JusticeText vs Matey: how they compare in 2026
JusticeText and Matey both help criminal defense teams work through discovery that arrives as video, audio and documents: JusticeText transcribes body camera footage, interrogations and jail calls into transcripts synced to the recording and answers questions across the evidence, and Matey's CrimD ingests a case's discovery, transcribes the media and answers questions with links back to the record. JusticeText sits in the top two bands on nine of fifteen axes and Matey on five of fifteen. JusticeText's lead is what its terms say about its output: machine transcripts are review aids that must be checked and must not be relied on directly as evidence, and the transcript marks passages where confidence is low. It also names where data sits, on AWS servers in the United States, and imports from Clio, Dropbox and other stores. Its terms also let it tune its own models on customer content; the no training promise on its product page covers third party models only. Matey publishes no product agreement, but it alone holds security attestations: a 2025 ISO 27001 certificate and a 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report, available through its trust center.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the engine of the core capability, on an evidence platform with substantial non-AI functions, which is the B band. Speech recognition produces the searchable, media-synced transcripts in more than 100 languages that the product leads with, and the MirandaAI assistant, summaries, key moments and PDF analysis are model work. Around them sits conventional evidence tooling that works without models: conversion of proprietary formats such as GTL jail calls and WatchGuard video, multi-camera syncing by capture time, and clipping, redaction and captioning for courtroom exhibits. Verified 18 September 2026.
The models are the product. CrimD's ingestion, automatic transcription of audio and video, classification of documents into folders on arrival, plain-language questions across the whole case, timeline building and document summaries are all model work, and the company describes the platform as a knowledge graph explored by AI. Without the models, what remains is a file viewer with video annotation. Verified 22 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Output is grounded in the source media and a failure condition is named with a visible behaviour, short of any measurement, which is the B band. Transcripts are time-synced to the original audio and video so any passage can be checked against the recording, and the product FAQ names the conditions under which transcription degrades, overlapping voices, static and background noise, and says the transcript clearly identifies areas of lower confidence so reviewers focus there. No accuracy figure is published, nothing describes how MirandaAI answers are grounded or cited, and the terms disclaim any warranty of transcript accuracy. Verified 18 September 2026.
Answers are tied to the case record. The home page says answers to questions are traceable to case evidence, and the product page says users can view and navigate directly to all supporting documents and citations; the August 2025 funding announcement adds that the platform reads and reasons through actual case materials rather than producing case law, with audit trails. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published, and the product page's claim that its summaries are superior to general language models carries no evidence. Verified 22 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
A named output carries a categorical constraint on use, with a review surface built in, which meets the A band on the categorical-constraint reading. The Terms of Service state that machine-generated transcriptions are tools to aid review, not authoritative records of events, that every transcription must be checked for accuracy by the user, and that users agree not to rely directly on system transcriptions as evidence in a court, arbitration, mediation or other formal proceeding or settlement negotiation. The product supports that check by flagging low-confidence passages and syncing text to the original media, and exhibits are clipped from the original video rather than the transcript. The constraint is specific to transcriptions: MirandaAI's timelines and inconsistency findings carry no equivalent stated limit, which is recorded so the grade is read correctly. Verified 18 September 2026.
Oversight rests on traceability alone. The product page describes deploying large numbers of AI agents across millions of documents, and the check it offers the lawyer is that answers and timelines link back to the supporting evidence; the funding announcement mentions audit trails. Nothing describes a review step, an override, a threshold at which the system defers to a person, or what its output may not be relied on for. Verified 22 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Named deployments with figures, short of any method, which is the B band. The vendor publishes case studies and rollout stories naming the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, the Santa Cruz County, Lane County, Travis County, Lehigh County and Siskiyou County defenders, Kansas Holistic Defenders, and private firms including Rossen Law and Nicholson Goetz & Otis, with attributed quotes from chief defenders in Harris County and Montana. Rossen Law says the product cut video review and trial preparation time by at least two-thirds. No figure states how it was measured, over what caseload or period. Verified 18 September 2026.
A named customer, with results stated only as testimony. A release of 23 September 2025 names the Michigan criminal defense firm Manley & Manley, PLLC as a user and quotes one of its trial attorneys on condensing 34,000 pages of discovery to 10 relevant pages and finding a body-camera statement during a cross-examination. The headline figures, 90 per cent faster discovery review and more than $40,000 saved per case, are attributed only to an unnamed public defender office or carry no customer, and no method is given. The site's other quotes are from an unnamed public defender and deputy director. Verified 22 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms while the agreement permits model tuning from customer content, which places this at C. The product page says data remains confidential, the customer controls access and deletion, content is encrypted on U.S. servers, and evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models. The Terms of Service contain no confidentiality clause protecting customer content; the content licence is limited to providing the service, but a separate Machine Learning clause authorises calibrating data models and improving algorithms in the course of processing user content. The privacy policy permits sharing de-identified aggregate data with research partners and funders. Nothing addresses privilege or defense work product, which is what public defenders' notes, tags and clips are. Verified 18 September 2026.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms. The security page promises the highest security standards, encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access, multifactor authentication and data anonymisation and masking, and the FAQ says the company has special agreements with Microsoft and other entities to ensure confidentiality, without saying what they provide. The agreement and platform privacy policy that govern the product are not published, and nothing public addresses training on customer data, which outside providers handle case material, or how privileged or work-product material is treated. Verified 22 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A clear position on what the output is and is not, with a defined audience, short of the supervision dimension, which is the B band. The terms state that transcriptions are review aids and not authoritative records, must be checked, and must not be relied on directly as evidence, and both the terms and privacy policy say JusticeText cannot answer requests for legal advice. The audience is attorneys, and the privacy policy collects each user's law licensing state. The terms disclaim any representation that the service is appropriate or lawful in a given location, including under court orders. Nothing addresses an attorney's competence or supervision duties when relying on MirandaAI analysis. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages, the website terms and privacy policy, and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. Nothing states what the product is and is not, that its answers and analysis are not legal advice, or how it supports a defense lawyer's supervision and competence duties; the agreement that governs the product is not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No governance position published on the vendor's own estate. Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. The product's Built for responsible review section covers data security only, and no responsible AI policy, testing regime or accountable owner was located. A vendor-authored submission hosted by MIT Solve acknowledges that speech recognition engines are less accurate on African American Vernacular English, which is the kind of uneven-output disclosure this axis looks for, but it is not on the vendor's estate and is not dated, so it is recorded and not credited. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located. The trust centre lists security and operational controls, and the funding announcement claims full explainability, but neither describes how the models are governed; the product analyses witness statements and body-camera footage, where uneven output would matter. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
A substantive published position covering most of the ground, short of a subprocessor list and a concrete incident commitment, which is the B band. The privacy policy states that information is stored encrypted on AWS servers in the United States and encrypted in transit, gives users a right to deletion completed in most cases within 30 days, and names categories of providers (hosting, transcoding, storage, databases, crash monitoring, payments) with AWS and Stripe named. The product page adds multi-factor authentication and single sign-on and says customers control access and deletion. Breach notification is promised only as required by law, the terms reserve retention and destruction under internal policies that are not published, and no full subprocessor list, including any AI or speech recognition provider, is given. Verified 18 September 2026.
Policies are listed by name rather than published. The trust centre shows that the company maintains a data retention and disposal policy, removes customer data on request in line with agreed customer requirements, keeps production data out of development and testing, and has an incident response plan and vendor risk management; the security page adds encryption, role-based access and data masking. The policies themselves, any retention period, any subprocessor list and any breach notification commitment are not published, and the website privacy policy expressly excludes the platform. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Liability is addressed only through limitations that disclaim the exposure the product creates, which is the C band. The terms provide the system as is, disclaim any warranty of transcript accuracy, disclaim liability for any legal action or court decision resulting from transcripts or machine learning output, cap liability at the amount paid or $100, and require users to indemnify JusticeText. No vendor indemnity or insurance position is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the website terms, the privacy policy, the FAQ and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. The agreement that governs the product is not published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an answer or timeline is wrong. The website terms cap liability at $100 but apply only to the website and say so. Verified 22 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Named connections exist, short of documented depth, which is the B band. The product page shows imports from Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box and the Clio practice management system, and the privacy policy describes the cloud storage integrations and Google API use. The platform also ingests the proprietary formats defense discovery arrives in, including GTL jail calls, For The Record courtroom recordings, AV Viewer and WatchGuard. What each connection moves, and whether results flow back to Clio or case management, is not documented. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the home page and the product, FAQ and security pages on 22 September 2026. The FAQ says the platform integrates seamlessly with existing legal software and supports various legal tools and databases, but no integration is named or described; evidence arrives by upload. Verified 22 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The hosting model and region are stated, with no options and no tenancy detail, which is the B band. The privacy policy states that information is stored in encrypted form on servers in the United States operated by Amazon Web Services, and the product page repeats that content is stored on encrypted U.S. servers. No tenancy model, deployment option or separate processing location for speech recognition or AI providers is stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the product, security and FAQ pages and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. No deployment option, hosting provider, region or residency is stated; the FAQ's reference to special agreements with Microsoft does not say where case data is stored or processed. Verified 22 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation located. Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy, and ran a targeted search for a JusticeText SOC 2 or CJIS statement, on 18 September 2026. The vendor describes encryption, multi-factor authentication and single sign-on but names no audit or standard, which matters for a product holding criminal discovery. Verified 18 September 2026.
Named, dated attestations with a request route. The trust centre, run on Secureframe with continuous control monitoring, offers a 2025 ISO 27001 certificate, the 2025 initial certification audit report and a 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 audit report on request, and lists controls across change management, availability, confidentiality, incident response, network and access security. The scope of the certification and of the audit is not stated, and the reports are available only on request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Third-party models are acknowledged without being identified, which is the C band. The product page says evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models, and the terms say third-party tools execute some functionality and may access user content. No speech recognition engine, language model or provider is named on any surface read, and no change notification is described. Verified 18 September 2026.
The models are described, not identified. The product page refers to the industry's most capable AI and a densely connected knowledge graph, and the FAQ mentions special agreements with Microsoft and other entities, but no model, provider, hosting location or change notice is named. Verified 22 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The pricing structure is described without figures, which places this at C. The Terms of Service describe monthly and annual subscriptions that renew automatically, usage limits on processing time that can block further processing until the next term, free initial access for a period or amount of usage, and no refunds. No price, rate or plan is published; access starts through an interest form. Verified 18 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the product, FAQ and about pages and the contact page links on 22 September 2026. No price, tier or unit of charge is published; the FAQ says only that CrimD was built to be affordable for individual criminal defense lawyers, and every route to a figure is a demo or sales request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The segment and evidence types are described with substance, short of the boundaries, which is the B band. The vendor serves public defender offices and private criminal defense attorneys, and covers body-worn camera footage, interrogations, jail calls, dashcam, courtroom recordings and written discovery, with transcription and translation in more than 100 languages and support for named proprietary formats. It does not state which jurisdictions it serves, which evidence types it handles poorly beyond noisy audio, or whether it is suitable for civil or prosecution use. Verified 18 September 2026.
The core buyer is clear: criminal defense, from individual defense lawyers and firms to public defender offices, with government agencies also named as users and an affinity partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The FAQ widens it to civil litigation, corporate law and forensic investigations, and the about page adds corporate legal departments and litigation funders, without saying how the product differs for them. No limits on case size, evidence type or jurisdiction are stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The published Terms of Service reserve a right to tune the vendor's own models using customer content, with no opt out located. The Machine Learning clause authorizes JusticeText to use machine learning to generate statistics, calibrate data models and improve algorithms in the course of processing uploaded content and usage data, and to test, tune, optimize, validate or otherwise enhance the models underlying the system.
The product page states that evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models; that statement is limited to third parties and does not address the vendor's own models.
The agreement and privacy policy that govern the platform are not published: the website terms and website privacy policy both say the platform is covered by separate customer agreements and an End User License Agreement, and neither appeared on the site or in a search on 22 September 2026. No public page states whether customer case data is used to train models.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls deletion of uploaded evidence. The product page says customers control access and deletion, and the privacy policy gives a right to deletion completed in most cases within 30 days, subject to legal retention and to de-identified usage data the vendor may keep. The terms also reserve retention and destruction under internal policies that are not published.
The trust center says that on customer request, data no longer needed is removed in line with requirements agreed with the customer, and that a data retention and disposal policy governs how customer data is kept and disposed of. The policy itself and any retention period are not published, and no zero-retention option is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Sharing is controlled by the user, with no published detail on how separation is enforced. The privacy policy says data and work product are shared with other users only on request or according to account preferences, such as with another member of the same office. Nothing documents how cases, attorneys or co-defendant matters are walled off within an office.
The security page lists role-based access control that restricts sensitive data to authorized personnel, and the trust center lists access controls. Nothing published describes how access is scoped between cases, matters or teams within a customer, or how it is enforced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Disclosure under legal compulsion is limited to what the law requires, and customer notice is not addressed. The privacy policy permits disclosure for compliance with law enforcement and court orders only to the extent required, and the terms allow disclosure to law enforcement on breach. Neither commits to telling the customer before or after disclosure, which matters for a product holding defense discovery and work product.
Checked the website terms, the website privacy policy, the security page and the trust center on 22 September 2026. The website privacy policy reserves sharing personal information with legal or regulatory authorities when required by law, but it expressly excludes the platform; nothing published addresses legal requests for case data held in the product.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. The AI works over the customer's own discovery rather than a legal research corpus, and no external legal source is described.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. The product works on the discovery each customer uploads, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The product does not cite legal authority, so no subsequent-history check arises and none is described.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. The product analyses case evidence rather than citing legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The transcript marks low-confidence passages, with no documented abstention path. The product FAQ says that for poor audio, overlapping voices and background noise the AI transcript clearly identifies areas of lower confidence so reviewers can focus there. Nothing describes what MirandaAI does when the evidence does not answer a question.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. Answers link to supporting evidence, but no confidence indicator or path in which the system declines to answer a question the evidence does not support is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from JusticeText. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Matey and for CrimD, and no recorded case was returned for either. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. No bar ethics opinion or court rule on AI is named or engaged in connection with the product.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages and the website terms on 22 September 2026. No material refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion; the affinity partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is a commercial relationship, not guidance.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product is bought mainly by public defender offices, where no client is billed for the work. Time savings are claimed as capacity for the office's own caseload. Private criminal defense firms also use it, where a fee relationship would arise, and nothing addresses billing or disclosure for that use.
The company claims 90 percent time savings on discovery review and more than $40,000 saved per case, and the home page quotes a deputy director on $30,000 of case setup labor replaced. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is billed or disclosed by the private defense firms that use it; public defender offices bill no client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Searched the terms, privacy policy and product pages on 18 September 2026. The privacy policy names AWS and Stripe and lists other provider categories, but no speech recognition or AI provider is named and no data processing agreement is published.
Checked the home page, the security page, the FAQ and the trust center on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list is published; the FAQ refers only to special agreements with Microsoft and other entities.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of a record exist, short of a disclosure export. Transcripts are time-synced to the original media with low-confidence passages marked, and courtroom exhibits are clipped from the original video with captions. The terms bar relying on the transcript itself as evidence. Nothing records which model produced a transcript, summary or MirandaAI answer, or who verified it.
Answers and timelines link back to the supporting evidence, and the company says the platform keeps audit trails. No export of a record showing the model used, the sources and the human check is described, and no disclosure guidance or template is published.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
- Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Which one fits
Choose JusticeText if
- Your discovery is mostly recordings in awkward formats. JusticeText converts GTL jail calls, WatchGuard video and other proprietary formats, syncs multiple camera angles by capture time, and produces searchable transcripts in more than 100 languages tied to the recording, with low confidence passages flagged for review.
- You need courtroom exhibits from the footage. JusticeText clips, redacts and captions exhibits from the original video rather than the transcript, which fits its terms: machine transcripts are review aids that must be checked and must not be relied on directly as evidence.
- You want evidence from offices like yours. JusticeText names the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy and defender offices in Travis, Santa Cruz and Lane counties among others, and imports evidence from Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box and Clio.
Choose Matey if
- Your county's security review needs certificates. Matey's trust center, run on Secureframe with continuous control monitoring, offers a 2025 ISO 27001 certificate and audit report and a 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report on request, and lists controls across access, incident response and confidentiality.
- Your discovery mixes scanned files, email archives, texts and video. Matey's CrimD ingests all of it, transcribes the media, sorts documents into your own folders on arrival, and lets you ask questions in plain language, build timelines and draft motion and trial outlines linked back to the evidence.
- You defend individual clients or run a small firm. Matey says CrimD was built to be affordable for individual criminal defense lawyers, is an affinity partner of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and names the Michigan defense firm Manley & Manley as a user.
In summary
JusticeText
JusticeText, from JusticeText Inc. of Irvine, California, is an evidence review platform built mainly for public defender offices. It transcribes body camera footage, interrogations, jail calls, dashcam and courtroom recordings into searchable transcripts synced to the media in more than 100 languages, and its assistant, MirandaAI, answers questions across a case's evidence to build timelines and spot inconsistencies. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on nine of fifteen capability axes, with an A on autonomy and oversight, because its terms bar relying on machine transcripts directly as evidence. It names the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy among its users. As of 18 September 2026 the index located no security certification, no named model provider and no published price.
Matey
Matey, from MateyAI, Inc. of Austin, Texas, sells CrimD, an AI discovery analysis platform for criminal defense that ingests scanned documents, email archives, text messages and body camera video, transcribes media, sorts documents into folders and answers plain language questions with links back to the evidence, including timelines and motion outlines. It sells to public defenders, private defense firms and government agencies, and is an affinity partner of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on five of fifteen capability axes, with an A on AI centrality. It offers ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 reports on request. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no product agreement, no named model provider and no price.
Questions buyers ask
JusticeText vs Matey: which is better for criminal defense discovery?
On published evidence JusticeText sits in the top two bands on nine of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Matey on five of fifteen. JusticeText publishes more about its product: how transcripts may be used, where data is stored and which systems it imports from. Matey publishes independent security attestations that JusticeText lacks, and handles large mixed document sets with plain language questions. Offices whose procurement starts with security certification have more to read from Matey.
Can JusticeText transcripts be used as evidence?
Not directly, under JusticeText's own terms. They state that machine generated transcripts are tools to aid review, not authoritative records, that every transcription must be checked by the user, and that users agree not to rely on them directly as evidence in court, arbitration, mediation or settlement negotiation. Transcripts are synced to the original media and flag low confidence passages, and exhibits are clipped from the original video. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does JusticeText train AI on defense evidence?
JusticeText's product page says evidence is never used to train third party machine learning models. Its terms separately authorize it to calibrate data models, improve algorithms and tune the models underlying its system in the course of processing customer content, so its own models may learn from uploads; no opt out was located. Matey publishes no position either way, because the agreement governing its platform is not public. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What security certifications do JusticeText and Matey hold?
Matey's trust center, run on Secureframe, offers a 2025 ISO 27001 certificate, the initial certification audit report and a 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 audit report on request; their scope is not stated. JusticeText describes encryption, AWS hosting in the United States, multi factor authentication and single sign on, but names no audit, certification or CJIS position. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do JusticeText and Matey both leave unpublished?
Whose models read the evidence. Neither names a speech recognition engine or language model provider, and neither publishes an accuracy figure for transcripts or answers. Neither publishes an AI governance position or testing for uneven output across speakers or dialects, which matters for body camera and jail call audio. Neither addresses privilege or defense work product, commits to telling a customer about a legal demand for its data, or publishes a price. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Two readings to weigh. JusticeText's terms let it use customer content to calibrate and tune its own models; its product page promise that evidence never trains third party models does not reach its own, and that is a published term a defense office should read before uploading. Matey's website terms and privacy policy say the platform is governed by customer agreements and an end user license that are not published, so its low grades on liability, training and professional responsibility record what is readable, not what a signed contract says. JusticeText was verified on 18 September 2026 and Matey on 22 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.