Lawdify vs Lighthouse: how they compare in 2026
Lighthouse combines legal technology with discovery and review services. LighthouseIQ includes applications for answers, case strategy, review and privilege, supported by its processing and orchestration layer. The AI Legal Index highlights IQ Answers' cited passages and recorded question history as useful when lawyers need to investigate a finding and retain context for later review. Its Relativity connection also follows configured metadata visibility. Lawdify offers a legal workspace built around Case Brain, Lawri and tasks that reuse a team's own expertise. The AI Legal Index highlights the ability to send an instruction with attachments by email and receive the agents' results back in the inbox. Word and Excel connections provide additional routes into the matter's information. The choice depends partly on how the team runs evidence work. Lighthouse combines applications with specialist discovery support; Lawdify brings dispute analysis and drafting into a shared workspace and the team's daily office routines.
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.
Lawdify is built around AI interpretation of evidence and the work that follows from it. Case Brain organizes parties, dates and issues from uploaded material, while Lawri uses that context to answer questions and prepare drafts. Expertise Engineering turns the team's own methods into reusable skills, and Smart Tables run specialized tasks as the dispute develops. Email instructions can start several agents and return their results to the sender. These functions depend on models understanding and generating content, rather than adding a conversational feature to an older records system. File storage and exports support the service, but the case intelligence is the product being sold.
Lighthouse now leads with its AI applications, built on an eDiscovery platform and service that runs without them. LighthouseIQ's four applications answer questions in plain language from a matter's documents, draft chronologies and case strategy, code documents for responsiveness and issues, and identify privilege and draft privilege logs, using predictive and generative AI. Spectra runs integrated machine learning and AI services inside its self serve workflows. Underneath are processing, hosting, Relativity review and production, and a large forensics and managed review business, all of which operate without the models.
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.
Evidence Check is designed to test whether a proposition has supporting material in the case file. Lawri can inspect case context, and the research interface presents authorities with relevance and application descriptions. The legal product also offers factual checking and argument strength assessment. Its visible examples do not establish a reproducible accuracy test, a citation status check or a consistent route from every generated assertion to an open source passage. The terms describe output as probabilistic and place evaluation with the user. These are useful verification intentions and review functions, with the detailed grounding method and measured failure behavior still unspecified.
IQ Answers draws its answers only from the documents ingested for the matter and handles one question at a time to avoid context drift. Each answer passes through interpretation, then layered retrieval combining predictive relevance models, semantic similarity and retrieval that keeps context intact, then synthesis. Each response carries highlighted source text and exemplar documents so every statement can be traced. Lighthouse's defensibility guidance describes validation on samples with attorney review and prompt versioning. The only accuracy figure is that IQ Priv's privilege descriptions were 12 percent more accurate than contract attorneys in blind comparisons, with no test set given. IQ Answers is marketed as free of hallucinations, with no measurement behind the claim.
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.
The legal workflow gives the lawyer a first draft and a visible editing surface. In Word, proposed revisions appear with track changes so the user can review and accept individual edits. The terms also require evaluating probabilistic output for the intended use, including expert human review. Email agents can process attachments and reply with results, while specialized skills automate steps in case preparation. The distinction between a draft and professional judgment is therefore supported by an actual review mechanism. A threshold that stops an agent, a mandatory approval before consequential action and a recovery route after an incorrect result are not specified.
Under Lighthouse's defensibility guidance, prompt engineers set AI instructions with counsel, attorneys review results on sample populations to confirm accuracy, and iterative feedback refines the prompts. IQ Review shifts work from reviewing each document to targeted validation and quality control, with summaries and rationales for each call, and IQ Priv produces editable log lines for attorney review. Lighthouse states that AI does not replace human reviewers. No confidence threshold, stopping point or published escalation path is stated, and IQ Review is run by Lighthouse consultants rather than configured by the customer.
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.
Lawdify identifies deployed use as well as product demonstrations. Its September 2026 account describes Zurich Insurance Malaysia moving from a three month proof of concept into a multiyear deployment. That is a named operational relationship in the insurance business, rather than a measured result for every legal workflow. The legal service also presents customer experience around evidence organization and case preparation. The broader claims about faster settlements, reduced loss ratios and fraud detection are not accompanied by a method tying each figure to a named deployment. The available customer evidence supports practical use without establishing a reproducible estimate of legal team productivity.
Lighthouse quotes Penningtons Manches Cooper by name without figures, and reports an unnamed large healthcare organization saving $500,000 in its first year with 95 percent fewer documents sent to review. It states that Spectra customers saved $2,951,280.50 in July 2026, calculated as native data kept out of Relativity hosting multiplied by the standard hosting charge per GB. LighthouseIQ is described as applied across 1.4 billion documents with outputs accepted by the DOJ and FTC, without naming the matters.
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.
The February 2026 terms expressly exclude customer documents, legal files and case materials from model training and product improvement. They distinguish that material from anonymized, aggregated operational usage metrics. Customer information is subject to confidentiality obligations, and the hosting provisions describe logical separation between customer environments. Deletion after termination includes backups and a certificate with logs. These are explicit commitments for material entrusted to the service. The confidentiality section also uses pilot terminology, while specific treatment of legal privilege, internal matter walls and retention by individual model providers remains unclear. The promise covers more than a general assurance that information is secure.
Lighthouse's Master Spectra Subscription Agreement (2 April 2026) bars it from using client data or metadata to train or develop any AI service, its own or a third party's. The same bar covers the inputs and outputs of its AI services. It bars sending client data to any publicly available or shared AI model without written authorization. Privilege has its own section confirming that privileged communications and work product remain protected and that work is done at counsel's direction. The agreement also commits to notice before compelled disclosure and requires deletion of client data within 30 days of termination. Spectra documents matter creation and role based access so users see only the matters they need. The contract governs Spectra; for LighthouseIQ, Lighthouse states the same position on training and retention outside any published agreement.
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.
Lawdify's legal workspace is aimed at law firms and internal legal teams handling contentious work. Its terms distinguish the application from legal advice and say that it does not create a lawyer and client relationship. The AI output provision describes generated content as probabilistic and calls for evaluation appropriate to the use case, including expert human review. Word editing and evidence checks support that professional review in the product. The legal service also reaches construction claims teams and other specialists. A jurisdiction by jurisdiction account of permitted professional use, competence obligations and limits for people who are not lawyers is not provided.
The Spectra agreement states that Lighthouse is not engaged in the practice of law, provides no legal advice and creates no attorney client relationship. Its services represent Lighthouse's interpretation as a legal technology provider, and work on privileged material is done at the direction of the client or its counsel. Optional matter conflict checks are offered. Lighthouse's defensibility guidance says attorneys govern and validate AI outputs and confirm they reflect their professional judgment. The product is sold to law firms and legal departments, and no jurisdictional limits are stated.
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.
Lawdify identifies an AI Governance Framework and a prompt injection testing report in its trust center. Access to those materials requires a request, so their detailed controls and results are not available in the open view. The privacy policy recognizes a right to human review of certain automated decisions where applicable, and the service makes commitments about customer data use and human evaluation of output. These establish elements of a responsible AI position. They do not reveal who owns model governance, what release testing covers or whether uneven performance across languages and legal settings has been measured. The restricted framework's contents remain unknown.
Lighthouse's Senior Director of AI and Analytics sets out how its generative workflows are governed in a published question and answer on defensibility. Prompt engineers work with counsel, attorneys validate outputs on sample sets with qualitative and quantitative metrics, and prompts are documented and versioned. It also says predictive workflows follow validated practice for technology assisted review. Lighthouse says LighthouseIQ was tested on live matters over three years. No release testing results, named accountability for the AI applications, or findings on uneven performance across languages or data types are published.
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.
The service combines encryption in storage and transit with authentication, access logging and logical separation of customer environments. Its terms set deletion procedures for removed material and terminated accounts, including a deletion certificate and associated logs after service exit. A trust center names cloud and supporting service providers, while the privacy policy describes security monitoring, backups and incident response procedures. These provisions address how client material is handled beyond ordinary website privacy. The incident section does not set a customer notification timetable or describe the response workflow in detail, and the complete path through underlying AI providers is not mapped for each processing operation.
The Information Security Addendum to the Spectra agreement commits to notify a security incident within 48 hours with a description, likely consequences, mitigation and a contact. It also commits to multi factor access controls, central logging protected against tampering, and annual third party penetration tests. The Data Processing Addendum commits to destroy or return personal data within 60 days of termination, and the main agreement requires client data to be destroyed within 30 days. The Processor Compliance Statement adds encryption at rest and in transit and a rolling 30 day backup retention. The published subprocessor list names every subprocessor, affiliate and review staffing firm with its role and processing location, with a dated change log and notice and objection rights for new ones. Lighthouse says its AI workflows keep no customer data.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The terms exclude warranties of accurate or reliable output and place professional evaluation with the user. They limit consequential losses and require the customer to defend Lawdify against several categories of claim arising from use or breach. The liability limitation contains exceptions for matters including fraud, intellectual property and confidentiality obligations, but its cap is internally inconsistent: the written amount corresponds to $100 while the parenthetical figure is $10. A specific promise to defend the customer against an AI output claim is not included. The result is a conventional allocation of risk away from the supplier, with an unresolved ambiguity in the stated monetary limit.
Spectra's subscription agreement warrants that the services conform to their documentation, with refund, repair or replacement as the remedy. It indemnifies the client against third party claims that the Lighthouse IP infringes, and caps each party's liability at fees paid in the prior 12 months. The cap excludes fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, death or personal injury and third party claims. The client may terminate with a refund if availability or response levels are missed for three months in a row. Nothing addresses an incorrect AI answer, privilege call or log line.
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.
Lawdify connects its case information to Microsoft Word, Outlook and Excel. The Excel application has a concrete setup path: sign in to a Lawdify account using email verification, select a case or matter, then use the chat panel or custom functions. LAWDIFY.ASK returns an answer in a cell, while LAWDIFY.EXTRACT pulls information from case material into the spreadsheet. The application can read and change the workbook and send information over the internet. A Lawdify subscription is required. This describes both the movement of case information into an existing work surface and the configuration needed to use it, beyond a list of compatible applications.
Spectra runs matter setup, processing and culling, then promotes data into Relativity Server or RelativityOne for review and carries it through production and export. Workflow Manager and Native File Manager control what reaches active hosting. IQ Review delivers its results directly in Relativity. The platform also covers Microsoft 365 and Purview and workflows for Google Vault linked files. Technical documentation is provided to customers through Spectra rather than published.
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.
Customer data is hosted in Singapore by default, with other jurisdictions available by arrangement where the cloud infrastructure supports them. The security offering describes regional support across Asia, the European Union and the United States. The terms also describe logical separation of customer environments, and the current certification scope identifies the legal platform on Azure and Google Cloud Platform. These details make the default hosting location and the existence of regional alternatives concrete. They do not provide a complete list of selectable processing regions, explain every AI inference location or map storage and processing differences to subscription tiers. Residency therefore remains partly specified.
Lighthouse hosts on Microsoft Azure in the United States and UK and colocation data centers in Seattle, Phoenix, London, Frankfurt and Dornach, and RelativityOne runs in the region the customer specifies. Its subprocessor list gives a processing location for every subprocessor and affiliate, including support outside office hours from India and review staffing in named countries case by case. Cloud workflows are controlled by region, keeping storage and computing within defined boundaries, and the LighthouseIQ workflows run in a private Azure environment. What changes between Spectra and managed service deployments is not set out.
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.
Prescient Security issued Lawdify's ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certificate on February 13, 2026. Certificate 122744, Issue 2, is valid through February 25, 2028, subject to satisfactory surveillance. Its scope covers the information security management system supporting the Legal AI Analyst platform hosted on Azure and Google Cloud Platform, including engineering, development, information security, legal and finance functions. The certificate is available directly in the trust center, with the issuer, dates and scope visible. Separate audit and penetration testing reports require access approval. The certificate establishes a current independent management system attestation; it does not certify the correctness of generated legal analysis.
A-LIGN Assurance certifies Lighthouse's ISO 27001 information security management system, United States operations hold SOC 2 and UK operations hold Cyber Essentials. The Spectra agreement commits to an annual assessment against ISO 27001, the HIPAA Security Rule and SOC 2 Type 2, with a summary provided on written request. Lighthouse offers the ISO certificate and a security overview through a Trust Center, and no report date or scope statement is published.
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.
Case Brain combines graph and vector databases to connect contract information with evidence and follow changes in a dispute. Lawri, specialized skills and the email agents operate on that case context rather than treating each request as an isolated conversation. Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure and AWS support the infrastructure, with the legal platform's certification scope specifically covering Azure and Google Cloud Platform hosting. The foundation models and their versions are not individually identified. Nor is there a stated customer notification mechanism for model substitutions. The architecture is partly explained, while the full chain of model operators remains unspecified.
LighthouseIQ runs on IQ Fabric (processing, cognition and orchestration), which combines predictive models trained on attorney coding with generative models. Lighthouse says IQ Answers uses models tuned for legal work and that IQ Review and IQ Priv run in a private environment based on Azure. Its subprocessor list names Microsoft Azure for hosting and Daypack Research for AI workflow management tools, with notice before new subprocessors. No model, model provider or version is named.
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 current terms distinguish recurring self service subscriptions from enterprise arrangements governed by an order form. Additional processing pages and capacity for AI tasks can carry separate charges, so both the recurring structure and usage expansion are visible. Prices are presented during registration or contracting rather than in an open rate table. Cancellation deadlines differ between self service and enterprise subscriptions, and fees are generally nonrefundable. An earlier founder submission gave an annual range without identifying the currency, which does not establish a current comparable price. Implementation charges and the amount charged for each additional processing unit are also not separately stated.
Spectra's agreement sets out a free Tier 1 support level and a paid Tier 2 expert level, fees set in an order form, automatic annual renewal and rate increases on 90 days' notice. Spectra comes with a savings calculator and cheaper Nearline storage, and the hosting charge per GB appears only in the calculator's disclaimer. No rate, tier price or LighthouseIQ pricing is published.
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 legal platform serves law firms and internal legal teams preparing disputes, with construction and infrastructure claims prominent in its founder account. Claims consultants, expert witnesses and contractors also use the same kind of evidence preparation workflow. Support includes APAC languages and communication formats such as WhatsApp, WeChat and KakaoTalk, alongside email archives, spreadsheets and handwritten material. The company separately sells insurance claims assessment, including bodily injury work. That combination gives a specific picture of the intended settings and evidence types. An exhaustive jurisdiction and practice coverage table, exclusions for particular legal tasks and firm size limits are not supplied.
Lighthouse serves corporate legal departments and law firms in financial services, technology, pharmaceutical, healthcare, telecommunications, manufacturing and construction. Its specialties include antitrust and HSR second requests, multidistrict litigation, DSARs and Microsoft 365, and Spectra covers investigations, DSARs and compliance reviews, and routine litigation. IQ Answers works on any data with document text, and LighthouseIQ claims no limits on document types or volume; nothing states where the AI applications perform less well.
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 February 2026 terms explicitly prohibit using customer documents, legal files and case material to train models or improve products and services. Only anonymized, aggregated usage metrics, such as feature use and error rates, may support platform improvement. That exception concerns operational telemetry, rather than the substance of client matters. The privacy policy also excludes customer personal data from generalized public model training.
Reusable skills within the customer's workspace are a product function; they do not override the express restriction on training from customer content.
Under its Master Spectra Subscription Agreement (2 April 2026), Lighthouse may not use client data or metadata to train or develop any AI service, its own or a third party's. The same holds for the inputs and outputs of its AI services, directly or indirectly, except to provide the services to that client. Sending client data to any public or shared AI model needs written authorization. The agreement governs Spectra, and Lighthouse states the same position against training for IQ Review and IQ Priv.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Account data remains subject to the privacy policy's service, legal and business purposes. The terms set a 30 day period after a user deletes customer material and a similar exit period before resources and backups are removed, subject to applicable requirements. A deletion certificate and logs follow service termination. These are deletion event rules, rather than a fixed lifetime for every prompt and answer during an active subscription. A customer selected zero retention option and a separate schedule for AI provider copies are not described.
Under the Spectra agreement, client data is destroyed within 30 days of termination, and personal data within 60 days under its DPA. Backups run on a rolling 30 day retention, and Lighthouse says its LighthouseIQ workflows retain no customer data. Clients manage matter hosting and archiving within Spectra, but no setting for the retention of AI inputs and outputs is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The hosting terms describe logical separation between customer environments, with authentication and access controls. The product also organizes information into cases and lets the Excel user select a matter. Those features do not specify how conflicting matters inside one firm are separated during retrieval. Inheritance of source system permissions, enforcement for each user and the treatment of shared skills across restricted matters are not described.
Customer isolation therefore has an express basis, while the behavior of ethical walls within an individual firm's workspace remains unspecified.
Spectra lets clients create matters, provision users and assign access by role, with delegated matter administration and less unnecessary access to review environments. Under the Information Security Addendum, the client gives each authorized user an account and a role that controls access. Review itself runs in Relativity, whose permissions apply there.
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 terms require prompt written notice of a compelled disclosure demand to the extent practicable, allowing the disclosing party to seek a protective order at its own expense. The receiving party also agrees to cooperate with those efforts. For a broad regulatory request not aimed at the customer, the agreement permits compliance with prompt notice where the regulator allows it. Disclosure may still proceed when legally required.
These provisions establish a notice commitment with stated qualifications, without a transparency report describing requests actually received.
The Spectra agreement commits to prompt written notice of a court order, regulatory requirement or subpoena, where permitted by law and feasible, so the client can seek a protective order, and its DPA commits to immediate notice of any request to disclose client personal data with a copy of the request. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Legal research is described as covering cases, statutory material and other legal databases, alongside analysis of the customer's own evidence. The interface illustrates relevance and application summaries, but does not identify a complete set of source publishers, licensing arrangements or jurisdiction specific update schedules. The insurance offering separately refers to proprietary injury and settlement intelligence, which does not establish the rights supporting the legal research collection.
Customer uploaded evidence and external legal authority have different provenance, and the latter's acquisition and licensing terms remain unspecified.
LighthouseIQ's question answering draws only on the documents ingested for the matter; no external legal corpus is described.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Lawri can check facts against the case file, and Evidence Check examines whether evidence exists and supports a proposition. Those functions concern factual support. The legal research feature includes smart citations, case relevance and statutory analysis, but does not identify a licensed citator or explain its own subsequent treatment process. A case appearing relevant is different from confirming that it remains usable authority after later decisions.
The product's general verification functions therefore do not establish an automated good law check for authorities used in a draft.
Lighthouse's products cite matter documents rather than case law, and no check of cited authority for subsequent history is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The interface includes a prompt optimizer, factual checking and evidence support checks. The terms warn that model output is probabilistic and should receive expert evaluation. None of those descriptions specifies a refusal path when the available material cannot support an answer. A stop condition, a visible uncertainty threshold and the response presented after grounding fails are not defined for Lawri or the email agents.
The question is how the product handles insufficient support before delivering a result, separate from the lawyer's opportunity to review it afterward.
Each IQ Answers result covers one question, draws only on the matter's ingested documents and carries its source passages. Nothing describes what the product does when no supporting document is found, and no confidence signal is shown to the user.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No matching entry was found in the AI Hallucination Cases database for Lawdify, Lawri, Case Brain or Smart Tables as of October 16, 2026. The check covered the company name and the named legal product components rather than treating a general account of AI misuse as an incident involving this service. This result records the absence of a matching case in that database on the stated date. It does not measure citation accuracy, establish that every generated draft is reliable or remove the need for professional verification.
Damien Charlotin's database of AI Hallucination Cases, which collects court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for Lighthouse, LighthouseIQ or Spectra. Lighthouse's AI answers and codes from a matter's own documents rather than from case law.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The legal workspace supports lawyers through first drafts, evidence analysis and tracked edits, and its terms retain expert review and disclaim legal advice. Those provisions do not connect the workflow to a named bar opinion or a jurisdiction specific framework for competence, confidentiality and supervision. The company's mention of inclusion in a government AI guide is a product listing rather than an explanation of professional obligations.
No mapped set of bar requirements accompanies the described legal workflow or its use by claims specialists who are not lawyers.
Lighthouse's defensibility guidance says attorneys govern and validate AI outputs so they meet legal standards and reflect professional judgment, and notes that responsiveness review lacks settled case law. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or judicial or bar guidance is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Lawdify presents faster case preparation and less repetitive evidence work as benefits for disputes teams. Its agents can examine files, produce first drafts and bring case information into spreadsheets, which may change the time spent on a matter. The legal workflow does not include a record separating AI effort from lawyer time for a client invoice. Guidance on passing through productivity gains, recording review time or explaining AI use in an engagement is also not supplied. The cost argument remains an efficiency claim rather than a billing method.
Invoicing under the Spectra agreement can run through electronic billing platforms using generic timekeeper codes such as E118. That is the LEDES expense code for litigation support vendors, which law firms use to pass vendor costs to clients. Nothing addresses how firms should disclose AI assisted work or its cost to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The named service providers are Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, AWS, Cloudflare, GitHub and Vanta, covering hosting, monitoring, version control and compliance. Customers can also inspect the current terms, privacy policy and ISO certificate, while additional assurance materials require an access request. This provides identifiable suppliers for part of a client's vendor review. A full model provider inventory and a prepared client disclosure or consent package are not presented with the list.
The available material therefore supports supplier identification without establishing every fact needed for a particular client's AI clause.
A current subprocessor list is published, with each subprocessor's role, processing location and parent, a dated change log (latest 14 September 2026), and a Data Processing Addendum and Information Security Addendum readable in the Spectra terms. No AI model provider is named: the list names Microsoft Azure for hosting and Daypack Research for AI workflow tools.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The Excel connection retains chat history organized over time, with controls to revisit, rename and delete conversations. Word drafting uses tracked changes, and the legal workspace can export organized bundles for filings. These preserve parts of the work and review context. They do not form a single export identifying the model used for each passage, all retrieved sources and the lawyer who verified them. A court specific disclosure or verification certificate is not described. The available record is partial and should not be treated as an automatically completed filing declaration.
Lighthouse documents prompts and versions, validates outputs on samples reviewed by attorneys with metrics, provides rationales and citations for AI calls, and says its workflows have been accepted by regulators including the DOJ and FTC. No record for each document of the model used and the human verification is described as exportable.
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.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Lawdify if
- Users want to begin tasks from email without first entering the workspace.
- The matter team needs its case information available inside Word and Excel.
- Reusable skills should reflect the firm's own knowledge and methods.
Choose Lighthouse if
- The engagement requires both AI applications and specialist discovery support.
- Answers should include citations and highlights from the evidence collection.
- A Relativity based workflow needs question history and configured metadata visibility preserved.
In summary
Lawdify
Lawdify supports case analysis and drafting through Lawri, email tasks and Microsoft connections.
Lighthouse
Lighthouse pairs its AI applications with discovery infrastructure and specialist services.
Questions buyers ask
Does IQ Answers replace comprehensive review?
Lighthouse expressly describes it as assistance for fact finding and issue exploration. It does not replace lawyer judgment or a complete review workflow. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What accompanies a Lighthouse answer?
IQ Answers provides source citations and highlighted supporting content. Its Relativity connection retains users, questions and answers for later inspection. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Lawdify handle instructions sent by email?
The described workflow uploads attachments, creates tasks for specialized agents and returns results to the sender's inbox for continued conversation. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Lighthouse offers technology alongside professional discovery services. This page compares the legal evidence workflows and does not equate a software subscription with a staffed service engagement.