 89 percent, and more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals. Three testimonials carry the full names of practicing lawyers. The blind study, covered under citation accuracy, used 48 evaluating lawyers recruited across regions and specialisms. A separate survey of 1,500 respondents was run with the São Paulo section of the Brazilian bar, Trybe and ITS Rio, which shows the vendor's standing, not its outcomes. No named institutional customer, case study tied to a firm, or method behind the satisfaction and volume figures is published. The usage numbers count activity, not results: nothing says how many of the 4 million pleadings were filed, revised or discarded.
Deloitte, Nestlé, Gerdau, Suzano, BASF, Unimed, BTG Pactual, Tozzini Freire and Machado Meyer are on the client list. Ten case studies have their own pages, covering Nestlé, Cosan and Suzano, and the firms Velloza, Bichara, KLA, FNCA, Bergamini, Benvenutti and GDM Consultoria Jurídica. Testimonials name individuals at named firms: Julia Moreira at Tortoro, Madureira & Ragazzi, Sávio Andrade at Machado Meyer, and Walter Cesar Vasconcelos at Laerte Fonseca & Advogados Associados. Turivius won Nestlé's global innovation prize in 2022 for a project joining jurimetrics and AI, and Nestlé is also a customer. The only outcome figure is up to 70 percent time saved, with no source, date or method, and no figure is tied to a named customer.
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.
Specific published confidentiality commitments sit against an express contractual disclaimer of responsibility for professional secrecy. Clause 8.3.4 of the privacy policy says Jus IA runs separately from the platform's other databases and uses a user's inputs and outputs only within that user's environment, without giving them to a third party or another user unless the information is public. Clause 8.3 holds Jus IA material in a separate database. Clause 5.3.2 keeps inputs and outputs confidential save under a court order, and clause 4.1.5 says data is not used to train models. The FAQ adds controls stopping one user reaching another's personal information, and clause 8.1.2 limits staff and third party access to what is necessary under contractual confidentiality. Against that, clause 5.4.3 of the terms makes the user solely responsible for what is entered into Jus IA, including information protected by professional secrecy. It also says Jusbrasil is not responsible for any breach of professional secrecy or damage from inappropriate use. Professional secrecy is addressed in the agreement, and the whole risk is allocated to the lawyer.
Turivius's privacy policy says all user data is treated as confidential, only authorized staff with a need can reach it, server access is logged, data is encrypted and passwords hashed. That describes security rather than a confidentiality commitment for client material, though the product invites lawyers to upload contracts, pleadings and case files. The policy permits use of user data in AI models to personalize the platform, analyze use and improve services, and reserves anonymized data for aggregate commercial use. Where a firm buys the platform, the employer may see a user's profile data, and colleagues may see name, photo and email. Nothing describes walls between matters, clients or users, though Projects group material by case or client. Retention is stated only as six months for access logs and otherwise as long as needed. Nothing says what GPT, Claude or Gemini may keep of a prompt or upload. Privilege and professional secrecy are not addressed.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
The boundary is drawn expressly, by reference to the governing statute, in both published agreements and on product pages. Clause 4.7 of the terms of use says Jusbrasil never provides legal advice, consultancy or any other activity reserved to lawyers under Article 1 of Law 8.906 of 1994, the Statute of Advocacy and of the Brazilian Bar Association. The enterprise terms repeat this at clause 3.5. Clause 4.4.2 says no AI feature substitutes for a qualified lawyer. Clause 4.8 says the platform neither encourages nor performs client or case solicitation, repeated at clause 10.1(iii). The assistant for people who are not lawyers is fenced at clause 6.2.1 as informational and educational, never an opinion or legal advice, and clause 6.3.2 disclaims any role in fee negotiation. User published content is bound at clause 10.3(iv) to the Statute and to the Brazilian Bar Association's Code of Ethics and Discipline. Clause 2.2 requires a valid Bar registration number for users who identify as lawyers, and clause 2.2.1 gates some features on validating it. The enterprise terms gate features on the client nominating users registered with the Brazilian Bar Association.
Reports, charts, decision classifications and statistics are generated automatically, may contain errors, are not exact predictions, and are only a guide, under Turivius's terms, and the product framing repeats that users review and finalize. The terms limit use of the database and outputs to conducting and analyzing legal proceedings. They expressly bar marketing, campaign targeting, profiling people, candidate selection, passing data to third parties and business intelligence, and any use that conflicts with why the public data was released, invades privacy or discriminates. Turivius publishes analyses of Brazilian courts sanctioning lawyers for fabricated citations, and a guide to validating legal AI, linking its product to the duty to verify. Who may use the product, any supervision or competence duty, a jurisdiction limit and any rule of professional conduct are not stated, though the corpus is wholly Brazilian.
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.
A practice is described, and no governance framework stands behind it. Legal specialists supervise the assistant continuously, stated repeatedly and at clause 5.2 of the terms of use. The product FAQ says new features are tested and evaluated before release, and asserts internal audits and access controls. The published comparative evaluation is covered under citation accuracy. No governance framework or standard is claimed for the AI, including ISO 42001, and nobody is named as accountable for the assistant's behavior. No bias, fairness or representativeness disclosure exists. That gap matters here: the database is built from court and official gazette material that the privacy policy says may contain sensitive personal data, including religious, political or sexual orientation, philosophical beliefs, participation in political or social movements, and health or genetic information. Nothing published addresses whether outputs drawn from that material reproduce patterns in it. No model card, evaluation protocol or red team result is published.
ISO 42001, ISO 27001 and ISO 27701 marks and a DPO as a Service arrangement appear on Turivius's About page, under a heading about commitment to the highest standards of security, privacy and AI governance. ISO 42001 is the standard for AI management systems. The marks have no scope, certificate number, certifying body, dates or report. There is no responsible AI or ethics page, no AI policy or acceptable use position, and no accountable owner for model behavior. The DPO arrangement is a data protection role, not AI governance. No testing regime or evaluation result is described, and bias is not addressed, although the Jurimetria Agent predicts outcomes and success rates by court and rapporteur and nothing shows whether those predictions are even across courts, regions or parties.
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.
Substantive published policy covers most of the ground, with no named subprocessors and no breach notice. A corporate information security policy for the security management system, version 1.0 dated 20 January 2026 and issued by the GRC and Security function, is published with a downloadable PDF. It commits to risk treatment, incident management and continuity, vulnerability treatment by impact, monitoring and audit of information assets, awareness training and senior management accountability. In the privacy policy, clause 8.1.2 limits employee and third party access to what is necessary, under instruction and contractual confidentiality. Clause 8.3 holds Jus IA inputs and outputs in a separate database, clause 8.3.1 discards voice biometrics after transcription, clause 8.3.3 deletes Jus IA data on account deletion, and clause 8.3.5 deletes a conversation from the platform and internal databases when the user deletes it. Clause 9.1 discloses transfer abroad. No subprocessor or cloud provider is named, no breach notification to customers is committed, and encryption is not specified.
Site access records, meaning IP address with date and time, are kept for six months. Everything else is kept only while needed for the stated purposes, or where law or a legitimate interest requires. Users can request deletion, subject to legal retention. Only authorized staff with a need can reach data, and server access runs through authorized channels and is logged. Data is encrypted at rest, passwords are hashed, and traffic uses TLS. Subprocessors are named: Amazon AWS for hosting, Mixpanel, Hotjar, Google Analytics and PostHog for analytics, and Mercado Pago, Stone, Pagar.me and PagSeguro for payments. No breach notice commitment, window or incident response description is published. The policy allows user data to be used in AI models to personalize and improve the service, and reserves anonymized aggregate data for other reasonable commercial uses.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The allocation is published in full, can be read before signing, and runs almost entirely one way. Clause 4.2 provides the platform as is and reserves the right to withdraw or change it. Clause 5.6.2 gives no guarantee of the results of applying platform information in legal practice. Clause 10.2 lists seventeen exclusions of liability, including missed procedural deadlines, errors in court information, discrepancies with official bodies, the user's use of platform information and, at (xiii), all direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive and consequential loss, including lost profits and moral damages. Clause 10.3(iii) has the user indemnify Jusbrasil, its affiliates, directors and employees for any loss from use of the platform. Clause 5.4.3 disclaims responsibility for any breach of professional secrecy. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level or insurance position is given to the customer. The enterprise terms repeat the exclusions, also with no cap. Clause 3.4.1 gives a seven day refund right, and twelve prior versions of the agreement are published. On the published terms, the lawyer bears the loss.
Turivius's terms say it collected and processes a large body of public court decisions, related data and legal doctrine, which may include personal data. Turivius takes full and exclusive responsibility for the legality of that database and its use, and for title, originality and any breach of third party secrecy, intellectual property or image rights, relieving the user of responsibility; that is a vendor warranty, with a hold harmless, on supplying collected court data. Turivius and its affiliates, partners and staff are not liable in any case for damage from use of the jurimetric outputs, including outcomes that differ from predictions, nor for any direct or indirect, material or moral damage, including lost profit, from using or being unable to use the platform. No liability cap, service level or insurance is stated, and no warranty covers AI output.
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.
A developer surface exists and is documented, and no legal practice system is named. The enterprise arm sells its solutions by API, as clause 1.1 of its terms states, with a documentation link in the enterprise site navigation and footer and a separate API product line. The consumer terms at clause 2.5.2 treat unauthorized API access as illegitimate, which confirms that authorized access exists. Two lighter routes are described: browser extensions, and a WhatsApp path for sending files and audio into Jus IA. No document management system, case management platform, word processor, email client or electronic signature product is named, no integrations page or partner directory is published, and nothing describes what moves in which direction.
None of the systems legal work already runs on connects to Turivius. Its navigation and footer show no integrations page, developer or API documentation, connector list or authentication model, and no practice management, document management, billing or CRM system used by Brazilian firms is named. Projects hold files and saved decisions inside the platform, documents are uploaded rather than synced, and web search brings legislation and doctrine into the platform rather than sending anything out. The one outbound provision is contractual: users may present platform reports to third parties, individually and in their original format. Nothing describes exporting structured data, and the terms bar running any program to scrape or index the platform.
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.
Residency and tenancy are both addressed, and neither in detail. Clause 9.1 of the privacy policy states that personal data of users and of people named in proceedings may be stored on servers outside Brazil, including in the United States, under cloud storage contracts with companies operating data centers there. Clause 9.2 commits to appropriate contractual arrangements. For a Brazilian buyer handling Brazilian matters, that is an adverse disclosure, stated plainly. On tenancy, clause 8.3 holds Jus IA information in a database separate from the platform's other bases, and clause 8.3.4 uses a user's inputs and outputs only within that user's environment. Clause 4.1.5.2 adds that public data and data entered by users are not combined into one base. No region choice, hosting only in Brazil, single tenant or self hosted arrangement, or named cloud provider is published, and nothing separates where processing happens from where data is stored beyond the transfer statement.
Data storage exclusively in Brazil, on trusted infrastructure, is one of three security commitments on Turivius's home page, alongside full LGPD compliance and encrypted traffic. The privacy policy says data is stored on external servers, for example Amazon AWS. Nothing says whether a firm's uploads and collections sit in a shared or isolated environment, and no on premises or private option is offered or refused. The commitment covers storage, while the AI sends prompts and uploaded documents to GPT, Claude or Gemini, none of them Brazilian services. Nothing says where AI processing runs or whether anything leaves Brazil to generate an answer.
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 real security governance document is published, and no certification is held or claimed. The enterprise site publishes a Política de Gestão Integrada for the information security management system, with a downloadable PDF, a version number, a creation date of 20 January 2026 and GRC and Security as the owning function. It states that the system is built to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and sets directives on confidentiality, integrity and availability, unauthorized access, monitored use of assets, incident management and continuity, vulnerability and risk treatment, training and senior management accountability. It applies to employees, interns and third parties. It does not claim the certification: its opening calls ISO/IEC 27001 certification a strategic objective of the security function. No certificate, auditor, SOC report, audit period, scope statement, penetration test result or trust center is published.
A heading about commitment to the highest standards of security, privacy and AI governance sits over ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and ISO 42001 marks and a DPO as a Service arrangement on Turivius's About page. No certificate number, certifying body, dates, certified scope, audit record or report is published by any route, and there is no trust center, security page or compliance page. The heading speaks of commitment to standards, not certification, so whether audits were completed is not stated. The home page asserts LGPD compliance, storage only in Brazil and encrypted traffic, and the privacy policy describes access controls, logging, encryption and hashed passwords; those are Turivius's own statements, not independent attestation.
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.
The supply chain is partly disclosed, and the disclosed part is the vendor's own model, not the third party ones. The vendor's launch material says that alongside established third party models it has its own foundational model trained on its legal database, developed with Maritaca AI, a Brazilian company that adapts language models to particular domains and languages. Trade press quoting the vendor names the partner model as Sabiá. So one supplier and its model are named. The rest are not. Clause 4.1.5 of the privacy policy refers to the third party language models behind Jus IA without naming one, clause 5.4.1 of the terms refers to partner companies providing language processing without naming one, and clause 8.4 says AI features may depend on third party models subject to their own policies. The record shows who built the specialized model, not whose general models process a user's inputs. No commitment to notify customers of changes is given, and no subprocessor list exists.
GPTuri offers GPT, Claude and Gemini in one interface, and the buyer picks one for each task. Turivius describes each: speed and versatility for everyday analysis, deep reasoning for complex work and long contracts, and long context across several documents. All three read the same corpus of more than 130 million decisions. The privacy policy names Amazon AWS for hosting. No model version is named, and the provider companies behind the product names are never written out. Nothing says where inference runs, despite the promise to store data only in Brazil, what any provider may keep of a prompt or uploaded document, or whether customers are told of changes.
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.
Pricing is published with the unit of charge, the figures, the limits and the terms, without a sales conversation. Three tiers have regular monthly prices: Essencial at R$78.90, Profissional at R$108.90 and Premium at R$208.90, each shown against a promotional first month rate, with monthly and annual billing and an annual saving of up to 33 percent. The unit of charge is the AI message: 30, 150 and unlimited a month. A table sets seven further limits per tier, including document uploads of 10, 50 and unlimited a month, file sizes of 10MB, 50MB and unlimited, and doctrine access of 3 works a month then unlimited. The agreement sets the commercial terms: automatic renewal at clause 3.4, cancellation at any time with benefits to the end of the paid cycle, a seven day refund window at clause 3.4.1, and no lock in where no minimum period is set at clause 3.4.2. An enterprise route for firms, companies and public institutions is named, with payment by boleto. The page title states a first month from R$9.90, while the body shows R$1.90 for all three tiers.
Two environments are named and described: Turivius Clássica for case law, jurimetrics and knowledge management, and GPTuri+ for AI research, documents and jurimetrics, sold separately with separate logins. The terms set the mechanics. The subscription is monthly and renews every thirty days. The license is personal and not transferable, and password sharing is banned and grounds for suspension. Cancellation takes effect at the end of the paid month, with no refund. Turivius may change the price at any time, but guarantees the rate in force on the first day of the current billing month. No price is published. The terms send the reader to the site or to email for prices, and every purchase path, including the create an account button, leads to a demo booking form with client logos and no rate card. No entry price, price range, per seat rate or minimum is published, and enterprise deals are contracted separately.
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.
Coverage is described in real numbers across one jurisdiction, and the limits are unstated. The vendor publishes more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals, a base of more than 1.2 billion documents updated daily, and collections for case law, legislation, doctrine of more than 1,900 works, filed pleadings and community models. Practice areas are the whole of Brazilian law, not a named list. Buyers are named across two arms: individual lawyers and law students on the consumer platform, and law firms, corporate legal departments, companies and public institutions through the enterprise arm, which has pages for each. Professional features require Bar registration. No depth or lag is given per tribunal, nothing says which courts are covered in full text rather than summary, and no practice area or matter type is named as out of scope. The jurisdiction is implied by the sources, not stated.
For law firms, Turivius offers faster research, more relevant results, organized theses and collections, and quicker delivery to clients. For in house teams it offers more reliable data, clearer reporting for the business, less routine work and faster internal answers. Named customers cover both: Deloitte, Tozzini Freire and Machado Meyer on the firm side, and Nestlé, Gerdau, Suzano, BASF, Unimed and BTG Pactual in house. Coverage is stated as more than 100 Brazilian courts and more than 130 million decisions, updated daily, and jurimetrics is said to cover the main areas of law. No practice area is named as supported or not. Nothing says which courts or years the corpus reaches, whether coverage differs between the two environments, or whether the Jurimetria Agent covers the whole corpus. Coverage is Brazil only, though this is never stated as a limit.
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 prohibition sits in the agreement. Clause 1.3.1 of the privacy policy makes the policy part of the terms of use, and clause 1.2 of the terms makes accepting it a condition of use, so its clause 4.1.5 is a contractual term. That clause says data is not used to train proprietary models, giving the third party language models behind Jus IA as the example, but is used to improve the service as a whole. Three qualifications come with it.
First, the vendor has also built its own foundational model with Maritaca AI, and nothing published says whether the prohibition reaches that model. Second, clause 5.4.2 of the terms lets the vendor use shared information for research, quality analysis and development of Jus IA; with clause 4.1.5 this reads as an improvement right with training carved out, but it is wide and not limited to deidentified or aggregated content.
Third, clause 4.1.5.2 lets Jusbrasil access inputs and outputs to validate quality and improve accuracy. These are the terms of use of 1 September 2026 and the privacy policy of 22 June 2026.
Among its stated purposes, Turivius's privacy policy lists using user data in AI models, to personalize the platform, analyze its use and improve the services. A second clause lets Turivius anonymize data submitted to the platform and use or share it in aggregate for other reasonable commercial purposes, without identifying anyone. On a product where lawyers upload contracts, pleadings and case files, that data is client material.
The Terms of Use contain no AI clause, so no contract term matches the policy. The Terms date from 21 September 2020 and the privacy policy from 27 July 2023, while GPTuri launched in 2025, so the only sentence that reaches model training is a permission written before the product existed.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls retention and can reach zero, item by item rather than as a setting. Clause 8.3.5 of the privacy policy says the user may delete conversations and the personal data in them, including inputs, outputs and attachments, in the Jus IA chat, and that the deletion reaches the platform and the company's internal databases. Clause 8.3.5.1 does the same for a grouped case, and clause 8.3.3 deletes Jus IA information when the account is deleted.
What the customer cannot do is set a period. Without deletion, clause 8.3 holds inputs, documents, outputs, feedback and pleadings for as long as needed for the service, internal analysis and later legal obligations, with no number given. One narrower commitment is firmer: under clause 8.3.1, voice recordings are held only for transcription, after which voice biometrics are discarded and only the text remains.
The one retention figure Turivius gives is for site access records, IP address with date and time, kept six months under Brazil's Civil Rights Framework for the Internet. Everything else is kept as long as needed for the stated purposes, for periods set by law, or while Turivius has a legitimate interest. The assistant takes contracts, pleadings, notices and expert reports, and Projects are built to keep files, saved decisions and analyses for later conversations, with no period given.
No deletion at termination or duty to export or return is published. Deletion is only a data subject right on request, and Turivius may keep material where law or its own legitimate interest applies. Nothing says what the three model providers may keep of a prompt or upload.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product keeps its own documented separation model, and it works at the level of the user, not the matter or firm. Clause 8.3.4 of the privacy policy says Jus IA runs separately from the platform's other databases and uses a user's inputs and outputs only within that user's environment, without giving them to a third party or another user unless the information is public. Clause 8.3 holds Jus IA material in a separate database, and Jusbrasil's FAQ says internal controls stop one user reaching another's personal information.
Inside an account, workspaces group conversations by theme, client or case number, and each new conversation draws on its workspace's history. Nothing inherits an access model from a document or case management system, since none is integrated. Nothing addresses walls between users in one organization. Clause 2.6 treats the account as individual and not transferable, plans with several users do not say what one login can see of another's work, and the enterprise terms leave user nomination to the client without describing separation.
Access claims concern Turivius's own staff: data is confidential, only authorized Turivius staff with a need can reach it, and server access runs through authorized channels and is logged. On the customer side, where a company or firm buys the platform for its staff, the employer may see a user's profile data, defined broadly enough to include search history and platform use, and colleagues may see name, photo and email.
Nothing describes walls between matters, clients or users within an organization. Projects group files, decisions and analyses by case or client, but nothing says whether a Project is private, visible to the administrator or shared, or how access is granted or withdrawn. No roles, permission levels or conflicts handling are published.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Compelled disclosure is addressed in three clauses, and customer notice appears in none. Clause 5.2.2 of the privacy policy reserves the right to share any personal data the vendor believes necessary to meet a legal obligation or authority orders, or to protect its own rights, including responses to judicial requests. Clause 4.1.13 restates this for judicial orders, search warrants and subpoenas where the vendor believes in good faith that it is necessary.
Clause 5.3.2 covers Jus IA material: inputs and outputs are confidential and will not be shared with the public save under a court order. No commitment to tell the customer, reservation of discretion over notice, undertaking to seek a protective order or narrow production, or transparency report is published. The threshold is broad, reaching what the vendor believes necessary to protect its own rights, not only what is legally compelled. No law enforcement guidelines page is published on either domain.
Disclosure under a court order is allowed by Turivius's privacy policy, limited to where disclosure is legally required, needed to comply with Brazilian law, or expressly authorized by the user. The access records Turivius must keep by law go to third parties only with the user's express permission or under a court demand. Neither rule mentions notice: nothing says the customer or user would be told of a demand, given a chance to object, or told afterward, and there is no transparency report or law enforcement guidelines page.
The Terms of Use say nothing on legal process. Separately, the policy treats user data as a company asset that may pass to a buyer in a sale or merger, with consent taken as given by the policy itself.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The primary law sources are named, the access basis is stated, and the update cadence is published. The enterprise terms define the original sources as official gazettes and the websites of state and federal courts, plus data from other public sources such as the federal revenue service, collected through partner suppliers. The consumer terms say the same at clause 4.10. Clause 4.6 describes the platform as a locator and indexer with no editorial control over reproduced content, and clause 4.6.1 limits its changes to formatting, language simplification and standardization.
Clause 2.3.4.1 of the privacy policy identifies the material as documents publicly available in the official gazettes and court systems. The base is updated daily. The enterprise terms assert sole and exclusive intellectual property in the compiled database. Two gaps remain. No license basis is stated for the doctrine collection of more than 1,900 works, which are copyrighted publications, not public law. And user pleadings and models are assigned, not licensed: clause 9.4 takes an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, unpaid assignment of the economic rights in them.
Turivius's terms say it collected and processes a large body of public data on legal proceedings: first instance judgments, appeal decisions and other rulings, related data, legal doctrine, and data gathered by Turivius or its partners, which may include personal data. Turivius takes full and exclusive responsibility for the legality of that database and its use, and for title, originality and any breach of third party secrecy, intellectual property or image rights, relieving the user of responsibility.
Another clause says it exercises no editorial control, only organizing and reproducing public data, with no warranty on quality or content. The corpus rests on public availability, not on any named agreement with a court or publisher. No supplier or partner is named, nothing says on what basis third party doctrine is included, and nothing says whether that basis extends to processing the corpus with outside AI models.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and the nearest mechanism answers a different question. At the end of each response, every citation of legislation, case law, súmula, portaria or other normative content is checked against the Jusbrasil base, and references that are not found or need attention are flagged, with links to each source. That checks whether an authority exists, not whether it still stands.
Nothing says whether a decision has been reversed, vacated, distinguished or superseded, whether a súmula has been revised or canceled, or whether a statute remains in force, and no treatment flag, currency indicator or licensed citator is described. Daily updates keep the collection current without telling a user that a particular judgment has been overtaken. Whether a cited position reflects the court's prevailing view is discussed only as a research technique in platform content, not as a product feature.
No check of whether authority is still good law appears on Turivius's site, terms, privacy policy or blog. Its analysis is statistical, not about treatment. Jurimetrics reports success rates, the most cited grounds, divergences between courts and how individual rapporteurs rule, and the Jurimetria Agent finds subtheses across up to 500 decisions and returns trend charts and outcome predictions. Divergence between courts describes how a question is decided in different places, not whether a decision was overruled or superseded.
No flag, treatment status or currency signal of any kind is published. Its terms say it exercises no editorial control over the database and gives no warranty on its quality or content. Whether the precedent the assistant picks for lawyers is current is not addressed.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Refusal grounds are documented in the agreement, and the uncertainty half is not. Clause 5.2.3 of the terms reserves the right to stop use or decline questions from anyone using Jus IA outside its stated purposes of legal research, document creation and analysis of documents and references. Clause 5.2.2 adds that because third party technologies and their policies may apply, the vendor may decline prompts that could conflict with those policies or the terms, so upstream model policies shape refusals.
Clause 5.6.4 lists what users may not attempt, naming prompt injection, prompt leaking, jailbreaking and data extraction, and categories of content the system will not produce. Nothing describes what the assistant does when it cannot ground an answer in the database, whether it declines rather than generating, or whether any confidence or coverage signal is shown. The citation flag covers references the assistant could not find. No demonstration, evaluation or result of refusal behavior is published.
When the system cannot give a reliable answer, nothing says what it does. Every answer is built on its own corpus, with the cited decision available in full, and Turivius says the aim is answers that can be checked rather than trusted blindly. The terms say automatic reports and classifications may contain errors, are not exact predictions and are only a guide. Nothing says the assistant declines a question it cannot ground, reports that it found no supporting decision, shows a confidence signal or flags weak support, or that it acts differently when the Jurimetria Agent finds few or conflicting decisions; its outcome predictions come with no statement of when the evidence is too thin.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and Portuguese language reporting on the conduct as Brazilian courts describe it, record no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Jusbrasil or Jus IA as the source of a fabricated citation. Brazilian decisions sanctioning lawyers for invented case law and doctrine exist, and none names this product. A Santa Catarina matter appears alongside Jusbrasil in coverage only because the vendor's launch material cites it as the risk its citation validation is meant to prevent.
The vendor publishes a citation check against its database and a blind evaluation whose reliability criterion measures hallucination.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case naming Turivius or GPTuri, and no decision, sanction or disciplinary referral naming them appears in Brazilian legal press or court reporting on fabricated citations produced with AI. Brazil has an active body of such cases. In March 2026 the Sixth Panel of the Superior Labor Court fined a telecommunications company and its lawyer for bad faith, after case law that does not exist was cited and caught by the judge's own chambers.
Others include a Santa Catarina State Court appeal with false precedents and signs of AI use, federal regional court fines with one referral to the Brazilian Bar Association, a Minas Gerais labor court fine over an invented binding summary, and a labor court treating an unverified AI drafted petition as procedurally nonexistent. Those cases involve general purpose assistants, not legal platforms. Turivius publishes its own analysis of several of them on its blog, prepared using GPTuri. This is a statement about the public record of fabricated legal citations in filings, not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Professional responsibility is engaged in general terms, and no bar guidance on AI use is named. On AI, clause 4.4.2 of the terms says no AI feature substitutes for a qualified lawyer and the user must review or consult one. Clause 5.2.1 says responses may contain errors and places verification on the user, including before a public body. Clause 6.2.1 fences the assistant for people who are not lawyers as informational only, and enterprise clause 4.3.2 makes validating AI generated content a client duty.
None of that names an ethics opinion, a bar resolution or a regulator's guidance on lawyers' use of AI. Named bar authority does appear elsewhere: clause 10.3(i) binds user published articles to Law 8.906 of 1994 and the Brazilian Bar Association's rules, clause 10.3(iv) names its Code of Ethics and Discipline, and clause 4.8 addresses client solicitation. Those govern advertising and solicitation, not AI use. The vendor also ran a 1,500 respondent survey on AI in law jointly with the São Paulo section of the Brazilian Bar Association, which is research, not guidance applied to the product.
Turivius's terms say automatic reports, charts and classifications may contain errors, are not exact predictions and are only a guide, and limit use of the database to conducting and analyzing legal proceedings. They bar profiling, candidate selection, marketing, business intelligence, transfer to third parties, and any use that conflicts with why the public data was released, invades privacy or discriminates. Turivius publishes analyses of Brazilian courts sanctioning lawyers for fabricated citations, including referrals to the Brazilian Bar Association, with its own guide to validating legal AI, and links its product to the duty those cases create.
No provision of the Brazilian Bar Association's statute or ethics code is cited, no opinion or resolution of the association is referenced, and no court guidance is mapped to the product. The association appears only as a body to which other lawyers were referred.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Time savings are marketed to the lawyer, and nothing addresses the client's bill. The product is sold to advogados and law firms, and its outputs are the research and pleadings those lawyers bill for. The product pages promise legal research in minutes, hours of manual searching saved and less time to produce pleadings, and report more than 4 million pleadings written through the assistant. No published material addresses billing, fee treatment or client disclosure.
Nothing tells a firm how to treat an hour that became ten minutes, no record of AI assisted work for each matter is offered, and no guidance on telling clients about AI assistance is published. The agreements cover what the user pays Jusbrasil, at clause 3 of the terms, and never what the user's client pays the user. The vendor engages professional responsibility carefully elsewhere, drawing the unauthorized practice line by statute and gating features on Bar registration, so this is a specific gap.
Turivius publishes nothing on what happens to the bill when AI cuts the time a task takes. It is sold to law firms and in house teams, so it sits inside the fee relationship; its pitch to firms is faster research and quicker delivery to clients, and its one figure is up to 70 percent time saved in analysis, which is lawyer time that Brazilian firms bill. No record of AI work for each matter is described, nothing marks output as machine generated for billing, no fee or disclosure guidance is published, and nothing says whether the cost may be passed to a client.
The terms publish the subscription mechanics, monthly and renewing every thirty days with no refund, which lets a firm assign platform cost to a period but says nothing about the client's bill.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The forwardable material sits behind an executed agreement, not on a page. Enterprise clause 2.1.2 says personal data is processed under a data processing agreement executed with each client and not published; clauses 1.2 and 1.2.1 name the service contract and the organizations contract as the instruments a client signs. A firm can obtain a processing agreement, but only after a commercial conversation. No subprocessor list exists on either domain.
The privacy policy describes categories of suppliers and names none, and no cloud provider is named, although clause 9.1 discloses storage outside Brazil. On models, Maritaca AI is named as the partner behind the vendor's own model, while the third party models behind Jus IA are not named, so a firm can answer half of a client's question about whose model sees its content. The enterprise site footer also publishes an Aviso de Privacidade and a Guia de Boas Práticas.
GPT, Claude and Gemini are available in one interface, Turivius's product page says, with the buyer choosing one per task and all three reading the same corpus, so a firm can tell its client which model families process its work. The privacy policy names Amazon AWS for hosting, Mixpanel, Hotjar, Google Analytics and PostHog for analytics, and Mercado Pago, Stone, Pagar.me and PagSeguro for payments. No data processing addendum, consent or notice pack, or other client facing document is published.
The model naming sits on a marketing page, not a disclosure document; it gives no provider company, version, or statement of what any provider may keep, and is never squared with the promise to store data only in Brazil.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No public material offers a record of AI assisted work that a lawyer could put before a court, though the vendor has considered the scenario. Clause 5.2.1 of the terms makes the user entirely responsible for use of Jus IA, including where outputs are used before a public body. That allocates the risk and stops there. Conversations are stored and can be grouped by client or case number, and clause 5.4 records that questions, uploaded documents and chat history are kept, but none of it is offered as an exportable account of what the AI did.
Nothing records which model produced an output, what it retrieved or what a person verified before use, and no certification, template or guidance on standing orders is published. The citation validation panel checks the answer rather than recording the process and is not described as exportable.
Disclosure of AI involvement in legal work has no Turivius feature behind it. The terms let users present platform reports to third parties, individually and in their original format, so a jurimetric report can be put before a court, but nothing says a report is marked as machine generated or records which model produced it or when. There is no audit trail of AI use, no record for each query or matter, no certification template, and no guidance on disclosing AI help to a court or client.
Brazilian courts have sanctioned lawyers for filings with fabricated citations and treated an unverified AI drafted petition as procedurally nonexistent.
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.
- Good Law Verification
- Court Disclosure Support
In summary
Jusbrasil
Jusbrasil, operated by Goshme Soluções para a Internet Ltda. of Salvador, Bahia, is Brazil's largest legal information platform, indexing more than 1.2 billion documents from official gazettes and courts. Its assistant, Jus IA, launched in March 2025, handles legal research, drafting of pleadings and reference analysis. It runs on its own model built with Maritaca AI alongside third party models, and checks each citation against the corpus. According to the AI Legal Index, Jusbrasil published a blind evaluation in which 48 Brazilian lawyers scored Jus IA against ChatGPT and Gemini, and it publishes prices from R$78.90 a month. Its terms name the Brazilian advocacy statute and bar training on user data.
Turivius
Turivius, from Turivius Portais de Conteúdo Ltda of Florianópolis, founded in 2019, is a Brazilian legal intelligence platform. It combines case law research, jurimetrics and generative AI over more than 130 million decisions from over 100 courts. Its GPTuri assistant lets the user choose GPT, Claude or Gemini per task, answers with cited decisions, reads uploaded documents and runs a Jurimetria Agent for outcome analysis. The AI Legal Index records named clients including Nestlé, Deloitte and Machado Meyer, data stored in Brazil, and ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001 marks. It is sold as a monthly subscription through a demo booking.
Questions buyers ask
Jusbrasil vs Turivius: which is better for Brazilian legal research?
Both document their products well, and they differ in what they lead with. Jusbrasil leads with a blind evaluation and citation checking, a statutory advice line and published prices. Turivius offers a choice of models, jurimetric analysis, named clients and storage in Brazil. Firms that want measured accuracy first can start with Jusbrasil's blind evaluation. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Jusbrasil check the citations Jus IA produces?
Yes, for existence. At the end of each response Jus IA checks every cited statute, decision, súmula or other normative content against the Jusbrasil corpus and flags references it could not find or that need attention, with a link to each source. Turivius cites its source decisions without an automatic check. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do Jusbrasil and Turivius train AI on user data?
Jusbrasil's privacy policy, which forms part of its terms, states that data is not used to train proprietary models but is used to improve the service. Turivius's privacy policy permits using user data in AI models to personalize the platform and improve its services. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where do Jusbrasil and Turivius store data?
Turivius states that data is stored exclusively in Brazil on AWS. Jusbrasil's privacy policy discloses that data may be stored on servers outside Brazil, including in the United States, through its cloud providers, with contractual safeguards. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Three points to weigh. Turivius's privacy policy permits using customer data in AI models to personalize and improve the service, and its terms date from 2020, before its AI assistant launched. Its ISO marks carry no scope, date or certifying body. Jusbrasil's terms place responsibility for any breach of professional secrecy on the user, and its no training clause does not say whether it reaches Jusbrasil's own model. Neither vendor reviewed this page.