Law Ruler vs Lead Docket: how they compare in 2026
Law Ruler, part of ProfitSolv, and Lead Docket, part of Filevine, both manage intake for law firms that advertise at volume, from first contact to signed retainer. Law Ruler sits in the top two bands on nine of fifteen axes and Lead Docket on seven of fifteen, identical on seven. The difference is what each says about its AI. Law Ruler's AI drafts emails and intake forms through the OpenAI API, and Law Ruler states that OpenAI keeps that data thirty days and does not train on it. Lead Docket's LeadsAI does work with more at stake, scoring every lead for viability, yet it names no model and says nothing about how the score is derived. Law Ruler also publishes a usage rate card in its customer agreement. Lead Docket's counterweight is its agreement's data terms and its link into Filevine. Its agreement sets deletion thirty days after termination with written certification, and signed leads move into Filevine matters without rekeying. Neither publishes any security attestation.
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 a feature layer on a product whose value stands entirely without them. What a firm buys is the CRM, the pipeline, the softphone with local presence dialling, the drip campaigns and the marketing source reporting; the AI is an OpenAI API integration that drafts emails, replies and intake questionnaires. Three published facts settle the placement. The AI is included at no separate charge on every paid tier, so nobody pays for inference. An administrator can switch it off entirely under setup and global settings, and the product continues to do everything it is sold for. And it carries a rate limit of eighty messages per hour per user, which is the shape of an add-on rather than a mechanism. This is not the membership floor: the capability is real, shipped and usable today, which distinguishes it from a marketing claim that cannot be located. Checked 4 September 2026.
The models are the engine of the prioritisation capability and sit on an intake CRM that works without them. The AI functions are described in present tense and are specific: LeadsAI reads intake documents, generates automatic summaries of lead details, messages and notes, and surfaces a Lead Viability assessment on every lead the moment it opens. The product is now marketed as Lead Docket with LeadsAI and the home page leads with the reading and scoring rather than the pipeline. Underneath sits a lead management system that predates the AI and still delivers most of what buyers describe: capture from web forms and calls, automated follow-up emails and tasks, referral tracking with accept-and-reject templates and scheduled chasing, marketing source and ROI reporting, payment collection and native transfer into Filevine. Remove the models and a firm still has a working intake CRM, which is what keeps this off the top band. Checked 4 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.
Nothing published on accuracy or grounding, on a product whose own published prompt library invites legal analysis. The AI page carries no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation, no method, no description of how an output relates to any source, and no statement about hallucination in either direction. That matters more than it would on a pure marketing tool because the vendor's own sample prompts include asking for the key provisions of a named law or regulation, the potential risks and liabilities of a legal issue, and guidance on handling a legal situation. One phrase touches accuracy and is recorded so a reader who finds it sees it was weighed rather than missed: uploaded PDF, Word and JPEG files are said to inform requests and generate more accurate responses. That describes why to attach a file, not a position on accuracy, and crediting it would be crediting a fragment. Searched the AI page, the ChatGPT FAQ set, the home page, the pricing page, the integrations page, the terms of use and the privacy notice on 4 September 2026.
Nothing is published on the accuracy or the grounding of the assessments this product makes. Lead Viability decides which prospective clients a firm pursues and which it does not, and the marketing states that the AI knows the next best lead and that a team can see which cases are worth taking. No accuracy figure, no evaluation, no test set, no error rate and no statement of failure modes accompanies any of it. Nor is the grounding described: nothing says what the score is derived from, which fields or documents it reads, how a summary is tied back to the underlying message or note, or whether a user can see why a lead scored as it did. There is no accuracy page, benchmark page or research post on the estate, and the subscription agreement runs the other way, disclaiming all warranties of accuracy and providing the service as is with all faults. The consequence for a buyer is specific rather than abstract: an unexplained score that suppresses a viable claimant is invisible, because the firm never works that lead and never learns it was wrong. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 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.
Real review surfaces are published and the threshold at which the system acts alone is not. The drafting workflow puts a person in it explicitly, telling the user to review, send and move on, and the outputs are described as ready-to-send communications rather than sent ones. Three concrete controls exist: an administrator can disable the AI in global settings, the integration retains the last thirty messages so a user can review or clear the conversation, and a per-user hourly cap bounds throughput. Against that, the same page promises automated responses to new enquiries and instant response to every lead across channels, which cannot both be true of a system that always waits for review. Following the treatment for a vendor's own marketing statements conflicting with each other, the conflict is not itself the deduction: what it reveals is that the point at which the system sends without a person is never stated, and that unstated threshold is the limb this band commonly lacks. No confidence signal, no abstention behaviour and no supervision policy is published.
Oversight appears as an implication rather than a described control. The published account of the division of labour is that AI assesses every lead the moment it opens so the team knows which cases are worth taking, which implies a human decision at the end without describing one. No review step is specified, no threshold is stated, nothing says whether a low-scoring lead is deprioritised, or auto-dispositioned, and nothing addresses what happens when a score is wrong or how a user would find out. Real unattended automation runs alongside it and is marketed as the point: personalised emails and tasks fire automatically on capture, and AI-enhanced automations summarise information and follow up with potential clients, so the system communicates with prospective clients without a person in the loop. Against that the agreement allocates responsibility rather than describing controls, making the subscriber solely responsible for its own data entry and for maintaining its own deadlines, and disclaiming responsibility for misuse of the calendar. The band above requires a written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising human with real review surfaces, and no such commitment or surface was located.
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 customers at named firms, with roles, and no figures anywhere. Three testimonials repeat across the pricing and integrations pages with full attribution: Adam Smallow, Managing Partner of the Law Offices of Adam M. Smallow; Samantha Stone, Supervising Paralegal at Hansen and Rosasco LLP; and Jennifer Gore-Cuthbert, Founder and Owner of Atlanta Personal Injury Law Group Gore LLC. That is attribution rather than a logo strip, which is what lifts this off the band below. What is absent is measurement: no date sits on any of them, no case study is published, and the claims are qualitative, running to higher lead capture, eliminated data entry errors and better visibility of which marketing works. A Happy Clients page exists in the navigation and was not opened in this pass; it is named here so the limit is visible, and the grade rests on the attributed testimonials that were read rather than on it.
Named firms carrying figures, undated and without method. Four customers are named with attributed individuals: David Brauns of Brauns Law against 250,000 dollars a year saved in advertising costs; Kendall Knecht of Whitley Law Firm against a 49 per cent increase in converted leads, which also carries a dedicated case study; Ryan McKeen of Connecticut Trial Firm, cited as being named the tenth fastest growing firm in the country by Law Firm 500; and Joe Fantini of Rosen Injury Lawyers, who describes the product as the single most important software the firm has purchased. That is more than the band's own words contemplate, since the band describes a named customer without figures or figures without the named customer, and here both are joined on two of the four. It falls short of the band above on the two limbs that let a reader test a claim: nothing is dated, and no method is published for any figure, so the basis of the 49 per cent and the 250,000 dollars is unstated. One claim is not an outcome of the product at all and is recorded as such: a Law Firm 500 growth ranking is an award to the firm. A customers page and further case studies exist and were not opened in this pass.
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.
Substantive commitments a buyer can read before signing, with the segregation limb silent. Section 10 of the published Software Licensing Agreement defines Confidential Information to include any and all client and client related information, binds each party to use it only in performance of the agreement, restricts disclosure to those with a need to know under equivalent duties, and survives termination in perpetuity for client and client related information against five years for other non-technical material. Section 4 restricts Authorized Users to the subscriber's employees and contractors and states expressly that clients may not be Authorized Users. The model provider limb, which this band usually finds missing, is answered: the AI page states that documents pass through the OpenAI API, that OpenAI does not use API submissions to train its models, and that OpenAI retains API data for thirty days. What holds this at B is that no privilege or work product treatment appears anywhere, and that limb is required rather than inferable from a strong confidentiality regime. Nothing describes tenancy, matter level separation or a permission model.
Substantive commitments in a published agreement, with one clause pointing the other way and no privilege treatment. Section 2.8 commits Filevine to maintain administrative, physical and technical safeguards for subscriber data, not to disclose it except in accordance with the privacy policy or as expressly permitted in writing, and not to access it except to provide the service, address technical problems, or on the subscriber's request for support. Section 6 adds a mutual confidentiality regime surviving seven years, and section 6.4 requires third-party service providers to maintain confidentiality and bars them from using the information for any other purpose. Against that sits section 7.2, which reserves to Filevine a right to collect and analyse subscriber data and to use, store, copy, display and transmit it to improve and enhance the service and for other development purposes, and to use and share it in aggregate or de-identified form in its business, with that right surviving termination. Two limbs are missing. No privilege or work product treatment appears anywhere, on a product that holds prospective-client intake material where privilege attaches from first contact. And nothing describes separation between firms or matter-level walls inside a firm's own workspace.
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 real published position on the advice line, short of the supervision and competence dimension. Section 11.14 of the agreement states that Law Ruler Software is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice whatsoever, and that it is not providing legal advice or legal services by or through its website or by any other means. The closing words matter: this disclaimer reaches the software rather than stopping at the marketing site, which is the failure mode on several records in this corpus. The audience is limited contractually as well, with the recital defining the subscriber as a law firm authorised to provide legal services as defined by the state bar association where it is located, and section 4 barring clients from being Authorized Users, so there is no consumer facing surface. What is missing is everything past the disclaimer: no rule of professional conduct, no ethics opinion, no jurisdiction limit beyond a licence to display within the United States, and nothing on competence or supervision of AI output. The tension worth naming is that the AI page publishes sample prompts asking for the legal implications of a business decision and the risks and liabilities of a legal issue, which describe the product in advice terms; the agreement governs where the two conflict.
A real published position, undercut by the fact that its worked example belongs to a different product. Section 8.2 of the subscription agreement states in terms that Filevine is not a law firm or legal services provider and does not and cannot provide any legal advice, explanation, opinion or other recommendation, which is an express advice-line position a buyer can read before signing and is more than a marketing disclaimer. Section 8.5 adds a specific allocation on deadlines, making the subscriber solely responsible for its own calendar entries and for maintaining statutory deadlines. The limitation worth naming is scope. The operative sentence completes itself with contract strategy and the meaning of terms in any contract generated by the services, which describes Filevine's contract product rather than intake and lead scoring, so the clause that reaches this product does so through its general limb rather than its example. Nothing engages professional responsibility itself: no bar guidance, no rule of professional conduct and no ethics opinion is named, and nothing addresses a firm's obligations where an automated system communicates with a prospective client or where a viability score shapes who gets representation.
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 of any kind was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no management system, no named owner accountable for model behaviour, no pre-release testing regime, and nothing at all on uneven output across matter types or populations. The platform navigation and footer were inventoried across six pages on 4 September 2026 and carry no governance surface: the only policy documents published are the terms of use, the privacy notice and a disaster recovery procedure, none of which addresses model behaviour. The nearest statement is a security assurance about what OpenAI does not do with API data, which is a confidentiality commitment about a supplier rather than a governance framework, and it is graded on the confidentiality and supply chain rows instead of twice here. The absence is more consequential on a product whose users work Social Security disability, immigration and mass tort intake, where qualification logic decides which enquiries a firm pursues.
No governance position of any kind was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no accountable owner or function named, no pre-release testing regime and no management system on the surfaces read. Nothing addresses uneven output, and the omission is pointed rather than formal on this product: Lead Viability scores prospective clients and determines which of them a firm pursues, so any systematic tilt in that score falls on people seeking representation rather than on the buyer, and nothing published states whether the scoring has been tested for it or what it is derived from. The subscription agreement is silent on the subject throughout. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the full footer inventory on 4 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.
Unusually specific on continuity and effectively silent on the rest, with the privacy notice not reaching the product at all. The published disaster recovery procedure is the strongest artifact: hosting on Azure across regions, Azure Blob Storage redundancy for client documents, and exact restore schedules, with SQL server backups taken daily at 07:30 UTC, instant recovery snapshots held two days, daily points fifteen days, monthly points three months and an annual point one year, plus a runbook the team is trained on and rehearses in scheduled tabletop exercises. Exhibit B adds daily backups, a built-in export at no charge and a one-time full export within ten business days for 250 dollars. What is absent is the set that governs client data in normal operation. The privacy notice states in its first line that it applies solely to information collected by the website, so nothing published covers intake records, documents or prompts inside the platform. No retention period, no deletion certification, no subprocessor list and no breach notification commitment was located. A ProfitSolv-operated data request hub is linked in the footer and was not opened.
The agreement covers most of the ground and names no supplier. On retention and deletion it is unusually concrete: Filevine has no obligation to hold uploaded data files more than thirty days after termination, the subscriber elects within twenty days whether files are destroyed or returned in an agreed format, written certification of deletion is available on request, and retained copies are permitted only for archival, legal or regulatory purposes and for no other use. Migration copies are held ninety days and then hard deleted. On access, section 2.8 restricts Filevine's own access to providing the service, fixing technical problems and answering support requests. Incident practice is addressed obliquely through section 6.1, which requires prompt notice of any unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. Availability carries a 99.5 per cent monthly commitment. What is absent is the supplier picture: section 6.4 discloses that third parties perform hosting, backup and recovery, email delivery, customer service and data analysis, and names none of them, so a buyer knows the categories of company touching intake data and not their identities.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
A real published allocation of loss with scope, a cap and a carve out, and nothing that reaches the output. Section 8(b) runs an indemnity from the vendor to the subscriber, defending and holding it harmless against third party claims that its use of the service infringes a registered patent, trade secret, copyright or trademark, which is a genuine vendor-side obligation rather than the one-directional indemnity common in this lane. Section 9 caps liability at the aggregate paid in the twelve months preceding the event, excludes indirect and consequential damages, and expressly carves intellectual property infringement out of the cap, so a buyer can read the scope, the ceiling and the exception before signing. What keeps it off the top band is that none of it addresses the thing the product now does: section 7 provides the service as is and disclaims all warranties including fitness, there is no warranty on output of any kind, no insurance position was located, and the indemnity is confined to infringement rather than to a drafted communication being wrong. The whole instrument predates the AI feature in substance and never mentions it.
A real allocation of loss with a vendor-side indemnity and a warranty, short of anything reaching output. Section 8.1 warrants that the service will function in substantial accordance with its written specifications and documentation, with a remedy ladder ending in termination and a pro rata refund of prepaid fees, which is more than most agreements in this segment offer. Section 9.2 commits Filevine to indemnify and defend the subscriber against third-party claims that authorised use infringes United States patents of which Filevine is aware, copyrights or trade secret rights, with named carve-outs for combination with non-Filevine software and for trial subscriptions. Against that, section 8.2 provides the service as is with all faults outside the express warranty and disclaims accuracy expressly, and section 8.3 caps total liability at fees paid in the six months before the event, which is a shorter look-back than the twelve months this market usually writes, with claims barred after twelve months. Nothing addresses the exposure the AI creates: there is no warranty on the correctness of a viability score or a generated summary, no service credit and no insurance position.
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 logo wall with no documentation an implementer could use, and it is the stalest surface on the site. The integrations page was last modified 29 December 2023 while the rest of the estate carries 2026 dates, and it presents roughly thirty marks with no accompanying text: Tabs3, TimeSolv, CosmoLex and Rocket Matter among the sibling products, then HelloSign, Smith.ai, ApexChat, Gmail, Zapier, Twilio, Office 365, CallRail, Scorpion, Ngage, Thomson, Nolo and Lawyers.com alongside lead generation vendors. Nothing states what syncs, in which direction, on what trigger or what a firm must configure. The page also contradicts itself against its own metadata, describing dozens of integrations in the body while the page description claims hundreds, which is recorded because a reader who finds it unaided trusts the rest less. Two fragments of real depth exist elsewhere and are not enough to carry the band: the pricing FAQ says client data from contact and intake forms imports automatically into case management systems, and Exhibit B establishes an open API on all tiers with a request limit scaled to user licences and no API fee. A support knowledge base at support.lawruler.com was not opened and is the cheapest available upgrade on this record.
One integration described at the level of what it moves, and no implementer documentation located. The Filevine connection is native rather than a partnership: the subscription agreement defines the Filevine Services to include products delivered through filevine.com, leaddocket.com, getoutlaw.com and vinesign.com under one agreement, and the product material states that lead data transfers natively into Filevine to create a unified client record and eliminate double entry, with retainers and payments collected inside Lead Docket. That names both the counterparty and the object moved, which is what lifts this off the band below. Lead capture is described as reaching web forms, live chat and after-hours calls, and outbound SMS and email are sent from the platform, implying telephony and messaging connections that are never specified. What is missing is depth: no document management, calendaring or e-billing system is named, no API documentation was located on the surfaces read, and nothing states what fields map, in which direction, or what a firm must configure. A dedicated integrations page exists in the navigation and was not opened in this pass; it is named here as the limit and the grade rests on what was read.
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 is stated with the provider named, and tenancy is not addressed. The disaster recovery procedure states that the platform is hosted on Azure following their best practices, using regions to decentralise the location of stored data, with Azure Blob Storage redundancy for client documents and backups stored in a geographically redundant manner. A second region is identifiable rather than merely implied, since the same page schedules weekly backups for an Azure SQL Canada database. Exhibit B of the agreement adds that prices are for hosting at the vendor's United States based cloud provider unless otherwise specified, and section 1.1 licenses access and display within the United States. Tenancy is the missing limb: nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no dedicated or isolated option appears at any of the three tiers, and no region choice is offered to a buyer. The processing location for the AI feature is a separate gap, since documents are passed to the OpenAI API and no location is given for that leg. The residency material is also dated, sitting on a page last modified 23 January 2024.
Cloud delivery is settled and neither co-equal limb is stated. The subscription agreement defines the service as software-as-a-service delivered through named web properties, requires only a browser supporting HTTP/2 and TLS 1.2 or 1.3 at the customer end, and offers no on-premises or self-hosted option anywhere. Beyond that nothing was located. No statement says whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no dedicated or isolated option appears, no region is named for storage or processing, and no cloud provider is identified, with section 6.4 confirming that hosting is performed by unnamed third parties. The only geographic facts published are corporate and procedural rather than architectural: Utah governing law, exclusive venue and arbitration in Salt Lake County, and a Salt Lake City notice address. Those locate the company and the forum, not the data. Nothing in the material read addresses residency for a product holding intake records on prospective clients.
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 of any kind was located, and no security or trust page exists to hold one. The platform navigation and the footer were inventoried across six pages on 4 September 2026 and carry no security, compliance or trust centre entry; the three policy documents published are the terms of use, the privacy notice and the disaster recovery procedure. No SOC 2 of either type, no ISO certification, no penetration test summary, no named auditor, no report period and no scope statement appears on any of them. This record does not even reach the band above, which describes unsupported badges, because the badges the site does carry are review directory marks from Software Advice, Capterra and GetApp rather than security claims, and they are recorded as what they are. The disaster recovery procedure is genuine operational disclosure and is credited on the stewardship and deployment rows rather than here, because a self-published continuity description is not an independent attestation. Nothing is gated: there is no portal to request a report from, which is why this is an absence rather than a retrieval limit.
No independent security attestation was located on the surfaces read. There is no SOC 2 of either type, no ISO certification, no penetration test summary, no named auditor, no examination period and no certification claim of any kind on the Lead Docket estate, and no trust centre or security page appears in its navigation or footer, which carry only a privacy policy, terms of service and the subscription agreement. The agreement itself commits to commercially reasonable administrative, physical and technical safeguards without referencing any external examination. One qualification belongs on the record and sets the route to a better grade. The scope connector this index requires is unambiguously established here, because section 1.8 of the agreement defines the Filevine Services to include products delivered through leaddocket.com by name, so any Filevine attestation whose own scope covers that service would credit to this product rather than stopping at the parent. The parent's trust material was not opened in this pass, so nothing is credited from it and nothing is inferred against it; this row is the first candidate for amendment on this record if it is read.
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 provider and the model are both named and the change notification limb is absent. The AI page identifies OpenAI as the provider and ChatGPT as the model, references ChatGPT version 4 in setting the hourly rate limit, and describes the architecture rather than gesturing at it: the feature runs through the OpenAI API rather than the consumer product, uploaded documents are passed through that API for analysis, OpenAI does not use API submissions to train its models, and OpenAI retains API data for thirty days for abuse monitoring accessible to a limited number of authorised employees and contractors under confidentiality obligations. That is a fuller account of what sits underneath than most records in this lane publish. Two limbs fail. Where the models run is never stated for the OpenAI leg, and no commitment to notify customers if the model, version or provider changes was located anywhere. Azure appears on the disaster recovery page and is not counted here: naming a cloud host says where the vendor's own platform sits, not whose model reads the content.
The vendor refers to its AI throughout and identifies nothing underneath it. The estate speaks of LeadsAI, of AI-enhanced automations, and of AI that reads intake documents and assesses lead viability, without naming a model, a version, a provider or a hosting arrangement, and without any commitment to notify customers if those change. The subscription agreement does not close the gap: section 6.4 discloses categories of third party performing hosting, backup, email delivery, customer service and data analysis, which identifies functions rather than companies, and section 8.6 contemplates third-party services embedded in the product while disclaiming responsibility for them. No subprocessor list exists on the surfaces read. This sits in the middle band rather than at the floor because the vendor does describe a distinct AI layer as its own named component; a buyer simply cannot learn whose model reads a prospective client's intake file.
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 marketing page is gated and the published agreement is a rate card, which is the reverse of the usual gap. The pricing page names three tiers, Pro, Premium and Enterprise, with contact limits of 10,000, 15,000 and unlimited, automation limits of 3, 100 and unlimited, seat structure at up to three users on the first two and a ten user minimum on Enterprise, a stated annual term billed monthly, a 15 per cent discount for annual prepayment, a one-time onboarding fee and a feature comparison table, but no subscription figure anywhere and a personalised quote on all three. Exhibit B of the ungated terms of use then publishes real rates for part of the range: local calls at 0.05 dollars per minute, toll-free at 0.08, SMS at 0.05 and MMS at 0.06 each, tracking numbers at 3.00 and 5.00 per month, task routing at 0.075 per route, e-signature at 1.00 per request, 2,500 emails per user licence with overage at 0.02, 5GB of storage per licence with additional gigabytes at 10.00 per month, professional services at 150.00 per hour, a 250.00 full data export fee and a 50.00 minimum prepaid voice and messaging refill. Unit and structure are stated throughout and real pricing is published for part of the range, which is this band rather than the one below. A buyer still cannot learn the subscription cost without a sales conversation, and the vendor confirms there is no free version.
The pricing page carries no pricing, and the agreement carries the structure. The page at the pricing route in the navigation is a quote request form headed with an invitation to get a custom quote, with no rate, no unit, no tier and no range, which on its own would sit at the floor of this band. The subscription agreement is what lifts it: fees are charged per Filevine License with one named individual per licence and no sharing, quoted and payable in United States dollars, invoiced in advance with charges due ten days after the invoice date, non-cancellable and non-refundable, with the licence count unable to be decreased during a term, automatic one-year renewal unless thirty days notice is given, overdue interest at one and a half per cent per month, overage fees invoiced monthly in arrears under separately published product terms, and any increase requiring forty-five days written notice before the next renewal. A buyer can therefore establish the unit, the currency, the term and the commitment before contacting the company, and cannot establish the number. One clause cuts directly against transparency and is recorded: section 4.1 makes all prices in the sales order confidential information that the customer may not disclose to any third party without written consent.
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.
Practice coverage is documented with substance and the boundary is left open. Eight practice areas each carry a dedicated solutions page: personal injury, criminal defence, consumer protection, mass tort, business, Social Security disability, immigration and employment. The material is specific about the operating model it suits rather than listing labels, addressing high intake volume, fast case turnover, referral and co-counsel arrangements common in mass tort, and multilingual client communication in immigration. Firm size is handled through the tier structure and stated plainly, with Pro and Premium capped at three users and described as suited to small firms, and Enterprise carrying a ten user minimum. The buyer is bounded contractually as well, since the agreement recites that the subscriber is a law firm. What is not stated is where the product stops: in-house and government legal are not addressed anywhere, no practice area is identified as unsuitable, and the integrations page invites a request for anything not already covered.
Coverage is claimed at a level of generality that does not tell a buyer whether their practice is served. The product is addressed to law firms throughout and to intake teams within them, and the workflow described is practice-agnostic: capture, follow-up, vetting, referral in and out, marketing source reporting and conversion. No practice area is named on the surfaces read, no firm size band is stated, and nothing says where the product stops or which kinds of matter it does not suit. The only signal of the real segment is indirect, in the customer names published, which are personal injury and plaintiff firms, and in the referral-fee tracking and advertising ROI features that matter most to high-volume advertisers; that is inference from the evidence rather than a coverage statement by the vendor. Jurisdiction is never addressed, and nothing distinguishes what the product does for a consumer-facing practice from an insurance defence or in-house function. A features page and a customers page exist in the navigation and were not opened in this pass.
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?
Public product material states that training does not occur and the published agreement carries no matching term. The AI page states that ChatGPT does not train on the customer's information, that client data remains within the Law Ruler environment, and separately that OpenAI does not use data submitted by customers via their API to train OpenAI models or improve its service offering. The Software Licensing Agreement was read in full on 4 September 2026 and contains no training, machine learning, de-identification or aggregate use clause of any kind, so no contractual term either grants or withholds the right.
Two limits belong on the record. The commitment is scoped to the model provider rather than to Law Ruler: nothing published states whether Law Ruler itself uses customer content to develop or improve its own product. And the nearest contractual language runs the other way in form, with section 8(a) referring to content the subscriber provides and the vendor uses in the provision of the services, which is a purpose framing rather than a prohibition.
No located term addresses training either way, and the clause that comes closest was weighed and declined. Section 7.2 of the subscription agreement reserves to Filevine a right to collect and analyze subscriber data and content, and to be free during and after the term to use, access, store, copy, display and transmit it to improve and enhance the service and for other development, diagnostic and corrective purposes, and to use and share it in aggregate or de-identified form in connection with its business, with anonymized data expressly excluded from the customer's confidential information.
That is a broad and durable improvement right over intake material. It is not recorded as a training permission because it names neither training, machine learning nor models, and reading those into a general product-improvement right would reconstruct what the clause does not say. No statement anywhere on the estate says that customer content does not train models, and no opt-out or configuration setting is described.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Fixed periods are published for the AI path and nothing covers the platform around it. The AI page states that OpenAI retains API data for thirty days for abuse and misuse monitoring, accessible to a limited number of authorized OpenAI employees and specialized contractors under confidentiality and security obligations, and that the integration itself saves the history of the last thirty messages, which a user may review or clear at any time.
Documents uploaded to inform a request are passed through the same API. This is a disclosed fixed position rather than a configurable one: clearing a conversation is a manual action and disabling the feature is an administrator toggle, but no retention setting is offered. Retention of the underlying CRM records, intake submissions and stored documents is not stated anywhere. The disaster recovery page publishes backup retention, at two day snapshots, fifteen day daily points, three month monthly points and a one year annual point, which governs restore copies rather than how long client data is kept.
Fixed periods are published, and what they cover is narrower than the signal asks. The subscription agreement states that Filevine has no obligation to retain uploaded data files more than thirty days after termination or expiry, that the subscriber elects within twenty days whether those files are destroyed or returned in an agreed format, that written certification of deletion is available on request, and that any copies Filevine keeps are permitted for archival, legal or regulatory purposes only and for no other use.
Migration copies are held ninety days and then hard deleted. Two limits are recorded rather than smoothed. Those periods are end-of-relationship rather than in-service: nothing states how long generated summaries, lead viability assessments or the prompts behind them persist while a subscription is live. And the deletion regime attaches to uploaded data files, which is narrower than the agreement's own definition of data, that definition expressly including material generated by the service in response to customer input.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located material addresses walls or separation between matters or customers. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, and no role, permission or access model inside the product is described on any surface. The nearest provisions govern who may hold an account rather than how work is partitioned: section 4 of the agreement restricts access to Authorized Users and states that clients and other non-employees may not be Authorized Users, and section 1.2 limits the license to a single authorized application per user desktop.
The integrations page describes case syncing between two separate Law Ruler portals where both firms are customers, which is a sharing feature rather than a segregation control. Searched the home page, the AI page, the pricing page, the integrations page, the terms of use including all three exhibits, the privacy notice and the disaster recovery procedure on 4 September 2026.
No located material addresses separation between customers or between matters. The agreement is strong on who may reach data and for what purpose, section 2.8 limiting Filevine's own access to providing the service, addressing technical problems and answering support requests, and section 6.4 binding third-party providers to confidentiality; but purpose limits on the vendor's staff are a different control from partition between one firm's data and another's. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no permission or role model inside a firm's workspace is described, and no matter-level walls are addressed.
The question has a specific edge on this product, because the agreement contemplates authorized users including third parties with whom the subscriber transacts business, and the referral workflow is built to pass a prospective client's details to a receiving firm, so material crosses organisational boundaries by design with no published account of how it is fenced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The confidentiality section commits to notice before compelled disclosure, in the agreement rather than in a policy page. Section 10 carves required disclosure out of the confidentiality obligation only on condition that the receiving party immediately notify the disclosing party of the requirement and provide reasonable assistance in any efforts to protect the information from disclosure. Confidential Information is defined to include any and all client and client related information, so the commitment reaches the customer's own client material held in the platform, and the obligation survives termination in perpetuity as to that category.
The commitment is mutual, binding each party as receiving party. What is absent is the reporting half: no transparency report, no statistics on requests received, and no stated practice on what happens where a court order bars notification. No exception is reserved for emergency disclosure or for national security process.
A notice commitment in the confidentiality section of the published agreement, which is where this evidence belongs. Section 6.1 provides that nothing restricts disclosure of confidential information as required by law, court order or other governmental order or request, provided that in each case the party asked to disclose shall timely inform the other party, use all reasonable efforts to limit the disclosure and maintain confidentiality so far as possible, and permit the other party to attempt to limit the disclosure by appropriate legal means.
The commitment reaches customer data, since the same clause treats data constituting confidential information as within the regime. Two limits hold it below the top value. The obligation is mutual and generic rather than a customer-facing law enforcement policy, and no transparency report or record of requests received is published. A separate carve-out in the same clause permits Filevine to disclose data in accordance with its privacy policy, which is a different route and is not conditioned on notice.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located material identifies any corpus, because the product does not retrieve legal content. Law Ruler is a client relationship management and intake platform, and the AI feature drafts communications from prompts and from files the user attaches rather than from a body of legal material. No case law source, statutory database, form library license, publisher or reference set is named anywhere, and the question does not bite on this product class.
Recorded as the honest absence rather than a penalty. Searched the home page, the AI page and its FAQ set, the integrations page and the legal documents on 4 September 2026.
No located material identifies a corpus, and the question does not bite on this product class. The material the AI works on is the firm's own intake record: web form submissions, uploaded documents, messages and notes belonging to the firm and its prospective clients. The product does not retrieve or present legal content, so there is no case law source, statutory database or licensed reference set behind anything it produces.
Recorded as the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Nothing on any located surface addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product does not present primary law. The AI feature generates emails, replies, intake questionnaires, retainers and onboarding documents; it does not retrieve or cite cases, statutes or regulations. The one place the question comes near the product is the vendor's own published prompt library, which includes asking for the key provisions of a named law or regulation, but no citation is returned to a user in the product and no verification step of any kind is described.
The value is the absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the AI page and its FAQ set, the client intake and CRM product pages reached through the navigation, and the legal documents on 4 September 2026.
Nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product neither retrieves nor cites primary law. Its outputs are lead summaries, viability assessments, task and follow-up automations and marketing source reporting, none of which rests on a legal authority a user would need to verify. The value is the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located material describes what the system does when it cannot answer well. No abstention path, no no-answer state, no confidence or grounding score shown to a user, and no description of behavior on a prompt the model cannot support appears on any surface. The published workflow runs from prompt to draft with a review step and no checkpoint before it, and the FAQ set covering the integration deals with rate limits, history length, file types and how to disable the feature rather than with output quality.
The gap is worth stating plainly because the vendor's own sample prompts invite the model to summarize the legal implications of a business decision and to identify risks and liabilities, which are exactly the requests where uncertainty behavior matters. Searched the AI page, the home page, the pricing page and the legal documents on 4 September 2026.
No located material describes what the system does when it cannot reach a reliable assessment. Lead Viability is presented as an output produced on every lead the moment it opens, with no abstention path, no low-confidence state, no confidence score exposed to the user and nothing on how the system behaves where a lead record is sparse, contradictory or in a matter type it has not seen. Nothing describes what happens when the document reading fails or returns nothing usable.
The agreement addresses the same territory only as an allocation of risk, disclaiming accuracy and making the subscriber responsible for its own data entry, which places the burden rather than describing a behavior. The gap matters more here than on a drafting tool, because an unexpressed uncertainty resolves into a score that quietly reorders which prospective clients a firm contacts. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
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 was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name Law Ruler and on the corporate name Law Ruler Software. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name Lead Docket and on the corporate name Filevine. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Bar authority is referenced once, in the agreement, without any guidance being named. The recital to the Software Licensing Agreement defines the subscriber as a law firm authorized to provide legal services as defined by the state bar association where the firm is located or provides services, which makes admission to practice the condition of buying the product. Section 11.14 adds that the vendor is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice by any means.
Beyond that generic reference, nothing engages professional regulation: no bar association, no rule of professional conduct, no ethics opinion and no jurisdiction-specific guidance is named on any surface, and there is no mapping of obligations for a firm adopting the AI feature. The reference is to who may subscribe rather than to how the product should be used consistently with a lawyer's duties.
No located material engages with bar or ethics guidance at any level. No bar association, rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion or jurisdiction-specific guidance is named or referred to in general terms on the surfaces read, and nothing addresses the professional questions this product raises: solicitation and advertising rules for automated follow-up to prospective clients, referral fee arrangements in the referral workflow, or the duties owed to a prospective client whose information the firm holds.
The nearest statement is the agreement's declaration that Filevine is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, which is a position on the advice line and is graded on the professional responsibility row rather than counted here. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the subscription agreement and the footer inventory on 4 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Efficiency and revenue claims are published and nothing addresses what happens to a client bill. The AI page states that firms experience increased productivity and profitability by executing high-quality work in less time, that legal staff gain more time to dedicate to client matters and billable hours, and that drafting compresses from minutes to seconds; an ROI calculator sits in the resources navigation. None of it reaches the question this signal asks.
No per matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses how a firm should account for time that the tool removed. The gap is sharper in this product's principal segments, since personal injury and mass tort work is contingency-based and Social Security disability representation is subject to fee approval, so the treatment of compressed preparation time is a live question rather than an academic one.
Cost and revenue claims are published and nothing addresses the bill. The estate carries 250,000 dollars a year saved in advertising at a named firm, a 49 percent increase in converted leads at another, and a general promise to convert more callers into clients without expanding headcount, alongside reporting built to show which marketing spend produces signed cases. All of it is directed at the firm's own economics.
Nothing reaches this signal: no per-matter record of AI-assisted work is offered, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a client is told about automated handling of their first contact. The direction is worth recording, since the buyers here are largely contingency-fee firms whose clients are not billed hourly, so the live disclosure question is about the intake itself rather than about compressed billable time, and the vendor is silent on both.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The model provider a firm would have to name is disclosed, and no forwardable pack exists. A firm answering a client's AI clause can state from published material that the AI runs on the OpenAI API, that ChatGPT is the model, that uploaded documents pass through that API, that OpenAI does not train on API submissions, and that OpenAI retains API data for thirty days. Because the entire AI surface is that single provider, this is a complete answer rather than a partial one for the AI question specifically.
Other suppliers are named across first-party material but never assembled: Azure as the host on the disaster recovery page, Twilio, HelloSign, Groupdocs Signature and DocuSign across the integrations page and Exhibit B. What is missing is the third limb: there is no data processing addendum, no consent or notification pack, and no current subprocessor register a firm could forward to its client, so this stops short of the top value.
No located public material would let a firm answer a client's AI clause. No subprocessor register is published, no model or model provider is named, no cloud or hosting provider is identified, and no consent or notification pack exists on the surfaces read. The agreement discloses categories rather than identities: section 6.4 states that Filevine may contract third parties for marketing assistance, email delivery, hosting, backup and recovery, customer service and data analysis, and binds them to confidentiality, which tells a firm what kinds of company touch intake data and not which ones.
No data processing addendum was located on the Lead Docket estate and no route to request one is offered. The forwardable material that does exist is the published subscription agreement itself, whose confidentiality, access-limitation and deletion provisions a firm could send to a client, and which says nothing about who processes its data using what model.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located material addresses producing a record of AI-assisted work for a tribunal or a client. Two adjacent things exist and neither does this job. The integrations FAQ states that messaging, e-signature, marketing automation and the softphone dialler create an audit trail and provide transparency to staff, which records platform activity rather than model use. And the AI integration retains the last thirty messages of conversation history, which a user may clear at any time; a capped, user-erasable buffer that is not linked to a matter cannot function as a disclosure record.
No export of AI usage, no logging of which outputs were model-generated, no attribution of a draft to a model or version, and no template or guidance for disclosing AI use to a court was located. Searched the AI page and its FAQ set, the integrations page, the pricing page and the legal documents on 4 September 2026.
No located material addresses producing a record of AI-assisted work. Nothing describes an export covering which model produced a summary or a viability assessment, what it drew on, or whether a person reviewed it, and nothing marks any output as machine-generated. No disclosure template or guidance is published. Two adjacent facts are recorded so a reader sees they were weighed: the product keeps a lead history with status changes and communications, which records what the firm and the system did rather than attributing any output to a model, and the agreement provides for a written certification of deletion on termination, which is a record about data destruction rather than about AI use.
The question is live on this product because intake records and their scoring can become discoverable in fee disputes and in bad-faith litigation, and nothing published helps a firm produce that history in an attributable form.
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.
- Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Security Certifications and Trust Center
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Court Disclosure Support
Which one fits
Choose Law Ruler if
- You need to tell a client exactly which AI touches its intake data. Law Ruler names the OpenAI API and ChatGPT as its AI, states that uploaded documents pass through that API, that OpenAI does not train on API submissions and keeps API data thirty days, and lets an administrator switch the feature off.
- You want to know what calls, texts and signatures will cost. Law Ruler's customer agreement publishes usage rates in full, including 5 cents a minute for local calls, 5 cents a text, $1 per electronic signature and $10 a month per extra gigabyte, and the AI is included on every paid tier.
- You run a high volume personal injury, mass tort or disability practice. Law Ruler publishes dedicated pages for eight practice areas, a softphone that matches the local area code on outbound calls, two way texting, and intake forms that qualify or disqualify an inquiry as it is completed.
Choose Lead Docket if
- You want the AI to tell your team which leads to work first. Lead Docket's LeadsAI reads intake documents, summarizes lead details, messages and notes, and shows a viability assessment on every lead the moment it opens, so the queue is not worked only in arrival order.
- You run Filevine or plan to. Lead Docket is a Filevine product under the same subscription agreement, and signed leads transfer natively into Filevine matters to create one client record without double entry, with retainers and payments collected in Lead Docket first.
- You want deletion terms you can enforce. Lead Docket's agreement lets a firm choose within twenty days of termination whether its files are destroyed or returned, offers written certification of deletion, limits Filevine's own access to providing the service and support, and commits to 99.5 percent monthly availability.
In summary
Law Ruler
Law Ruler, from Law Ruler Software, LLC of West Palm Beach, Florida, part of ProfitSolv, is a client relationship management, intake and marketing automation platform for law firms that take on leads in volume, with a softphone, two way texting, drip campaigns, qualifying intake forms, document automation, electronic signature by text and reporting on cost per lead and conversion. Its AI drafts emails, replies and intake questionnaires through the OpenAI API at no extra charge. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on nine of fifteen capability axes. It names its model provider, hosts on Microsoft Azure and publishes a usage rate card in its agreement. As of 4 September 2026 the index located no security attestation and no subscription price.
Lead Docket
Lead Docket, a Filevine product sold under its own name, is intake and lead management software for law firms, covering the stretch from a prospective client's first contact to a signed retainer, with automated follow up, referral tracking, marketing source reporting and payment collection. Its AI layer, LeadsAI, reads intake documents, summarizes lead details and scores each lead for viability as it opens, and signed leads transfer natively into Filevine. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on seven of fifteen capability axes. Its published agreement sets deletion terms with written certification, and it names customers with figures, such as a 49 percent rise in converted leads at Whitley Law Firm. As of 4 September 2026 the index located no named model, security attestation or price.
Questions buyers ask
Law Ruler vs Lead Docket: which is better for a personal injury firm's intake?
The grid places them two axes apart: Law Ruler sits in the top two bands on nine of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Lead Docket on seven of fifteen, identical on seven. Law Ruler names its AI provider, publishes usage rates and has practice pages for personal injury and mass tort. Lead Docket scores every lead with AI and moves signed cases straight into Filevine, which matters most to firms already running it.
Which AI model does Law Ruler use?
Law Ruler's AI runs through the OpenAI API, with ChatGPT named as the model and version 4 referenced in its rate limit. It states that uploaded documents pass through that API, that OpenAI does not use API submissions for training and keeps API data thirty days for abuse monitoring, and that the tool keeps the last thirty messages. Lead Docket names no model or provider. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Lead Docket's lead viability score work?
Lead Docket says LeadsAI reads intake documents and assesses the viability of every lead the moment it opens, so an intake team can see which matters are worth pursuing. It does not publish what the score is derived from, how accurate it is, whether a user can see why a lead scored as it did, or what happens to leads that score low. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do Law Ruler and Lead Docket publish their prices?
Neither publishes a subscription price. Law Ruler names three tiers, Pro, Premium and Enterprise, with contact and user limits, and its customer agreement publishes usage rates such as 5 cents a text and $1 per electronic signature. Lead Docket's pricing page is a quote form; its agreement sets per license charging and annual renewal, and makes the price a customer pays confidential. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Law Ruler and Lead Docket both leave unpublished?
Any security attestation and any AI governance. Neither publishes a SOC 2 report, ISO certification or trust center, and neither names an owner for its AI or describes testing before release. Neither publishes an accuracy measure for what its AI produces, and neither addresses whether its intake tools treat prospective clients evenly across the matter types and people they screen. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. Lead Docket's agreement reserves a broad right to use subscriber data to improve its service and to share it in aggregate form with identifiers removed; it does not name model training. Law Ruler's training statements concern OpenAI, and nothing published says whether Law Ruler uses customer content itself. Lead Docket's security grade records its own site only; Filevine's security material was not opened. Its agreement also makes the price a customer pays confidential. Law Ruler and Lead Docket were both verified on 4 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.