Opus 2 vs TrialView: how they compare in 2026
Opus 2 and TrialView both run the hearing rather than the document review, and both put opposing parties and the tribunal into the same workspace. Opus 2 publishes more of its own thinking. Its five AI principles include two real commitments: a lawyer must apply their own judgment before any AI derived data is saved permanently, and client data is never shared outside their instance or between two cases within it. It explains design decisions rather than asserting them, setting out why it surfaces events for a lawyer to assemble into a chronology instead of generating one. It also names its security standards and hosts data in the location that best fits the customer. TrialView answers on forums, naming three divisions of the English courts, wide use across Ireland, and the ICC, IAC and DDRC among arbitral institutions. Neither publishes a customer agreement, so on neither can a buyer read the allocation of risk before signing.
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 drive several capabilities a buyer would miss, on a platform that ran without them for most of its life. Opus 2 Ingenuity is presented as an agentic framework covering document summaries and analysis, extraction of people, organizations, events and legal topics, questions scoped to a matter or selected documents, saved prompts, drafting and checking work product, speech recognition for legal transcripts, and live hearing analysis that compares testimony with the bundle to surface inconsistencies, which depends most on the machine. Underneath sit eighteen years of case management, shared workspace, annotation, chronologies, electronic bundles, evidence presentation and hearing infrastructure, none of which needs a model. The vendor places the AI on top of that platform, describing the platform as the source of the matter intelligence the AI uses.
The models run through the product without being what makes it work. Take the AI out and a complete trial platform remains: court compliant bundling with OCR, pagination, indexing and cross referencing, evidence presentation synchronized across devices, video conferencing and real time transcription. Those are what courts actually buy it for, and none needs a model. What the AI adds is real and spans the whole lifecycle: timelines and chronologies tied to source documents, detection of patterns and inconsistencies across witness statements and depositions, plain language questions over the document set, transcript analysis, and live flagging during a hearing of material that supports or undermines a proposition. A mature platform hosts the model layer rather than depending on it.
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.
Quality is asserted repeatedly and never measured. The vendor says better data relationships give more accurate insights, AI features add only relevant and helpful information, and the design stops errors from harming a case. Answers are said to be based on the selected documents and surrounding matter data, with the system locked to a single matter. Checked the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages: no accuracy figure, test set, benchmark, evaluation, error rate or hallucination disclosure. Nothing says whether an answer or summary cites its source document, or whether a reader can open the source from the output. This matters most in hearings, where the system flags inconsistencies between live testimony and the bundle and counsel may act within minutes. Citator checks do not apply to a platform working on a matter's own evidence.
Grounding is claimed throughout, and nothing behind it is published. The vendor says questions over the document set return sourced references, timelines are directly backed by source documents, and draft witness statements link automatically to cited evidence. This is the easier case. The source material is the closed case file, not the law, so a citation points to a document the user already holds and can open, and the risk is misattribution rather than invented authority. No accuracy figure is published for inconsistency detection, no precision or recall for pattern finding, and no measure of how faithfully timelines are extracted. There is no statement on hallucination, no evaluation, and nothing on what the system does when the file does not support an answer. Inconsistencies flagged during a live hearing carry high stakes, and nothing published tells a barrister how often the flag is wrong.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
A clear limit on autonomy is published, with a worked example. The Control principle says lawyers must control the process, using their own knowledge and judgment, before any data is saved permanently, so AI output stays a suggestion until a person commits it. The chronology feature shows this: the vendor says auto generating a chronology fills a timeline with irrelevant placeholders a team must remove, so instead the AI surfaces events for the lawyer to assemble, deciding relevance themselves. Entity extraction works the same way, showing people, events and organizations with summaries so the user can drop irrelevant ones and duplicates before anything is added. Checked the AI, home and security pages: no threshold at which a feature declines to answer, no confidence signal, no route to report or fix a wrong output, and nothing on what happens after an error reaches a work product.
The oversight is real but structural rather than stated. Output is consistently framed as suggestive rather than decisive: the AI identifies material that corroborates or undermines propositions, surfaces inconsistencies and proposes timelines, while the advocate marks up, annotates, tags and decides. Witness statement generation is explicitly a first draft. A legally qualified support team is stated to be available 24 hours a day through the dispute process, which is human oversight resourced with people who understand the work. None of it is published as a model: no statement of where the system acts without review, no confidence indication, no escalation behavior, and no description of what the AI does unattended during a live hearing while attention is on the witness. The naming of a first draft carries the assumption of review without ever stating it.
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.
Deployment evidence is deep, named and current, with no measured outcome. Five customer quotes give name, title and firm: a contentious legal technology portfolio manager at Linklaters, the chief knowledge and innovation officer at Dorsey & Whitney, the director of practice technology at Vorys, a litigation partner at Pillsbury and a paralegal at Shepherd and Wedderburn, plus two chambers clerks. About nineteen firm logos appear, including Baker Botts, Dentons, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Holland & Knight, Mishcon de Reya, O'Melveny, Troutman Pepper Locke and Wilson Sonsini. The institutional deployments can be checked independently: SIAC Gateway, run by the Singapore arbitral institution SIAC, is said to run on Opus 2, the Dubai institution DIAC is a named partner, and the transcript and hearing services supported the Manchester Arena Inquiry, Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 and the Hillsborough Inquiry. The vendor reports use by 98 percent of Am Law 50 firms and 92 percent of the Financial Times top 25 most innovative firms. Those figures show reach, not results; no quote carries a number or date, and no case study with a method was found.
Adoption by courts and tribunals is well evidenced. Named UK courts: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court, with wide use stated across UK and Irish courts. Named arbitral institutions: the ICC, the IAC and the DDRC, for which the vendor is described as a trusted provider of connected hearing services in domestic and international arbitration. It names one case, the Russian Aviation litigation, as well as large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries. Outside recognition is dated and checkable: Digital Evidence Management Software of the Year at the 2025 LegalTech Breakthrough Awards, and recognition at The Lawyer Awards. No law firm or chambers is named, no usage volume is published, and no outcome is measured, whether hearing time saved, bundle preparation time or error reduction. The evidence shows that serious forums use it, not what happens when they do.
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.
One precise commitment covers the question that matters most, and nothing else. The Secure principle says client data will never be shared outside the client's instance or between two or more cases inside it, an explicit undertaking across matters and tenants, reinforced by queries locked to a single matter or selected documents and by firewalls, encrypted volumes, logical identifiers and ownership tags. The arbitral institutions material acknowledges that arbitration is confidential. No customer agreement is published, so none of this is contractual: the footer carries a privacy policy, cookie policy, modern slavery statement, supplier code and code of business conduct, but no terms of service, master agreement or data processing addendum. Nothing addresses training on client material, no retention position exists for documents, prompts or output, and privilege and work product are not addressed in writing, though the platform holds working papers from highly sensitive disputes and public inquiries. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more.
Access control is claimed, and the hardest confidentiality question this product raises is left unanswered. The vendor states user permissions and encryption, secure cloud storage, and selective sharing with colleagues, counsel, witnesses, solicitors, clients or third parties. Those are real controls, and the sharing model is described in the right terms. The open question is built into the product. It brings law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies into one workspace, so in a contested hearing opposing parties and the tribunal work inside the same system. Nothing published describes how one side's privileged working materials, annotations, private markup and saved copy of proceedings are kept apart from the other side or the tribunal. No treatment of legal professional privilege or work product was found.
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.
Nothing published addresses the advice line, and no document on the site would carry it. The footer, read in full, lists a privacy policy, cookie policy, modern slavery and human trafficking statement, supplier code of conduct and code of business conduct, with no terms of service, disclaimer or professional responsibility statement. Nothing says output is not legal advice, nothing addresses responsibility when a drafted document or flagged inconsistency proves wrong, and no bar or regulator is named, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and, for a London vendor selling to English firms and chambers, any Solicitors Regulation Authority or Bar Council guidance. What is published is a supervision stance rather than a disclaimer: the vendor says it is not trying to replace a lawyer's intelligence, the AI enhances human ingenuity, and lawyers must apply their own judgment before anything is saved. That describes how the work is done, not who answers for it.
Not located. The product generates first draft witness statements from recorded interviews and produces analysis presented in live proceedings, and the buyer set includes judges and arbitral institutions as well as advocates. Nothing published addresses the professional responsibility framing of any of that: no statement on the advocate's duty to verify AI identified inconsistencies before putting them to a witness, no positioning on machine drafted witness evidence, and no engagement with Bar Council, Law Society, Law Society of Ireland or judicial guidance on AI in proceedings. The gap is notable because the vendor supplies both advocate and tribunal, which is exactly the configuration professional guidance addresses.
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.
Five well written principles are published, but not a governance framework. Empower, Enhance, Control, Secure and Trust each get a paragraph explaining design choices and rejected alternatives: why the vendor does not auto generate chronologies, why it keeps existing legal workflows, and what the AI may not write into a case without a lawyer's action. Two carry real commitments, on human control before anything is saved and on data never crossing an instance or case boundary. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages and found no accountable owner for model behavior, no testing regime for the AI before release, no published results, no model documentation, and no standard or certification for AI as distinct from information security. STRIDE threat modeling and CREST accredited penetration testing cover software security, not model behavior. Nothing addresses bias or uneven output, though the hearing feature analyzes live testimony, and how it performs across accents, languages and interpreted evidence in international arbitration goes unasked.
Nothing published. No AI policy, no evaluation methodology, no bias or fairness assessment, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no model card, no named governance body and no external standard such as ISO 42001. The specific risk left unaddressed: a system that flags inconsistencies in witness statements and identifies material undermining propositions is making adversarial judgments about credibility, and any systematic tendency in how it does that would operate inside live proceedings without anyone being able to inspect it.
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.
Strong on how the system is built, and silent on what happens to the data inside it. Published: AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2 in transit, including between internal components, email encrypted end to end, logical data separation through firewalls, encrypted volumes, logical identifiers and ownership tags, client defined password policy, several multifactor options, single sign on through the client's provider, and full client control over users. Development practice is well documented: STRIDE threat modeling with a risk owner per threat, regular CREST accredited external penetration tests, automated and manual code review including third party dependencies, continuous integration, and formal change management with risk and impact assessment. Searched the security and AI pages and the footer and found no retention period, deletion or return commitment, export provision, subprocessor list, named cloud provider, or incident response or breach notification practice. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more.
No position on stewardship of AI data was found. General controls are stated: secure cloud storage, user permissions and encryption. Nothing covers the model layer. Nothing says whether case documents, transcripts, recorded witness interviews or hearing material are used to train or improve any model, how long AI output and queries are kept, whether processing is separated by matter, or what happens to a case file after proceedings end. This product takes in recorded witness interviews and complete litigation files, which is highly sensitive content, and its training and retention position is not published.
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.
Nothing is published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong, because no customer agreement is published. The footer legal inventory, read in full, is a privacy policy, a cookie policy, a modern slavery and human trafficking statement, a supplier code of conduct and a code of business conduct in PDF. There is no terms of service, no master services agreement, no subscription terms, no service level agreement and no data processing addendum. Nothing therefore states a liability cap, an indemnity in either direction, a warranty on the software or on generated output, an insurance position, a limitation period, a governing law or a forum. The security page refers in passing to Opus 2 Services and Agreements meeting global legal and regulatory requirements, and names six regimes they are said to satisfy, which confirms agreements exist without publishing any of them. A buyer cannot read the allocation of risk in advance at any level.
No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, indemnity, service levels or remedy. Two failure modes make the absence concrete rather than formal: an AI identified inconsistency that is wrong and gets put to a witness in cross examination, and a bundle compliance or pagination failure at hearing, since court compliant bundling is the operational spine of the product and a defective bundle has immediate consequences in front of a judge. No service level commitment is published for a platform used live in court.
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.
Integration is mentioned by category, never by name. The AI page says core documents flow from ediscovery and document management systems into one workspace, naming neither. The security page describes linking to a client's own single sign on provider, a useful identity integration but not a practice system one. Checked the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages and the full navigation: no document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments is named, and nothing covers matter management, ebilling, court filing, Word or Outlook. No API, developer documentation or integration list was found. The vendor runs hearing infrastructure and has partnered with the IDRC hearing venue in London on a dedicated suite, which integrates with a venue rather than a system. The platform page was not opened and may name connectors.
Integration is real inside the hearing and absent outside it. Documented: video conferencing with breakout rooms, real time transcription feeds shown in the platform with AI analysis over them, speech to text for witness interviews, and evidence presentation synchronized across devices in the hearing room. Bringing a live transcript feed and evidence display into one synchronized environment is real integration work, and it is the core of a hearing provider's job. Nothing public covers the rest: no named document management system, no practice or case management integration, no connector for an ediscovery platform where review happened elsewhere, and no API or export documentation beyond court bundle output. A firm cannot tell how material reaches the platform from the systems where it already sits.
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 offered explicitly, and processing location is not addressed. The security page says the vendor hosts each client's solution and data in the location that best fits its needs, which is a customer choice, supported by separate EMEA, North America and Asia Pacific operations and a list of data protection regimes the services meet: GDPR, UK GDPR, Canadian PIPEDA, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Singapore Personal Data Protection Act and the Australian Privacy Act. Data is described as self contained through firewalls, encrypted volumes, logical identifiers and ownership tags, which is logical rather than physical separation. No list of regions or data centers is published, no cloud provider is named, and nothing separates where data is stored from where processing or model inference happens, which matters to a customer choosing a jurisdiction to keep material inside it.
Cloud storage is stated and nothing else. The vendor says data is stored securely on cloud servers accessible anywhere, which names no provider, region or residency commitment, and describes no single tenant, dedicated or on premises option. Residency matters for this product. It serves UK and Irish courts and international arbitral institutions including the ICC, so material from proceedings in several jurisdictions sits on one platform in undisclosed locations, and a tribunal or party may have residency rules of its own. A dedicated security features page linked from the site was not read and may give residency detail.
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.
Current, named certification is published with nothing to verify it. The security page, last modified 19 Aug 2026, names ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and Cyber Essentials Plus, with regular CREST accredited external penetration testing, STRIDE threat modeling with risk owners, and automated and manual code review. It cites the 2022 revision of ISO 27001 rather than the superseded 2013 version. No certification body, certificate number, scope, validity period or issue date is given, there is no route to obtain the certificate or a report, no trust portal, and no SOC 2 of any type, which US buyers look for first. The arbitral institutions page states ISO 27001:2013 while the security page states 2022, so the site gives two versions of the same certification, one out of date.
Controls are claimed, a dedicated security page exists, and no certification was found. The site claims secure cloud servers, user permissions, encryption and a secure workspace throughout. A separate security features page is linked from the product pages, which suggests deliberate attention to the subject. Searches combining the vendor name with ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials and GDPR certification found no certification, attestation, auditor or trust portal. The security features page itself was not read. It could show certifications or confirm there are none.
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 vendor names its AI and never says what runs it. Opus 2 Ingenuity is described as an agentic framework working on matter data, covering summaries, entity extraction, questions, prompt building, drafting and real time speech recognition. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages: no model or provider is named, no first party versus third party distinction is drawn, no version appears, inference location is not stated beyond the general offer to host in a chosen geography, and there is no commitment to notify customers of model or configuration changes. The one related commitment is that client data never leaves the client's instance, which says where data does not go without saying what processes it. For AI that reads live testimony in a courtroom, the model is what a tribunal would most likely ask about.
Nothing was found. No model provider is named, nothing separates proprietary from third party models, no subprocessor list exists, and the transcription and speech to text features are not attributed to any provider, though they almost certainly involve one. The vendor refers to the latest AI capabilities and intelligent technology without naming anything. For a platform used by courts and arbitral institutions, a tribunal may need to know who processed evidence in a case. The identity of the model and transcription providers matters procedurally, and public sources do not answer it.
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.
No pricing is published at any level, including the unit of charge. The full navigation and footer across all three regional sites, read, have no pricing or plans page. No rate, unit, tier, volume band, term or charge for implementation, hearing services or transcription appears, which matters because the offering mixes software with services such as court reporters, transcripts and hearing room setup, each usually priced differently. Every call to action is to watch a demo or make contact. The only cost related claim is that connected data and workflows make AI use more efficient, so customers spend less.
No pricing at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure, and no unit of charge, which matters here because the plausible units are all different in kind: per matter, per hearing day, per user, per gigabyte of evidence, or per bundle. A litigation team cannot estimate the cost of a three week trial from anything published. Every route is a demo request. Independent software directories list pricing as available on request and carry no figure either. Checked the home page, the product overview and the site navigation. It is an absence a buyer cannot work around.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Coverage is documented by role and by solution, and no boundary is stated. Role pages cover partners and lead counsel, legal innovation teams, associates, and paralegals and litigation support, each with its own benefits. Solutions cover Cases, Hearings, Transcripts, Arbitral Institutions, and Chambers sold as LEX, identifying law firms, barristers' chambers and arbitral institutions as buyers. Practice focus is commercial disputes, international arbitration, public inquiries and inquests, with named inquiry work and arbitral institution deployments, and the chambers product reaches criminal clerking. Reach spans three regional operations and six data protection regimes. The vendor says it serves the litigation and arbitration lifecycle in any jurisdiction worldwide, and nothing names a practice area, matter type, jurisdiction or scale it does not serve.
Forum coverage is stated in specific terms, and user types are listed. Proceedings named: litigation, arbitration, mediation, adjudication, conciliation, tribunals, depositions, large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries. Forums named: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court in the UK, with wide use stated across UK and Irish courts, plus the ICC, IAC and DDRC arbitral institutions and international arbitration generally. Users named: paralegals, partners, counsel, barristers, solicitors, arbitrators, judges and arbitral bodies. Coverage is described rather than listed in full. There is no list of courts where the platform is available, no statement of limits outside the UK, Ireland and international arbitration, and nothing on whether the AI features are available in every forum.
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?
No located statement addresses whether client material is used to train or refine any model, either way. The nearest thing is a boundary rather than a training position: the Secure principle on the AI page commits that client data will never be shared outside their instance or between two or more cases inside an instance, which describes where data does not travel without saying what is done with it inside. Nothing states whether documents, transcripts, prompts or generated output feed model training, tuning or improvement, and no opt-out or opt-in mechanism is described.
The absence is structural rather than an omission from one page: no customer agreement of any kind is published, so there is no instrument in which such a commitment could sit. Searched the AI page, the home page, the security page, the arbitral institutions page and the full footer legal inventory on 31 Aug 2026; the privacy policy was not opened.
Silent. The published data handling statement covers access control and encryption, not model training. Nothing was found either way on whether case documents, transcripts, recorded witness interviews or hearing material are used to train or improve any model. The content at stake is highly sensitive: complete litigation files, recorded witness interviews and live proceedings. Checked the home page, case management page, case preparation page, hearing services page, AI litigation page and product overview on 29 Aug 2026. A dedicated security features page exists on the site and was not read.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Nothing published addresses retention of anything. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages and the full footer on 31 Aug 2026 and found no retention period, deletion commitment, return or export at the end of a matter, or customer or zero retention setting, for case documents and transcripts or for AI prompts and output. The security page covers encryption, access and development practice in detail and stops before the data lifecycle, and no customer agreement is published.
This matters because the vendor's hearing and transcript work covers public inquiries and confidential arbitrations, where how long a record persists is often set by order. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more.
Case workspaces have no stated life once proceedings conclude. No retention period is published for AI queries over the document set, generated timelines, transcript analysis or draft witness statements, and nothing states what happens to a case workspace once proceedings conclude. Retention is a live question in this product's own terms: the vendor states that a user can preserve their own digital copy of proceedings, which is retention as a feature, and says nothing about the vendor side duration.
Checked the case management page, the hearing services page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
An explicit commitment across matters is published as one of five AI principles. The Secure principle says client data will never be shared outside the client's instance or between two or more cases inside it, covering both tenant separation and the wall between two matters run by the same firm. Questions are described as locked to a single matter or selected documents, and the security page names firewalls, encrypted volumes, logical identifiers and ownership tags as the mechanisms, describing the result as self contained.
Customers fully control creating, changing and removing users and permissions. Nothing describes how the boundary is enforced within the AI as opposed to storage, and none of it is contractual, since no customer agreement is published.
A permission model is claimed but not documented, and here that matters a great deal. The vendor states user permissions and secure sharing with colleagues, counsel, witnesses, solicitors, clients or any third party, so a permission model exists. Nothing explains how it works. The product's defining feature is that law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies share one workspace, so in a contested hearing opposing parties and the tribunal are inside the same platform.
No published material describes how one party's privileged annotations, private markup and saved copy of proceedings are walled off from the other side or the bench. There is no document management system to inherit permissions from, so the platform must run its own model, and that model is not published. Checked the case management page, hearing services page, case preparation page and product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Nothing found addresses third party demands for customer data. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages and the full footer on 31 Aug 2026. Nothing covers subpoenas, court orders, warrants, regulatory demands or government requests: no commitment to notify the client, resist or narrow a demand or seek a protective order, nothing on conduct where notice is prohibited, and no transparency report.
No customer agreement is published where such a clause could sit. This matters because the vendor hosts evidence bundles and hearing records for confidential international arbitrations and statutory public inquiries, where parties would expect to be told of a demand. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more.
Requests for material from live proceedings meet no stated process. No clause on government or law enforcement requests, no commitment to notify a customer before producing its data, and no transparency report was found. The question has a particular edge here, because the vendor holds material from live proceedings for courts and arbitral institutions as well as for parties, so a request could come from a body that is also a customer. Checked the home page, the case management page, the product overview and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The question does not arise in its usual form for this product. Opus 2 operates on the documents, evidence bundles and transcripts of a customer's own matter, so there is no vendor-assembled corpus of primary law, no third-party content license and no upstream data supplier to identify. One feature does sit close to the question and is recorded here: the vendor describes its AI as running on proprietary matter intelligence generated as legal teams collaborate in the platform over eighteen years, which raises rather than answers a provenance question about whether any of that accumulated intelligence informs models used for other customers.
The Secure principle's commitment that data never leaves a client's instance cuts against it, and nothing states the position directly. Searched the AI page, home page, security page and footer inventory on 31 Aug 2026.
The parties' own evidence is the working material, which sets the usual corpus question aside. This product has no primary law corpus: the AI operates over the parties' own evidence, bundles, transcripts and witness statements rather than over published authority, so there is no external legal source to name, license or date. The underlying question still applies here, namely what collection the models were built or tuned on, and that is not published.
Nothing states whether models are general purpose, trained on legal material, or tuned on prior customer matters, the last being the possibility that would matter most to a litigant. Checked the AI litigation page, the case preparation page, the case management page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Good law checking does not apply to an evidence and transcript platform. The platform manages, analyzes and presents the evidence and transcripts of a specific dispute; it does not retrieve primary law or assert legal propositions whose validity would need checking, and no citator is claimed. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages on 31 Aug 2026. The accuracy question that does apply, whether a summary, extracted entity or flagged inconsistency faithfully reflects the document or testimony, is covered under citation accuracy, where no measurement was found.
Evidence analysis gives a citator nothing to check. TrialView analyzes the evidence in a case rather than researching the law, so its output contains no legal authority for a citator to check. The product does not do that work, so there is nothing for the vendor to document. Checked the AI litigation page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing published describes what the system does when unsure. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages on 31 Aug 2026 and found no abstention path, no confidence or relevance score shown to users, no threshold at which a feature declines, and no statement of behavior when documents do not support the question. The vendor's answer is design rather than a signal: AI output is presented for a person to accept or discard, extracted entities are shown so users can drop irrelevant ones and duplicates, and a lawyer must apply their own judgment before anything is saved. That puts a person at every commit point without telling them which outputs the system was least sure of.
Weak and strong matches surface during hearings with no described difference. No explicit no answer path, abstention behavior or confidence signal is documented for question answering over the document set, for inconsistency detection or for timeline construction. The consequence is specific to live proceedings: during a hearing the platform surfaces material said to corroborate or undermine a proposition in real time, and nothing published tells an advocate whether a weak match is presented with the same confidence as a strong one, or whether the system will decline to surface anything at all when the evidence does not support the proposition being tested.
Checked the AI litigation page, the hearing services page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion, tribunal ruling or disciplinary record naming this product was found as of 31 Aug 2026. Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which tracks court decisions on hallucinated AI content and names the tool where known, plus several independent 2026 sanctions trackers and a UK tracker, by company and product name. This describes the public record on that date and is not a clearance.
Much of Opus 2's work is confidential international arbitration, where a similar failure would not usually produce a published decision, and a UK commentator who maintains one tracker notes anecdotally that hallucinated material is appearing in arbitrations without being reported or sanctioned.
None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor name with court, judgment, order, sanction and fabricated evidence terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026. No named docket database or court record tracker was searched in the UK, Ireland or elsewhere. The exposure shape differs from a research product: this system does not generate citations to legal authority, so the classic fabricated case failure mode does not apply, and the analogous risk would be a mis-cited or misattributed document reference within a bundle. Recorded as a statement about what this search found, not as a clearance.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No professional conduct authority is named anywhere. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages and the full footer on 31 Aug 2026 and found nothing citing ABA Formal Opinion 512, state bar guidance, or, for a company registered in England selling to English firms and chambers, Solicitors Regulation Authority or Bar Council guidance on AI. Nothing maps a feature to a duty a supervising lawyer could evidence.
The five AI principles address lawyers' concerns in general terms and commit to human control before data is saved, which is close to the competence and supervision duties those authorities describe without citing any. Nothing addresses arbitral institution rules or practice notes on AI, though the vendor supplies case management systems to arbitral institutions.
A supplier to courts engages none of the judicial guidance on AI. No named guidance from the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Law Society of Ireland, the Bar of Ireland or any judicial practice direction on AI use in proceedings was located, and no ethics material of any kind appears on the surfaces a buyer would check. The absence stands out because the vendor supplies courts and arbitral institutions directly, and judicial guidance on AI in litigation is exactly the framework its own customers operate under. Checked the home page, the AI litigation page, the product overview and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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 cost claims are made with no treatment of billing. Claims include less review time, more productivity, faster delivery to clients, and lower spend because connected data makes AI use more efficient. One chief knowledge and innovation officer describes the AI helping win a client on the phone and calls it a revenue generating opportunity. Searched the AI, home and security pages and the footer on 31 Aug 2026 and found no per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes and no guidance on billing or client disclosure.
The vendor does publish material on measuring legal technology return through utilization and time spent on tasks and matters, which is a measurement framework for the firm, not guidance on what clients are told.
Savings claims only. The vendor states that the platform reduces administrative workload, cuts manual document preparation time, and allows teams to spend more time on case strategy and less on manual tasks, saving resources. Those describe the firm's own time and no figure is attached to any of them. Nothing appears on the client's side of the equation: no position on billing for AI assisted preparation, no time or audit record a firm could produce to a client, and no guidance on how machine assisted bundling or analysis should be recorded on a bill. Checked the case management page, the home page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
None of the documents a client's AI clause asks for is published or offered. Searched the security and AI pages and the full footer on 31 Aug 2026: there is no subprocessor or model provider list, data processing addendum, security questionnaire, trust portal, AI disclosure pack, or route to request any of them. A firm can point a client to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and Cyber Essentials Plus on the security page, regular CREST accredited penetration testing, six data protection regimes listed as met, including GDPR, UK GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the AI principle that data never leaves a client's instance or crosses between cases.
A firm asked which third parties process its matter data, or whether the vendor trains on it, would find no answer and no one to ask short of negotiating.
General security claims are all a firm could pass on. No subprocessor list, named model or transcription provider, data processing agreement, trust center or self serve route to request documents was found, so a firm has nothing to forward to its client. General claims of encryption and user permissions are not a disclosure a firm can pass on. Checked the case management page, the home page, the product overview and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. The security features page was not read and may say more.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Nothing published would help a lawyer disclose or certify AI use, and this vendor raises the question directly. Its hearing product runs AI during a live proceeding: as testimony is transcribed, the system compares it with the hearing bundle and flags inconsistencies counsel may act on in the same session, and teams can run their own prompts on live evidence. Searched the AI, home, security and arbitral institutions pages on 31 Aug 2026 and found nothing on whether that use should be disclosed to the tribunal or other side, no model identification or versioning, no exportable record of AI outputs generated or acted on, no log of what users accepted or discarded despite the rule that a lawyer commits every AI result, and no template for a court's AI standing order. The vendor also supplies case management systems to arbitral institutions, putting it on both sides of the question.
The source trail is strong, because the product is built around showing where things came from. Court bundles carry automatic pagination, indexing, bookmarking, hyperlinked indexes and cross referencing, with built in compliance checks. Timelines are said to be backed by source documents, draft witness statements link to cited evidence, answers return sourced references, and a user can keep an annotated digital copy of proceedings.
A party can show what a proposition rests on and where it sits in the bundle. What is missing is the AI part a standing order on AI use would ask for. Nothing records which outputs were machine generated, no model is named or logged against an output, and no record shows that an advocate checked an inconsistency the AI flagged before using it. The product documents the evidence thoroughly and its own involvement not at all.
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.
- UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
- AI Liability and Recourse
- Commercial Transparency
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
- Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Which one fits
Choose Opus 2 if
- You want the AI to stop before it writes into the case. Opus 2 publishes five AI principles and two carry real commitments: lawyers must apply their own judgment before any AI derived data is saved permanently, and client data is never shared outside their instance or between two cases within it. It also explains its design choices rather than asserting them, setting out why it surfaces events for a lawyer to assemble into a chronology instead of generating one that a team must then prune.
- Your matter runs from instruction to hearing room. Opus 2 covers case preparation with a shared document workspace, annotation, chronologies and issue management. Hearings combine an electronic bundle with real time transcription and evidence presentation, and transcripts are delivered real time, daily or deferred. Case administration for arbitral institutions and a chambers product complete the set, with the AI comparing testimony against the bundle as it is transcribed.
- Your information security team wants named standards and named testing. Opus 2 publishes ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and Cyber Essentials Plus, regular penetration testing by CREST accredited external groups, and STRIDE threat modeling with an assigned risk owner per threat. It states AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit, logical separation using firewalls, encrypted volumes and ownership tags, and hosting in the geographical location that best fits the customer.
Choose TrialView if
- Your hearing is in a court that already uses it. TrialView states wide use across United Kingdom and Ireland courts including the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court, names the ICC, IAC and DDRC among arbitral institutions it serves, and was named Digital Evidence Management Software of the Year at the 2025 LegalTech Breakthrough Awards.
- The bundle has to survive contact with the court. TrialView automates bundle creation with OCR, automatic date recognition, smart pagination, tabbing, bookmarking, indexing, dynamic cross referencing and automatically generated hyperlinked indexes, with built in court compliance checks and late insertion handling, which is the operational spine of a hearing rather than a convenience.
- Everyone in the proceeding needs the same evidence in front of them. TrialView brings law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies into one workspace rather than serving one side. Evidence presentation is synchronized across devices, with integrated video conferencing and breakout rooms for remote participants and real time transcription with live mark up. A legally qualified support team is stated to be available around the clock through the dispute.
In summary
Opus 2
Opus 2 is a platform for running commercial disputes from client instruction to the hearing room. It covers case preparation and strategy, hearings that combine a shared electronic bundle with real time transcription and evidence presentation, transcript services, case administration for arbitral institutions and a chambers product. An agentic AI layer summarizes documents, extracts entities, answers questions over a matter and compares testimony against the bundle during a live hearing. According to the AI Legal Index, it publishes five AI principles, two of which commit that a lawyer must act before AI derived data is saved and that data never crosses an instance or a case. No customer agreement, liability position or named model provider is published.
TrialView
TrialView is an AI dispute resolution platform covering the lifecycle of a contested matter from bundle preparation to hearing presentation. It is used in litigation, arbitration, mediation, tribunals, investigations and statutory inquiries, and is designed to bring law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies into the same workspace rather than serving one side. According to the AI Legal Index, it states wide use across United Kingdom and Ireland courts including the Commercial Court and the Technology and Construction Court, and names the ICC, IAC and DDRC among arbitral institutions served. No customer agreement, certification, residency statement or named model provider is published.
Questions buyers ask
Opus 2 vs TrialView: which is better for running a hearing?
Opus 2 publishes more about how its AI is bounded and more about its security controls. TrialView publishes more about where it is used, naming three divisions of the English courts and three arbitral institutions. Neither publishes a customer agreement, an accuracy figure or a named model provider. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What can you read before signing?
On Opus 2, a security page naming ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Cyber Essentials Plus, CREST accredited penetration testing, encryption standards and a logical separation model, plus five published AI principles. On TrialView, statements that data sits on secure cloud servers with user permissions and encryption, and a dedicated security features page. Neither publishes terms of service, a master agreement or a data processing addendum, so the allocation of risk cannot be read in advance on either. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How is one side's material kept from the other's?
Opus 2 answers it directly, committing that client data is never shared outside the client's instance or between two cases within it, and its query features are described as locked to a single matter or a selected document set. On TrialView the question is unanswered: the product deliberately brings opposing parties and the tribunal into one workspace, and nothing published describes what separates one side's privileged material from the other's. Neither vendor addresses privilege or work product in a written commitment. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do either publish an accuracy figure?
Neither does. Opus 2 states that better data relationships produce more accurate insights and that its design prevents erroneous data from affecting a case, with no figure, test set or evaluation published. TrialView states that answers return sourced references and that timelines are backed to source documentation, again with nothing measured. That matters most on the feature both sell hardest, where the system flags inconsistencies against live testimony and counsel may act within minutes. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Opus 2 and TrialView both leave unpublished?
Neither names the model or the provider behind its AI, which on a platform used by tribunals is a question with procedural weight. Neither publishes a price, a unit of charge or an indication of whether the meter runs per matter, per hearing day or per user. Neither publishes an AI governance framework with an accountable owner or any evaluation of uneven output, including how live transcription and inconsistency detection perform across accents, languages and interpreted evidence. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 3, 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.
Neither vendor publishes a customer agreement. On Opus 2 the footer legal inventory is a privacy policy, a cookie policy, a modern slavery statement and two codes of conduct, and TrialView publishes nothing of the kind. So neither publishes a liability position, a retention period, a deletion commitment or an incident notification practice. The difference that matters most between them concerns the shared workspace both sell. Opus 2 commits that client data is never shared outside an instance or between two cases inside one. On TrialView nothing published describes how one side's privileged working papers, annotations and mark up are separated from the other side's or from the tribunal's. Opus 2's own pages give different versions of the same certification, ISO 27001:2022 on the security page and 2013 on the arbitral institutions page. TrialView links a dedicated security features page from its product pages. Neither vendor reviewed this page.