Leah vs Workday Contract Lifecycle Management: how they compare in 2026
Neither of these sells under the name it started with. Leah is the renamed ContractPodAi, and Workday Contract Lifecycle Management is Evisort, which Workday bought in 2024 and now sells as its own. Both serve legal, procurement and finance teams, and they publish opposite halves of the picture. Workday publishes assurance for its AI. It holds an accredited ISO 42001 certification and posts a NIST AI Risk Management Framework attestation on its compliance page, and a SOC 3 report naming the contract products is public. In the product, Ask AI answers link to their source documents, and the roughly 30 terms its extraction finds are listed in full. Leah publishes terms and control. Its master terms, liability caps, retention period and model providers are public, and its agents work under limits the customer sets, with every action logged. Workday's product pages say nothing on training, retention or liability, or on what its agentic tools may do alone. Leah says customer contracts never train models.
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.
Leah sells AI agents and an orchestration layer that sit on top of a contract lifecycle platform, and that platform works without them. The vendor describes it the other way round. It says other vendors bolted AI onto systems built for manual workflows, while Leah was designed from scratch with orchestration as the foundation. ContractPod Technologies has sold contract lifecycle management since 2012. Leah launched in March 2023 as an AI services hub within that platform, went standalone in May 2023, and Leah Intelligence followed in October 2024. Without the agents, the product is still a working CLM with guided intake, approval routing, DocuSign and Adobe Sign execution and a contract repository. That CLM has its own market and its own Gartner category placement. The orchestration layer on top is model driven.
Workday calls the platform AI native, and the Evisort product it grew from was built around AI. What Workday sells today is a full contract lifecycle platform, from intake and approval routing to signature and the repository. Those workflow and repository functions do not need generative AI and would still work without the models. The models drive OCR and AI ingestion, pretrained and custom extraction, AI redlining against a playbook and the Ask AI layer.
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.
Leah returns to accuracy repeatedly in its materials, and the AI governance page says every action is measured against benchmarks for accuracy, bias and outcome. Neither that page nor the home page publishes a result from that measurement. They give no accuracy figure, no error or hallucination rate, no description of any benchmark or test set and no published evaluation. The product material describes a legal helpdesk that answers contract questions with sources attached, so a user can in principle check an answer against its source. Neither page says what the system does when the customer's own contracts do not support a position.
Ask AI answers include links to the source documents, and extraction ties each term to the contract it came from. Workday says it improves prompt language for custom models so users need no prompt engineering skill. It also says applying multiple models to each task maximizes accuracy. It publishes no accuracy figure, hallucination rate, test set, evaluation method or independent benchmark.
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.
Leah's dedicated AI governance page sets out a three stage control loop. In the first stage, policy in, the customer defines which agents may act, on which data, within which thresholds and where escalation is required. Those policies are held as configuration rather than code. In the second, execution governed, every agent action runs through those policies in real time. Approvals, escalations and rejections are applied automatically, and the orchestrator enforces guardrails at each step. In the third, audit out, every decision is logged with the rationale, what the agent did, why, under which policy, on what data and to what outcome. The records are described as tamper resistant and immutable. The loop sets the thresholds, the review points and the route back to human judgment. Leah's home page puts the position in one line, that the workflow runs itself while the judgment stays human. The page does not say what happens after an output is found to be wrong. Default modes are not described, because the customer configures the guardrails rather than receiving them preset.
The platform includes agentic AI and automates routing and approval. AI redlining suggests targeted edits rather than applying them. Advanced administration offers custom roles and access settings, which govern who uses the product rather than what it decides alone. The product pages do not say what the agentic components run unaided, and they set no threshold at which a workflow stops or passes to a person. They describe no review step a lawyer must clear.
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.
Leah publishes qualitative quotes from four named people. Noelle Perkins is EVP and Chief Legal Officer at Cushman and Wakefield, and Lidia Kamleh is Chief Legal Officer at Dubai Future Foundation. Frances Bain-Cumberbatch is Chief Legal and External Affairs Officer at Ansa McAL, and Zillia Knight is Senior Legal Officer at Terumo Europe. Three results are published with the customer unnamed. A major American logistics company cut contract review time by 91 percent. A global manufacturer protected more than $18 million of revenue, and an American retail REIT tracked more than $2 million of savings. About 54 enterprise logos appear, including Philips, MUFG, Sandoz, Pernod Ricard, Alaska Airlines and Wood PLC. PwC and KPMG appear among them. PwC entered a commercial alliance in March 2024, and Epiq resells Leah in its Service Cloud. Integreon is quoted as an early adopter that resells it, and Pinsent Masons adopted it for managed legal services in July 2025. Partners and customers are shown together without distinction, and the Chief Product Officer of Execo, another services partner, is among the testimonials.
Workday's quantified claims for the product carry a footnote saying they rest on select customer stories and on average results from Workday Contract Intelligence. A named practitioner at Harbor Global gives an attributed endorsement. The product pages pair no named customer with figures and a date, and carry no case study with measured results. Four customer names from before the acquisition, among them Microsoft and McKesson, appear only in older Evisort material.
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.
Leah says customer contract data is never used to train models. The AI governance page treats data leaking into models the customer does not own as a failure it engineered out. It says zero data retention is the only acceptable answer, and that Leah enforces zero retention with OpenAI and Anthropic so they process data but never store it. Encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit, with keys in Azure Key Vault, rotated and reachable only through controlled service accounts. Role based access control is said to apply at every layer, and single tenant deployment is offered for customers with strict isolation needs. Leah sells to Fortune 500 legal departments, and none of this material addresses privilege or work product.
The product pages cite responsible AI safeguards backed by ISO 42001, 27001 and 27701. ISO 27701 is a privacy information management standard, and the pages give no other privacy position. Workday also offers access controls by role. The pages do not say how customers or matters are kept apart or how attorney client privilege and work product are treated. They also leave training and retention unaddressed. The repository is meant to hold every executed agreement across legal, HR, finance and M and A.
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.
Leah publishes nothing on the line between a tool and legal advice. Its site carries no disclaimer of any kind and no ethics or professional responsibility page, and it names no bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512. The platform is sold to run legal work end to end across legal, procurement and finance teams. In the vendor's own framing, agents carry out commercial work in several steps without routing every decision through a person.
The datasheet says contract data should be open to teams across the business. It describes Ask AI as letting users across the enterprise ask questions and act with confidence on the answers, so people outside legal are meant to act on the analysis. The datasheet and product pages take no position on legal advice as against tooling, on competence or supervision duties, or on limits by jurisdiction.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
A dedicated AI governance page names six failure modes the vendor says it engineered out. They include black box decisions that cannot be defended to a regulator or board, and compliance frameworks retrofitted after the fact. Against them the page sets three pillars and a loop of policy, execution and audit. Each action is logged with its rationale and governing policy, in records described as tamper resistant and immutable. The page also says every action is measured against benchmarks for accuracy, bias and outcome, and that accountability is structural rather than aspirational. It names no person or role accountable for model behavior and describes no testing before release. It gives no benchmark method or schedule and discloses no bias measurement result.
The platform holds an accredited ISO/IEC 42001 certification, achieved as Evisort in October 2024 and carried forward under Workday, with Schellman as the certifying body. Workday's compliance page also carries a NIST AI Risk Management Framework attestation. That attestation covers the design, development, use and evaluation of AI products rather than the management system alone. Workday publishes no results of testing before release and names no owner for model governance. It discloses nothing on uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.
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 AI governance page describes TLS in transit and AES-256 at rest. Encryption keys are managed in Azure Key Vault, rotated regularly and reachable only through tightly controlled service accounts. The page also lists multifactor authentication, secure API gateways, network segmentation, real time monitoring and a documented incident response plan. Audit logs are described as comprehensive, tamper resistant and immutable. For outside assurance, the vendor says an independent Managed Security Service Provider audits it every year and that it is penetration tested regularly.
Workday describes its stewardship practice for the company as a whole rather than for the contract products. It screens subprocessors as a standing practice, encrypts database and transaction log backups, and uses TLS to protect network traffic against eavesdropping and tampering. Workday's cloud security and privacy certifications support these practices. Backups are retained for a period that Workday says varies by system, with no figure given. That material names no subprocessors and sets no retention period or deletion control for contracts, prompts and Ask AI outputs. It describes no breach notification practice.
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.
Section 16.5 of the Master Terms and Annexes sets a General Cap equal to fees paid or payable in the twelve months before the first incident. An Enhanced Cap of three times that applies to breaches of its security or data protection terms, meaning the security clause and the data processing addendum. Indemnities, intellectual property claims, breach of confidentiality and anything that cannot legally be limited are uncapped. Section 17.1 gives the customer an indemnity against third party intellectual property claims. Section 8.2 warrants that the service will perform materially as documented, with a thirty day fix period under 8.3 and termination with a refund if the fix fails. Annex A publishes uptime tiers of 99.00, 99.5 and 99.9 percent by support plan. A tier missed in three consecutive months, or in four months out of six, allows termination with a refund. Three limits apply. Breaches of confidentiality involving Customer Data fall outside the uncapped claim, so they stay capped and rise to the Enhanced Cap only where the security or data protection terms are also breached. The agreement gives no indemnity for AI output, such as inaccurate output, hallucination or training data provenance. Section 9.2 bars the customer from submitting Sensitive Data, including GDPR Article 9 categories, and the provider disclaims liability for it. These terms are version 3.0c. Version 4.0, dated 4 January 2026, changes only the trading name, according to the vendor.
Workday's datasheet, its product overview pages in three regional editions and its newsroom are product marketing, and none of them says who bears the loss when output is wrong. They state no indemnity, liability cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position. None of them links to a customer agreement.
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.
Leah names its integrations and describes each by function. They cover ERP platforms including SAP and NetSuite, procurement systems including Coupa, financial systems, identity providers including Okta, and existing contract lifecycle tools. DocuSign and Adobe Sign are built in for signing, and a Microsoft Word add in handles redlining. The vendor also describes how the integrations work. It says Leah connects and executes rather than copying data passively, and carries out work across connected systems through the orchestration layer. Leah has a dedicated integrations page, but publishes nothing on what syncs in which direction or what a customer must configure. No document management integration such as iManage or NetDocuments appears, which fits a product built for in house teams rather than law firms.
Signature runs through Docusign or Adobe Sign, revenue data through Salesforce, and storage through Box, SharePoint and shared drives. Drafting runs in Microsoft Word 365. Workday cites an API and productized integrations, with self service configuration and enterprise administration controls. The platform aims to sync across existing repositories rather than require migration into a new one. The named integrations include no legal document management connector such as iManage or NetDocuments. The product pages offer no integrations index and do not document, for each integration, what moves in which direction or what an administrator sets up.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The standard deployment is shared. Single tenant deployment is available for customers with strict isolation requirements. The vendor also offers what it calls a dedicated zero trust private environment in Azure OpenAI Studio, described as fully isolating data from all other customers. Leah runs on Azure, with keys held in Azure Key Vault. On data residency the vendor says only that it supports the residency and regulatory needs typical of large multinational enterprises. It names no region or jurisdiction and describes no customer choice.
Workday's security documentation describes the platform as a multitenant SaaS application in which multiple customers share one physical instance of the service. It also describes recovery point objectives. Workday names no hosting regions for this product and offers no residency choice for it. It does not say where processing happens as distinct from storage, or which regional infrastructure serves the contract products. Workday runs regional site editions, but none states a residency option.
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.
The AI governance page claims SOC 1 Type I and II, SOC 2 Type I and II, GDPR compliance, CCPA compliance, HIPAA readiness and ISO 27001 alignment. The home page FAQ, on the same site, says only that Leah is SOC 2 Type II certified, so the two pages disagree on what is held. For ISO 27001 and HIPAA the governance page says aligned and ready rather than certified. The auditor is described only as an independent Managed Security Service Provider, a category rather than a named firm. No coverage period, report date or audit scope is given. Penetration testing is said to be regular, with no partner named and no summary published. Leah has no trust center or portal, so there is no published route to request a report.
A SOC 3 report for Workday Contract Intelligence and Contract Lifecycle Management is public. It gives an auditor's conclusion on this product without an agreement or access request. The TRUSTe Enterprise Privacy and Data Privacy Governance Practices Certification names the contract product in scope, with TRUSTe as third party verification agent under the Data Privacy Framework. That certification is benchmarked against five frameworks, among them the OECD Privacy Guidelines and GDPR. For Workday as a whole, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certificates, SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports and an EU Cloud Code of Conduct adherence report are published. The SOC 2 covers any Workday system holding customer data. An independent third party audits it every year, and the report is open to customers and prospects. Workday does not name the auditing firm for the SOC reports.
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 DPA Setup Page lists four model providers against Leah Functionality, each noted as storing or retaining no customer data and each with named jurisdictions. Anthropic PBC is listed for the USA, Japan, and the EU or UK, and OpenAI LLC for the USA, Japan, and the EU or Switzerland. Cohere Inc. is listed for Canada, the USA, the EU or UK, and Japan. Google AI/ML with Google Cloud is listed for the USA, Japan, and the EU, Switzerland or UK. Microsoft Azure Services is listed for hosting and translation, and the private deployment option runs in Azure OpenAI Studio. DPA clause 4.3 requires any new subprocessor to be added to the published list with at least thirty days' notice before it processes customer personal data. Clause 4.4 gives a thirty day objection right on reasonable data protection grounds. If the objection is not resolved, the affected order can be terminated with a refund of prepaid unused fees. No model or version is named for any provider. The platform is described as choosing among several language models for each task and letting customers extend or customize models. Nothing published shows which provider handled a given piece of work.
Workday runs a proprietary large language model fine tuned for contracts. An orchestration layer applies multiple large language models to particular tasks, combining traditional, generative and agentic techniques. Workday owns one model layer and calls on others. Its product material does not identify those external models or their providers, or say where they run. It makes no commitment to tell customers when the supply chain changes.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Leah publishes no pricing at any level, including the unit of charge. The primary navigation covers platform, solutions, resources and company, and neither it nor the footer sitemap has a pricing page. There is no tier structure, no unit per seat, contract or agent, no volume banding and no indication of what implementation adds. Every call to action across the site is to request a demo. An implementation FAQ says timelines vary with scope and integrations and that a detailed plan is built during evaluation. It says nothing about cost. No published page gives a view of price before a sales process.
Workday publishes no price, rate, unit of charge or tier structure for the contract products, and the product pages link to no pricing page. Every commercial path ends in a contact or demo request. Third party analysis describes pricing as quote based under Workday's enterprise model, with no public price list or free trial. It says contract volume, users, modules, integrations and any bundling with other Workday products drive the price. The same analysis says the product is now negotiated as part of the wider Workday platform rather than bought on its own, so it cannot be priced standalone.
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.
Leah publishes dedicated industry pages for CPG and manufacturing, energy and utilities, financial services, healthcare, and pharma and medical devices. It describes its customers as Fortune 500 enterprises in regulated industries. By function it publishes pages for legal leadership, legal operations, sales and revenue, procurement, and finance. The pages carry distinct propositions written for the General Counsel, the contract operations team, the Chief Procurement Officer and the finance leader. The customer roster spans banking, airlines, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods and engineering. No published page says which practice areas, contract types or matters the platform does not support, and none addresses smaller organizations. Law firms appear only indirectly, through managed service partners, rather than as a served segment.
Workday names nine business functions as users, among them legal, procurement and finance, and the buyers are corporate teams. The product covers the contract lifecycle from intake to storage. Workday publishes its full extraction schema, roughly 30 standard terms from assignment and change of control to liability cap and termination for convenience. Custom models handle any other term. Workday states no organization size the platform is not built for and no industry focus. Beyond the ingestion layer recognizing contract languages, it gives no jurisdiction or language coverage.
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?
Leah's security FAQ, on its home page, says customer contract data is never used to train models. The AI governance page treats data leaking into models the customer does not own as a failure it engineered out. It says zero data retention is enforced so that OpenAI and Anthropic process data but never store it. No term in the Master Terms and Annexes v3.0c names training, model training, machine learning or model improvement for customer content, either way.
Two clauses come close. Clause 5.1 limits the provider's use of Customer Data to providing and maintaining the Cloud Service, Support and Professional Services. Clause 5.4 allows use of Usage Data, the provider's technical logs, data and learnings about the customer's use, to run, improve and support the service. Usage Data excludes Customer Data, so the improvement right covers telemetry, not content. Together the clauses fit a ban on training without stating one.
They leave open whether model improvement counts as maintaining the service. The commitment rests on the published policy, not a contract term. Version 4.0 of January 2026 changes only the trading name, according to the vendor.
The product pages and datasheet do not say whether customer content may be used to train models. The ISO 42001 certification shows that an AI management system exists, not what its training position is.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Section 14.4 allows export during the subscription and deletion of Customer Data within sixty days of a request after termination. That is subject to standard backup or record retention policies and legal requirements, and the customer cannot change the period. The data processing addendum adds secure deletion to industry standards at clause 8.2, with a certificate of deletion on request. Schedule 1 commits to export in CSV or a similar format within thirty calendar days and to physical destruction of media by a recognized provider.
Prompts and outputs have no separate window. The agreement treats Customer Data as one class, defined at section 23 as any data, content or materials the customer submits, so prompts and outputs follow that regime. Usage Data sits outside it. Section 5.4 lets the provider collect Usage Data, meaning its technical logs, data and learnings about the customer's use, excluding Customer Data. The provider may use it to run, improve and support the service and for other lawful purposes such as benchmarking.
It may disclose Usage Data externally only if deidentified and aggregated across customers. No deletion duty applies to Usage Data, and section 14.5 makes 5.4 survive termination.
The platform is a system of record that syncs continuously with existing repositories. The product pages do not say how long contracts, prompts, Ask AI conversations or generated outputs are kept. They also do not say whether a customer controls the retention window or can delete material.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Leah describes separation at the customer level, through deployment options. The vendor states that single tenant deployment is available for customers with strict data isolation requirements. It says a dedicated zero trust private environment within Azure OpenAI Studio ensures complete isolation from all other customers. Role based access control is stated to be enforced at every layer. That wording makes isolation a deployment option rather than the default, and nothing published describes how customers are separated in the standard shared deployment.
Legal, procurement, finance and shared services teams work in the same system, and nothing published addresses boundaries between them inside a customer.
The datasheet says advanced administration allows custom user roles and access controls for enterprise provisioning and security. It describes no roles or scoping rules and does not say how the controls are enforced. Nor does it say whether Ask AI and repository lookups respect those controls for each user at query time. The product is built to open contract data across business functions. No document management integration supplies permissions for it to inherit.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 19, headed Required Disclosures, lets the recipient disclose Confidential Information where the law requires. Where the law permits, the recipient must give advance notice and reasonable cooperation, at the discloser's expense, to obtain confidential treatment. The clause expressly covers Confidential Information including Customer Data. Section 23 confirms that the customer's Confidential Information includes Customer Data, so customer material sits inside the notice duty.
The duty is mutual and binds whichever party receives the demand. Section 14.5 makes section 19 survive termination. Leah publishes no transparency report, so there is no public count of demands received or of how they were answered. These terms are version 3.0c. Version 4.0 of January 2026 changes only the trading name, according to the vendor.
The product pages carry no commitment to notify a customer of a government or law enforcement request for its data, and link to no transparency report. They also link to no customer agreement or data processing agreement, which is where such a clause would sit.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Leah works on the customer's own material. The vendor states that Leah operates against the customer's policies and playbooks and gains intelligence from the customer's unstructured data and business rules. It answers contract questions from the customer's repository with sources attached. The vendor also refers to Leah operating against established legal precedents, but names no source, jurisdiction, database or rights basis for them.
The product manages a customer's contracts rather than retrieving primary law. No provenance statement backs the precedent reference, and no update cadence is published for anything.
The product holds no primary law collection. Retrieval runs against the customer's own contracts, synced from shared drives, cloud repositories and enterprise systems, so their provenance is the customer's. Third party material from before the acquisition described the proprietary contract model as trained on a collection of public contracts and legal documents. Workday's current material gives no scale, source or license basis for that training set.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Leah describes no citator, treatment signal or currency check, and does not say whether legal authority is reviewed for later history. The platform manages contracts, obligations and procurement workflows rather than retrieving case law, so a citator is not part of what it sells. The vendor does refer to Leah operating against established legal precedents, without identifying any source. That is the one place the product invokes primary authority, and no verification step is described for it.
The product works on the customer's own agreements and has no case law research feature. Workday describes no treatment signal or check of later history and names no citator license. Governing law is captured as an extracted term. That term identifies the law that applies to a contract, not whether any authority is still good law.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The home page and the AI governance page describe no explicit path for Leah to decline to answer or abstain, and no confidence or grounding rating. The governance loop does produce rejections. Approvals, escalations and rejections are applied automatically according to the customer's rules. Those are policy outcomes set by configured guardrails, not the model declining because it cannot ground a response. Neither page says what Leah does when the customer's own contract set or playbook does not cover the question in front of it.
Workday says Ask AI returns clear, reasoned answers with source links. It does not describe what Ask AI does when the contracts do not support an answer, and the product shows the user no path to decline and no confidence signal. A text quality field among the extracted terms flags poor scans rather than low confidence in an answer.
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 tracks decisions worldwide where a court addressed hallucinated AI content, and records the tool implicated where known. It records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Leah or the former company name ContractPodAi. Published 2026 sanctions trackers and trade press summaries name neither. The platform runs commercial contracting and procurement work rather than producing court filings, so its output does not ordinarily reach a brief.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin tracks court decisions worldwide involving hallucinated AI content and records the tool implicated where known. It records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Workday's contract products or their Evisort predecessor. Published 2026 sanctions summaries and secondary trackers do not name them either.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Leah publishes nothing that engages with bar or ethics guidance. That includes ABA Formal Opinion 512, state bar guidance in the United States, and Solicitors Regulation Authority or Law Society material. The company is headquartered in London and sells into legal departments across North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Its published compliance material covers regulation and security frameworks, namely GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, SOC and ISO. None of it addresses the professional conduct obligations that bind the lawyers using the product.
The product pages do not engage bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state bar guidance. Workday frames its responsible AI material around its ISO 42001 certification. That certification governs Workday's own AI management system, not the professional duties of the lawyers among its users.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Leah frames its public materials around cost and time removed, quantified at portfolio level. It cites a 91 percent cut in contract review time, more than $18 million of revenue protected and more than $2 million of tracked savings. Its headline figures are more than $125 billion of commercial value managed and more than $10 billion of ROI impact delivered. No per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes is described, and no guidance on billing, fee or client disclosure treatment is published.
The vendor describes an immutable audit log of every action, which could in principle support such a record, but does not present it for that purpose. Leah sells to in house functions rather than firms billing clients, so the costs in play are internal cost and outside counsel spend. Its materials address neither.
Workday claims dramatically faster contract turnaround at lower cost, with quantified results footnoted to select customer stories. The buyers are in house and business teams that do not bill clients by the hour, so the savings are enterprise cost rather than billable time. The product pages describe no per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes and give no guidance on billing or client disclosure.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The data processing agreement is Annex B of the Master Terms and Annexes v3.0c. The DPA Setup Page lists every subprocessor with its purpose, location and the product it serves. The list names ABBYY OCR SDK, Anthropic PBC, Cohere Inc., DocuSign or Adobe, Google AI/ML and Google Cloud, Jitterbit, Microsoft Azure Services, OpenAI LLC, QlikTech, Sendgrid, ZOHO, Zuva and four ContractPod group entities. Anthropic, OpenAI, Cohere and Google AI/ML are each listed against Leah Functionality as model providers, noted as storing or retaining no Customer Data, with named jurisdictions.
The DPA itself is the Bonterms DPA, published openly in the same PDF and ready to forward. It incorporates EU Standard Contractual Clauses Modules 2 and 3 and the UK International Data Transfer Addendum. It sets out processing details in Schedule 1 and fixes a 48 hour notice period for security incidents. Clause 4.3 commits to listing any new subprocessor and giving at least 30 days' notice before it processes anything.
Clause 4.4 gives an objection right, with termination and a refund if the objection is not resolved. Version 4.0 of January 2026 changes only the trading name, according to the vendor.
Workday publishes its ISO certifications, including the accredited AI certification with Schellman as the certifying body. The product pages carry no subprocessor list, no statement of which model providers see customer content, no data processing agreement and no client consent and notification pack.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The audit stage of Leah's published governance loop logs every decision. Each entry records what the agent did, why, under which policy, with what data and with what outcome. The records are described as tamper resistant, immutable and ready for any audit. That gives the action, the rule, the inputs and the result for each action. The published description of the log does not include the model. The platform chooses among several language models for each task and identifies no model or version, so the log does not show which system produced a given passage.
No export built for court disclosure or AI use certification is described. The audit framing is regulatory and internal rather than judicial.
Ask AI answers link to their sources, extraction ties each term back to its agreement, and workflow automation logs routing and approvals for each contract. Together they let a reader trace what was relied on. No export per document brings together the model used, the sources retrieved and human verification. Several unnamed models work on each task, so the product could not state the model used in any case.
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.
- Commercial Transparency
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Leah if
- You want to read the contract terms before a demo. Leah publishes master terms with a cap of a year of fees and an enhanced cap for breaches of its security or data protection terms. They add an intellectual property indemnity and deletion within sixty days of a request after termination.
- You need to know whether contracts train models. Leah says customer contract data is never used to train models and holds OpenAI and Anthropic to zero retention. It names Anthropic, OpenAI, Cohere and Google as providers.
- You want agent autonomy bounded and logged. The customer sets which agents may act, on which data and where they must escalate. Every action is recorded with its rationale, governing policy and outcome.
Choose Workday Contract Lifecycle Management if
- Your auditors want the AI governance certified. Workday holds an accredited ISO 42001 certification, with Schellman identifiable as the certifying body. It also posts a NIST AI Risk Management Framework attestation on its compliance page, covering how its AI is designed, built and evaluated.
- You need security evidence before you sign. A SOC 3 report naming the contract products is public, and an outside privacy certification names the product in scope. Workday's SOC 2 report is open to prospects as well as customers.
- You need to know what extraction will find. Workday publishes its pretrained list of roughly 30 standard terms, from change of control to termination for convenience. It supports custom extraction for anything else and links Ask AI answers to the source documents.
In summary
Leah
Leah, formerly ContractPodAi, is a London based agentic platform for enterprise contracting, legal, procurement and finance work. Its contract lifecycle product runs intake, review and redlining in Microsoft Word, approvals, signing and an obligation repository, and its Agentic OS assigns tasks to agents under Leah Maestro. According to the AI Legal Index, Leah publishes both its control model and its contract. The customer sets which agents act, on which data and where they escalate, and each action is logged. Its master terms state liability caps, a sixty day deletion window and notice of compelled disclosure. Its subprocessor list names four model providers. No price, region or accuracy figure is published.
Workday Contract Lifecycle Management
Workday Contract Lifecycle Management, sold with Workday Contract Intelligence, is an enterprise contract platform powered by Evisort AI, which Workday acquired in 2024. It covers intake, drafting, AI redlining against a playbook, negotiation, approvals, signature and one repository. According to the AI Legal Index, its case rests on assurance for the AI. It holds an accredited ISO 42001 certification and posts a NIST AI Risk Management Framework attestation on its compliance page, and a public SOC 3 report names the contract products. Pretrained extraction covers roughly 30 published standard terms, and Ask AI answers link to their sources. Its product pages say nothing on training, retention, liability or price.
Questions buyers ask
Leah vs Workday CLM: which is better for enterprise contract management?
If certified AI governance and public audit evidence matter most, Workday publishes them, and third party analysis says it is usually negotiated as part of the wider Workday platform. If you want contract terms, model providers and agent limits in writing before you buy, Leah publishes those. Both serve legal, procurement and finance teams. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 8, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Workday CLM or Leah train AI on customer contracts?
Workday's product pages do not say either way, and they lead to no customer agreement. Leah says customer contract data is never used to train models, and holds OpenAI and Anthropic to zero retention. Leah's commitment sits on its policy pages rather than in its master terms. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 8, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Is Workday CLM the same as Evisort?
In substance, yes. Workday acquired Evisort in 2024 and now sells the technology only under the Workday name, as Workday Contract Lifecycle Management and Workday Contract Intelligence. Its ISO 42001 certification was first achieved as Evisort in October 2024 and carried forward. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 8, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which AI models do Leah and Workday CLM use?
Workday runs its own large language model, fine tuned for contracts, plus an orchestration layer that applies several other models to each task. None of the others is named. Leah names Anthropic, OpenAI, Cohere and Google with their jurisdictions, but no versions, and picks among them for each task. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 8, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Leah and Workday CLM both leave unpublished?
Neither publishes a price, an accuracy or hallucination rate, or anything on attorney client privilege. Neither names a hosting region or engages with bar guidance such as ABA Formal Opinion 512, though both open contract analysis to business teams well beyond legal. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 8, 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.
Workday's product pages lead to no customer agreement, so its training, retention and liability terms are not public. Its stewardship material is published for Workday as a whole rather than for this product alone. Leah's no training promise is a published policy rather than a contract term. Its certification claims also differ between two of its own pages. Neither vendor reviewed this page.