Rev vs Verbit: how they compare in 2026
Rev and Verbit both turn recorded legal proceedings into transcripts with their own speech recognition engines, and both sell human review too. The widest gap is privilege. Verbit's terms carry a clause for privileged materials: access limited to staff who need it, no use beyond the service, return or destruction on request, and a statement that nothing in the agreement waives privilege. Law firm deposition material stays out of its general speech recognition training unless the firm opts in, and no customer content trains a generative model. Rev's terms say customer content may be used for continuous training of Rev's own speech recognition and other AI models, while excluding generative model training. Verbit also marks the AI only output on its entry plan as not court admissible. Rev's counterweight is reach and price. Its AI analyzes up to 500 case files at once with every finding cited to a timestamp or page and line, and it publishes per seat prices for every plan but its top one.
Which one fits
Choose Rev if
- You want AI that works across a whole case file, not only the transcript. Rev analyzes up to 500 files at once across audio, video, documents and images, cites every finding to the exact timestamp or page and line, drafts summaries, chronologies and affidavits in an editor, and searches case photos.
- You want to start without a sales call. Rev publishes a free plan, Essentials at $25.49 per seat per month billed annually and Pro at $47.99, with human transcription at $1.99 a minute and 99 percent accuracy guaranteed. Only the Unlimited plan is quoted.
- Your practice is criminal defense, prosecution or a smaller civil firm on Clio. Rev addresses prosecution, defense, law enforcement and civil firms, states CJIS and HIPAA compliance, pulls files from Clio, Dropbox, Box, Google Drive and OneDrive, and adds a Clio Manage integration on its Pro plan.
Choose Verbit if
- You are sending privileged depositions and need the privilege protected in the contract. Verbit's terms limit access to privileged materials to staff with a direct need to know, bar any use beyond the service and customer specific optimization, require return or destruction on request, and state that nothing in the agreement waives privilege.
- You do not want your testimony training a shared model. Verbit's terms keep deposition and other law firm material out of its general speech recognition training unless an authorized representative gives written opt in, and bar any customer content from training a generative model, by Verbit or its providers.
- You need to know which output can go before a court. Verbit marks its AI only Standard plan as not court admissible and offers human reviewed and certified transcripts with jurisdiction specific formatting and cover pages for evidentiary use, backed by a published corrections policy.
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.
Rev's own speech recognition models transcribe every file, and its AI analyzes whole case files at once, drafts summaries, chronologies, affidavits and briefs in an agentic editor, and searches case photos. Human transcription, captions and deposition summaries are sold beside the platform, but the platform itself is AI throughout.
The models are the engine of the product, and the business survives without them. Captivate is the vendor's own automatic speech recognition engine, trained on legal terminology, adapting to customer vocabulary, speakers and acoustic conditions, and Gen.V is a generative layer producing summaries, chapters, keyword tagging and inconsistency detection. Every legal plan is priced and described around that engine. Verbit also sells the same output produced by people: human review, certified transcripts and the VITAC, Take Note and AST brands are human transcription operations. The Terms describe the Services as processing live and prerecorded media using ASR or human options. Remove the models and a transcription business remains.
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.
Every finding links to a citation with the exact timestamp and source file, with page and line citations for depositions, so a user can check it in seconds. Rev says its AI draws findings only from the files uploaded to a case rather than the internet. Accuracy is published for transcription alone: 96% or better for AI transcripts and 99% or better, guaranteed, for human transcripts, without the test behind the AI figure. No error rate is published for analysis across files or for drafting.
The product cites no legal authority, so authority grounding and citator checks do not apply; grounding and measured accuracy do. Grounding is strong: output is time coded and labeled by speaker against the source recording, so every word can be traced to audio a reader can replay, and a published Post-Production Corrections Policy covers fixes. The hallucination position is in the contract. Section 4(d) of the Terms says AI Analysis Features use probabilistic models that may produce inaccurate, incomplete or misleading results and are not professional advice. It adds that they are no substitute for qualified human review and that the customer must verify output before relying on it. No accuracy figure, test set or error rate is published, and the accuracy commitments in section 7(f) are targets that depend on reasonable audio quality as judged by the vendor.
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.
Every finding is linked to its source for review, drafts open in an editor, and human verified transcription is offered where accuracy matters most. The Terms of Service make the customer solely responsible for verifying the accuracy and completeness of all work product before acting on it. The agentic editor drafts documents directly from an instruction, and nothing states what it may not be used for without review.
Modes, the constraint, the review surfaces and the route back to human judgment are all published. The modes are the product tiers: AI only transcription, AI with optional human review, and certified transcripts completed by people, each described and priced separately. The constraint is printed on the plan: the self serve Standard legal plan lists Not court admissible among its features, so a buyer knows before buying what unsupervised output may not be used for. Court admissible transcripts are available on request on higher tiers, and each names an upgrade path to certified transcripts. The review surfaces are the editing workspace, rough drafts set against final transcripts, and the Post-Production Corrections Policy in the Terms. Section 4(d) of the Terms puts verification of all AI output on the customer and says the features are no substitute for qualified human review. On a transcription product the boundary is a type of document rather than a confidence score, and the vendor draws it plainly.
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.
Case studies describe Doubek, Pyfer & Storrar cutting legal drafting time by 97%, Greening Law Group's review of body camera footage that used to take 10 to 30 hours, and Anderson Law cutting evidence review time by 94%. The figures are reported by the firms with no stated method, and the studies carry no dates. Rev says it serves more than 1 million users and 125,000 organizations.
Figures are published without named customers. The vendor says it serves more than 3,000 businesses and institutions, runs the VITAC, Take Note and AST brands, and sets a 99.0% monthly availability target in section 7(b) of the Terms with defined exclusions, which is a measurable commitment. Turnaround times are committed in the Order or on the site and counted in US Eastern business days. No named law firm, court or court reporting agency appears with a figure for what changed, and no dated case study for the legal line is published. Analyst rankings and awards are not evidence of deployment.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The Terms of Service bind both parties to confidentiality, and human transcriptionists are ID verified and sign NDAs. The same terms let customer content feed continuous training of Rev's in house models, and no way to opt out is published. Privilege, the retention period and the identity of the generative models used are not addressed.
Privilege is addressed in the contract. Section 5(c) of the Terms, headed Privileged Materials, applies where a customer submits files containing attorney client privileged or work product material. It commits the vendor to limit access to staff who need it to provide the Services, and to disclose to no third party except as needed to provide the Services and then under equivalent confidentiality. The vendor may use the material only to provide the Services and for customer specific optimization, and must return or destroy it on termination or request. Nothing in the agreement waives any privilege held by the customer or its clients, and the customer decides whether submitting is consistent with professional conduct rules and privilege law. Work product is named expressly. Section 4(c) bars generative AI training on customer content, and section 4(e) bars general speech recognition training on law firm material without written opt in. DPA section 8 requires deletion or return within 30 days of termination. Access control is documented on the Trust Page. Third party model providers may be used only if they are barred from training on customer data and keep data no longer than their own terms require.
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.
The Terms of Service say the services use AI, speech recognition or human work, and leave verification of all work product to the customer. Nothing states that Rev gives no legal advice or addresses supervision, while the platform is sold to draft legal briefs, affidavits and investigative summaries for filing or sending.
A real position on the advice line is published, without the supervision and competence side. Section 4(d) of the Terms says AI Analysis Features are not professional advice of any kind, are no substitute for qualified human review, and must be verified by the customer before reliance. Section 5(c) goes further, naming the customer's professional conduct rules and privilege law as the customer's responsibility to assess. For this kind of product the advice line is the admissibility line, and the vendor draws it: the AI only plan is marked not court admissible, certified transcripts are an upgrade, and jurisdictional formatting and cover pages are what make a transcript admissible. Nothing addresses a supervising lawyer's competence duties when relying on machine transcription of testimony, and nothing says who may use the service. Nothing addresses state licensing for digital court reporting, the live professional question for this kind of product.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how transcription or analysis performs across accents, languages or audio quality is published.
A governance framework with real substance is published, without testing results or a named owner. It sits in the contract rather than on a principles page. Section 4 of the Terms covers customer specific optimization, general speech recognition training with requirements to remove identifying details, a ban on generative AI training, generative AI features, legal provisions and FERPA. Section 4(g) commits the vendor to technical and organizational measures that prevent reidentification of training data, restrict access to identifiable data, and keep data in AI Analysis Features encrypted in transit and not retained by third party providers. The DPA commits that automated processing will not produce legal effects on, or significantly affect, data subjects without safeguards. Security governance is documented separately: a security management system led by a named CISO role, risk assessments reviewed by senior leadership at least yearly, annual policy reviews, and annual and quarterly internal audits. No accountable owner for AI is named, and no evaluation results or model card are published. Nothing addresses uneven output across accents, dialects or speaker groups, the bias question that matters for transcribing testimony.
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 security page lists working controls: SSO, multifactor authentication and domain claiming, encryption in transit and at rest, backups several times a day, sharing permissions set per file, and ID checks and NDAs for human transcriptionists. Retention is set by Rev without a stated period. No subprocessor list or incident notification commitment is published.
Section 8 of the DPA requires deletion or return of all personal data within 30 days of termination at the customer's choice, keeping one copy only for legal claims, and the Trust Page says a customer can have data removed at any time through its account manager. Access control is documented in detail: HTTPS enforced in transit, AES-256 encryption at rest in AWS S3, two factor authentication, roles the customer assigns, least privilege internally, regular access reviews and rules for staff joining, moving and leaving. Incident notice is contractual: notice without undue delay after the vendor learns of a data incident, with enough information for the customer to meet its own notice duties. A CISO led response team and a 24/7 security operations center back it. No subprocessor list is published. The DPA commits to notify before authorizing a new subprocessor, to provide the current list on request, and to a five business day objection window, so who processes a customer's recordings is not visible before signing.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The Terms of Service exclude consequential and indirect damages and limit Rev's liability, disclaim warranties for AI, speech recognition and human work, and require the customer to indemnify Rev for claims arising from its content and use. Nothing stands behind a transcript or analysis that proves wrong.
Specific caps and a real indemnity are published, short of the exposure the product creates. Section 8 of the Terms caps each party's liability at the lesser of USD 1,000,000 or the fees paid or accrued in the 12 months before the claim, excludes indirect and consequential damages, and carves intellectual property violations and the customer's payment duties out of the cap. Section 6(b) gives a three part indemnity from the vendor. It covers third party IP infringement from authorized use, and unauthorized disclosure of confidential information or personal data caused by the vendor's negligence or failure to follow its published Security Standards. It also covers violation of law caused by the vendor's provision of the Services. The second part is a real data breach indemnity, measured against the Trust Page. Availability is committed at 99.0% a month, and a Post-Production Corrections Policy covers defective output. Nothing allocates the loss when a transcript of testimony is wrong: section 4(d) puts verification of all AI output on the customer, and section 7(g) disclaims all warranties, including fitness for purpose. No insurance position is published.
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.
Files can be pulled in from Clio, Dropbox or Google Drive among other sources, and the Pro plan adds a Clio Manage integration. An API for speech to text is documented separately at rev.ai. Nothing published describes what syncs back to practice systems or how each connection is configured.
A public API with developer documentation is published at verbit.readme.io, and API access is included in the Custom plans. Named integrations include Relativity on the Legal Visor plan, which reaches the ediscovery platform where litigation work already sits, plus Zoom and Teams for live capture, cloud storage destinations and a mobile app for recording. The legal transcription material says the API can connect transcripts directly to case management and document systems, but none of those systems is named. Verbit also has an integrations page. The repeated phrase about dozens of video, conferencing and cloud storage integrations comes with no list on the pages that use it.
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.
Files sit on Amazon S3 with server side encryption at rest, according to the security page. That names the host and nothing more: no region, tenancy model, processing location or deployment option other than the hosted service is stated.
Real residency detail is published, without the full picture. The Trust Page says delivery is on AWS, replicated across several availability zones and regions under the AWS uptime commitment. The privacy policy names processing locations: the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, Israel and elsewhere as needed. It says customer data may be processed only where the DPA and other agreements allow, so residency is a term that can be negotiated. Schedule 2 of the DPA handles transfers with the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, Modules Two and Three under Irish law, the UK Addendum and Swiss adjustments, plus extra safeguards including a commitment to resist bulk surveillance requests. The tenancy model is never stated, no region menu or single region option is published, and the split between where data is processed and where it is stored is not described.
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 security page states SOC 2 Type II compliance, CJIS and HIPAA compliance, and that a SOC 3 report is available for review. No auditor, report period or link to the SOC 3 report is published.
Certifications are real, named with versions and scoped, and the evidence is gated. The Trust Page says ISO 27001:2022 certification and SOC 2 attestation are available for certain services and configurations and directs buyers to an account manager or support for details; that scoping caveat is itself a disclosure. The security program around it is published in detail. It includes monitoring through GuardDuty, CloudWatch and CloudTrail, cloud security posture management with scanning of infrastructure code, a SIEM, and a CISO led incident response team with a 24/7 external security operations center. Vulnerability fixes are targeted at 48 hours for critical and 14 days for high severity, development follows a documented secure lifecycle with code review and OWASP Top 10 alignment, and an independent penetration test is commissioned at least yearly. The DPA gives an audit right on 14 days' notice once every 12 months, including by the customer's own third party auditor. The certificate and report are available only through a sales or support conversation. No auditor, report period or certificate number is published, and there is no self serve trust portal.
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.
Speech recognition runs on Rev's own models, which the Terms of Service call proprietary and maintained in house. The AI services also rely on generative AI models, and neither those models nor their providers are named. No change notification is published.
The vendor's own engine is named, and what sits under the generative layer is not. Captivate is named as the proprietary speech recognition engine, and its behavior is described, including adaptation to legal language and to each customer. Beyond that, the data policy says only that Verbit integrates large language models to improve transcription and analysis, and Gen.V is named as the generative suite, but no model or provider is identified anywhere. The position is contractual. Section 4(c) of the Terms allows only third party AI providers that are barred from training on customer data. The DPA requires any such provider to be listed as a subprocessor, with notice before it starts processing and a five business day objection window. A customer can learn who the providers are and object, but only by asking, since the subprocessor list is not published.
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.
Prices are published for every plan but Unlimited. The plan table shows a free plan and two paid plans, Essentials and Pro, each with annual and monthly prices per seat and limits on files and minutes, and human transcription is priced by the minute. The Unlimited plan, with CJIS and HIPAA controls and SSO, is priced by a specialist.
Real pricing is published for part of the range, with the structure published for all of it. The legal Standard plan costs $24 a month for 100 hours, 50 live and 50 post production, with self serve registration rather than a sales call. The plan page sets four legal tiers side by side, comparing hours, languages, integrations, user counts, security features, admissibility and upgrade paths, and the same structure is published for media, corporate and education. Commercial terms sit in the Terms. They set payment in advance unless an Order says otherwise, 30 days' written notice of any price change taking effect at the next renewal, a 60 day billing dispute window, and interest on overdue amounts at the lower of 1.5% a month or the legal maximum. They also allow suspension on 10 days' notice for nonpayment and termination for convenience on 60 days' notice. Three of the four legal tiers, including both products an attorney or agency would actually buy, have no price and lead to a demo.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The site addresses criminal prosecution, criminal defense, law enforcement, civil law firms and court reporting agencies, and lists transcription in 37 or more languages on the Pro plan. What case types, file formats or jurisdictions it does not handle is not stated.
Who the product serves is documented precisely, and the limits are stated. Dedicated pages cover law firms, courtrooms, law enforcement and government, alongside corporate, education and media. Within the legal line, each buyer type has its own product: Legal Visor for attorneys and litigation teams, Legal Capture for court reporting agencies and digital reporters, courtroom material for courts and agencies, and separate material for legal departments. Supported proceedings are listed: depositions, trials, bench hearings, jury trials, arbitrations, witness interviews, dictation, and digital evidence including body camera footage and 911 calls. The limits are published at the point of sale. The entry plan is marked not court admissible, limited to one user and to English transcription, with basic export and integrations. Higher tiers state where Spanish is added, where certified transcripts are an upgrade, and where court admissible output is available on request. The unit of work is a proceeding, not a practice area, so practice area coverage does not apply.
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?
Customer content may train Rev's own models. The Terms of Service say it is analyzed by Rev's speech recognition and other AI models and may be used for their continuous training, and describe those models as proprietary, kept in house and not shared. Customer content will not be used to train generative AI models, and the security page says third party models are never trained on it. No way to opt out is published.
For legal buyers training is opt in, and the agreement says so. Section 4(e) of the Terms excludes files and output from deposition transcription, Legal Visor or other services for law firms from general speech recognition training unless an authorized representative opts in in writing. Three other terms apply. Section 4(c) bars the vendor and its providers from using customer files or output, identifiable or not, to train or fine tune any generative AI or large language model whose output reaches a third party.
It allows only third party model providers that are barred from training on customer data. Section 4(b) allows general speech recognition training for other customers on an opt out basis. It uses clips of a few seconds too short to convey substance, separated from the account, with no reidentification allowed, and opting out applies going forward without retraining. Section 4(a) reserves customer specific optimization using identifiable files to tune recognition for that customer, and no opt out covers it.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The Terms of Service let Rev set general practices and limits, including the maximum period it keeps customer content, without stating that period. The Privacy Policy keeps personal data as long as necessary and keeps backups longer. No retention period or customer deletion setting is published.
Retention is under the customer's control, with the mechanism stated in the agreement and the period tied to termination rather than to a default in-service schedule. DPA section 8 requires the vendor, within 30 days of termination and at the customer's choice indicated through the Services or in written notice, to delete or return all personal data processed on the customer's behalf and to delete existing copies, subject to legal retention requirements, with one copy retained solely for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
Terms section 5(c) adds that privileged materials are returned or destroyed on termination or on request, and section 9(c) gives 30 days of post-termination export assistance. The Trust Page states data can be removed at any time by contacting the account manager. What is not published is a default retention period for material held during the subscription, and Terms section 1(b) reserves the right to retain customer data after account deletion as reasonably necessary to comply with law.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Access is set in Rev's own permission model, maintained by the customer: sharing permissions set per file or per workspace, invitation or link access only, and domain claiming to control which users belong to an account. Nothing describes inheriting permissions from a case or document management system.
A separation model is documented, at the customer and material level rather than the matter level. Terms section 5(c) requires access to privileged materials to be limited to personnel with a direct need to know for providing the Services, and bars disclosure to third parties except as needed to deliver them under equivalent confidentiality. DPA section 2(f) prohibits combining personal information received from one customer with personal information from any other person, except for the de-identified segments used in general ASR training.
The vendor's data policy states that models cannot access or learn from other customers' data, and the Trust Page documents customer-assignable roles so no user has more access than their part of the work requires, alongside internal least-privilege access and regular reviews. What is not addressed is segregation between matters inside a single customer's account: nothing published describes a wall between one firm's cases, which is the question a firm with adverse-party depositions on the same platform would ask.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The Terms of Service say that if either party receives a subpoena, document request, court order or government demand for the other's confidential information, it will give prompt written notice so the request can be challenged or limited. No transparency report is published.
Notice is committed and a reporting mechanism exists, both with qualifications. The Trust Page says government authorities get no access unless required by law and on legitimate grounds, that any disclosure is limited to what is strictly necessary and reviewed by the vendor's legal and privacy teams, and that the vendor will do its best to notify the customer first unless the law forbids it. Part 4 of the DPA goes further and is contractual.
Unless legally prohibited, the vendor will redirect the authority to the customer, say it is not authorized to disclose, and use commercially reasonable legal means to challenge the demand. Where urgent access prevents a challenge, it will notify the customer as soon as possible afterward. Once every 12 months, on written request, it will report the types of binding legal demands received, including any under section 702 of FISA.
Section 5(a) of the Terms requires prompt prior notice of any compelled disclosure of confidential information so a protective order can be sought. The report is annual, on request and private to the customer, and the notice commitment is best efforts.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Rev works only on the files a customer uploads and does not answer from a body of law, so no legal corpus is involved.
The product works from the customer's own recording, so the provenance question concerns the training data, and there the source is named without a separate license. Section 4(b) of the Terms identifies it: data from customer files and output, cut into clips of a few seconds too short to convey substance, separated from the account, and used only to match speech sounds to text across a large pooled training set. Law firm materials are excluded unless the customer opts in.
No third party or licensed speech data is identified, and nothing says what else the general engine was trained on. The permission basis is the agreement itself, and section 3(a) makes the customer responsible for lawfully obtaining the files.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Citations point to timestamps and pages in the customer's own files, and nothing addresses checking legal authority for later treatment.
The product cites no legal authority and produces no legal analysis, so nothing addresses checking subsequent history and nothing would be expected to. The currency mechanisms it does publish concern the accuracy of the record rather than the standing of law: a Post-Production Corrections Policy incorporated into the Terms, human review and certification tiers, and jurisdictional formatting for admissible transcripts.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Findings are said to come only from uploaded files rather than a model's best guess, and nothing describes what the product does when the files do not answer a question.
The hand-off to a person is documented, in the agreement and in the product structure, short of anything demonstrable. Terms section 4(d) states that AI Analysis Features use probabilistic models that may produce inaccurate, incomplete or misleading results, are not a substitute for qualified human review, and that the customer is solely responsible for verifying output before relying on it. The product expresses the same boundary structurally: AI-only output is marked not court admissible, human review is an upgrade on every plan, and certified transcripts are the tier for evidentiary use.
Section 7(f) adds a genuine refusal behavior at the input end, since the vendor may reject files that do not meet reasonable audio quality levels rather than transcribe them badly. What is not published is anything measurable: no confidence scoring exposed to the user, no uncertainty marking within a transcript, no rate at which files are rejected or escalated, and no evaluation demonstrating the behavior.
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 kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Rev.com or Rev AI. Every finding the platform produces is cited to a timestamp or page and line in the customer's own files.
Searched on 12 September 2026, on the product and company names, against published trackers of AI hallucination decisions, including coverage of the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database, for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in this product's output. None located. This covers that one subject as of that date and does not record other litigation.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No material on the home, law firm, security or About pages, in the Terms of Service or in the Privacy Policy engages with lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.
Professional duties are referenced in general terms, and no guidance is named. Section 4(e) of the Terms makes the customer solely responsible for deciding whether using AI Analysis Features on legal materials is consistent with its privilege, confidentiality and professional conduct duties. Section 5(c) repeats this for privileged materials, adding that submission must be assessed against applicable professional conduct rules and privilege law.
That is a real acknowledgment that professional rules govern the customer's use, but it names no authority. No bar opinion, ABA Formal Opinion 512, state guidance or court rule on AI assisted transcription is cited, and nothing maps the product to any jurisdiction's requirements. The nearest point is transcript formatting and certification described as meeting jurisdictional standards, which is court practice rather than professional responsibility guidance.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Large time savings are claimed, such as up to 30 hours of case preparation saved and drafting time cut by 97% in one case study. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is reflected in what a client is billed.
Nothing addresses what happens to the bill, and this product sits inside the fee relationship. Deposition and hearing transcripts a law firm buys are usually passed to the client as a disbursement. The vendor's pricing uses units a firm could pass through: a monthly plan with an hours allowance, capture per proceeding, and certified transcripts as a priced upgrade. No published material addresses disclosing the charge to the client, how a firm should treat the cost of AI output against human certified output, or what happens to the bill when a transcript that took a reporter days is produced in minutes.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The security page says a SOC 3 report is available for review. No subprocessor or model provider list or disclosure material for clients is published on the security page, in the Terms of Service or in the Privacy Policy.
Much of what a firm would forward is published, but not the one document a client AI clause usually asks for by name. Published and forwardable: a full DPA with the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, Modules Two and Three, the UK Addendum and Swiss adjustments, and a Trust Page the DPA designates as the Security Documentation and Annex II. The agreement bans generative AI training and any third party model provider that trains on customer data, and requires opt in before law firm materials are used in speech recognition training.
A data protection officer is named, and an audit right is given. The subprocessor list is not published. Section 5(b) of the DPA commits the vendor to provide the current list on request, to give notice before a new subprocessor starts, and to a five business day objection window, and third party AI providers must appear on that list. The names exist and can be obtained by email, but a firm asked who processes its deposition audio cannot answer from public material.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Each finding traces to its source timestamp or page and line, and legal transcripts verified by people are available. No record of which model produced an analysis or draft, and no export of AI use for disclosure to a court, is described.
The published record is built to authenticate transcripts rather than to disclose AI use: transcripts time coded and labeled by speaker against the source recording; chain of custody support on Legal Capture; certified transcripts with cover pages and jurisdictional formatting for evidence; the distinction between rough drafts, AI output and certified final transcripts; and a Post-Production Corrections Policy in the Terms.
Together these show where a transcript came from and who completed it. Nothing says the record identifies which engine or model produced a passage, which parts were machine generated and which corrected by people, or who reviewed them, and no disclosure template or court guidance is published. The plan page marks AI only output as not court admissible.
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.
- Good Law Verification
In summary
Rev
Rev, from Rev.com, Inc. of Austin, Texas, is an investigative intelligence and legal transcription platform for criminal prosecution and defense teams, civil law firms, law enforcement and court reporting agencies. Its own speech recognition models transcribe audio and video. Its AI analyzes up to 500 case files at once with findings cited back to a timestamp or page and line, and drafts summaries, chronologies, affidavits and briefs. Human transcription and deposition summaries from SmartDepo, which Rev acquired, are sold alongside. According to the AI Legal Index, plans are published from free to $59.99 per seat per month. Rev describes its own models as proprietary and kept in house.
Verbit
Verbit, headquartered in New York, is a transcription and captioning platform whose legal line produces the record of depositions, hearings, trials, arbitrations and interviews. It uses its own speech recognition engine, Captivate, trained on legal terminology, with a generative layer for summaries and inconsistency detection. It sells Legal Capture to court reporting agencies, Legal Visor to attorneys and a self serve Standard plan. According to the AI Legal Index, its terms protect privileged materials by name, keep law firm material out of general training without opt in, and mark AI only output on the entry plan as not court admissible. Its subprocessor list is available on request.
Questions buyers ask
Rev vs Verbit: which is better for deposition transcription?
On published evidence Verbit documents more, mostly because its terms protect privileged material, exclude law firm recordings from general training without opt in, and mark which output is court admissible. Rev goes further with AI over a whole case file and publishes prices for most plans. Firms sending privileged testimony have more to read from Verbit. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Rev train AI on my recordings?
Rev's Terms of Service say customer content is analyzed by Rev's speech recognition and other AI models and may be used for continuous training of those models, which Rev describes as proprietary and kept in house. The same terms say customer content will not be used to train generative AI models, and Rev's security page says third party models are never trained on it. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are Verbit's AI transcripts court admissible?
Not on the entry plan. Verbit's self serve Standard legal plan, at $24 a month for 100 hours, is marked not court admissible in its own feature list. Court admissible transcripts are available by request on the higher tiers, and certified human completed transcripts with cover pages and jurisdiction specific formatting are sold for evidentiary use. Rev offers human verified legal transcripts alongside AI transcription it states is 96 percent accurate or better. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do Rev and Verbit cost?
Rev publishes a free plan, Essentials at $25.49 per seat per month billed annually or $29.99 monthly, Pro at $47.99 or $59.99, and human transcription at $1.99 a minute, with its Unlimited plan quoted. Verbit publishes one legal figure, $24 a month for its Standard plan with 100 hours, and routes Legal Capture, Legal Visor and its Custom plan to a demo. Verbit's terms give 30 days' notice of price changes, effective at renewal. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 25, 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.
Two points to weigh. Rev's right to train its own speech recognition and AI models on customer content is a published term, and it excludes generative model training. Verbit's terms also reserve customer specific optimization using a customer's files in identifiable form, which no opt out covers. Its subprocessor list, including any third party model providers, is available only on request. SmartDepo, which Rev acquired, has its own profile in the AI Legal Index. Neither vendor reviewed this page.