A
Actionstep

Actionstep is a cloud practice management platform for midsize law firms. It covers matter management, document automation and management, email and calendaring, client intake, conflict checks and CRM, a client portal, time capture, billing, invoicing, payments, trust accounting and full legal accounting, with workflow automation across fourteen practice areas. Its AI layer, Actionstep Intelligence, launched in August 2026 alongside Trace, a passive time capture tool from the January 2026 acquisition of Traced.

The vendor says every AI feature is opt in, that firms can see and audit what the AI did, and that firm data does not train AI models. It also says client, matter and billing data are not shared with outside AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. Actionstep Limited of New Zealand contracts through subsidiaries in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand, has been backed by Serent Capital since 2020 and serves more than 5,000 firms.

Its terms let a customer choose an AWS region for its data, and add specific protections for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Actionstep completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination in early 2026.

Compared with

Actionstep, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

Capability grades

All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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 a growing set of capabilities on a practice management platform that would still run without them. Actionstep has spent twenty years as the operational system for midsize firms, running matters, documents, billing, trust accounting and reporting, and its AI layer, Actionstep Intelligence, is built on that record. Today it covers passive time capture through the Trace add on, which tracks work across Outlook, Word, PDFs, Teams and the browser, maps it to the right matter and billing code and drafts a bill ready narrative; business intelligence that answers plain language questions about profitability, realization and billing trends; and matter summaries and alerts.

Agents that carry out workflow tasks within limits administrators set are announced as coming soon. The company frames its AI around running the firm rather than practicing law, and it says every AI feature is opt in, which is the vendor stating plainly that the product stands without the models. That places it one band below the top.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

Actionstep's AI does not cite law. The question is whether a time entry lands on the right matter with an accurate description and whether an answer about firm profitability is right, since both feed invoices clients read and decisions partners make. The company describes grounding in its own data rather than accuracy. Business intelligence answers are described as sourced and contextual, drawn from the firm's matters and billing records, and Trace entries are mapped to matter and billing codes and presented for review, editing and posting.

The Trace page reports 25 to 50 more hours billed and 100 hours of manual entry saved per lawyer each year, and write downs and appeals under 3 percent, noting that results vary by location. None of those measures accuracy, and no method is given. Section 6.6 of the Terms provides the service as is and disclaims any warranty that content is accurate or complete.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it 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.

There is a written commitment that the firm sets the limits and reviews the work, and the controls for autonomous agents are still to come. The AI page says administrators set the boundaries, lawyers review before anything is acted on, every AI feature is opt in, and the firm can see and audit what the AI did. Trace follows that pattern. It drafts each time entry for a person to review, edit and post, can be turned off at any time from the system tray, and lets users exclude internal email or specific activity.

Agents that carry out workflow tasks within boundaries set by administrators are described as coming soon, with every action logged along with who approved it and what followed. Not yet published is how those boundaries are set, which actions will need approval each time, and what happens when an agent acts wrongly.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Scale claims and product figures stand in for named deployments. Actionstep says it supports nearly 5,000 law firms worldwide and publishes a 2026 report on UK midsize law firm priorities based on its own survey. The Trace page reports 25 to 50 extra hours billed and 100 hours of manual entry saved per lawyer each year, with write downs and appeals under 3 percent, noting that results vary by location. None of those figures is tied to a named firm, a period or a method.

The navigation links to a customer stories page, but on 29 September 2026 that address returned a not found error, so the usual place for named deployments was empty.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

Privilege and Confidentiality Posture

How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.

Substantive commitments on training and professional duties exist, with the AI commitment in policy rather than contract. The AI page says Actionstep does not use a firm's data to train AI models and that client information, matter history and billing records are not shared with outside AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. The Terms do not mention AI or training, so that promise sits on a web page, not in the agreement.

The Terms do give real confidentiality protection to one group. The addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority recognizes that data may include confidential client information subject to professional duties and commits to protect it accordingly. It also waives any lien over the data, keeps storage in the UK or EU and requires 28 days' notice before hosting changes. For all customers, access is governed by user roles and permissions, and section 8.5 allows deletion 30 days after termination, with a backup available on request within 20 days. Privilege is not named.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture

Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.

A clear line on advice written for a professional user, short of guidance on the lawyer's duties when using the AI. Section 6.5 of the Terms says the firm alone decides whether the service suits its regulatory and compliance requirements and that Actionstep does not provide legal, compliance, regulatory, accounting or tax advice, and sections 6.3 and 6.4 say anti money laundering and trust accounting obligations stay with the firm, which indemnifies Actionstep for breaches of them.

The SRA addendum goes further for regulated firms in England and Wales, acknowledging the regulator's powers and agreeing to cooperate with it. On the AI itself, the company frames Actionstep Intelligence as serving the business and operations of the firm rather than practicing law, and its AI page says lawyers review before anything is acted on. Nothing connects the AI features to a lawyer's duties of competence, supervision or billing accuracy, which matters for a tool that drafts the narratives on client invoices, and no bar or regulator guidance on AI is cited.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Governance is described as a design principle with controls for the firm, and the vendor's own program is not published. The AI page says governance is built in from the start, not added later. It lists the controls a firm has: opt in features, boundaries set by administrators, lawyer review before action, and a full view of what the AI did. It also describes an internal AI center of excellence that guides customers and shapes the roadmap.

Those are real commitments that put the firm in charge of its own use. They do not describe how Actionstep governs its models: who is accountable for their behavior, what is tested before a new model is connected, and whether time capture or profitability insights perform unevenly across practice areas, offices or fee earners. That matters because the company calls itself model agnostic and expects to switch to better models as they appear. No responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent is cited.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Published terms and a security page cover most of the ground, short of an AI provider list and an incident commitment. Section 8.5 of the Terms allows Actionstep to delete all copies of a firm's data 30 days after termination and gives the firm a backup if it asks within 20 days; the New Zealand addendum keeps data seven years for tax purposes. Sections 9.2 and 9.4 host the service on Amazon Web Services in a region the firm elects.

The security page lists multi factor authentication, single sign on, role based permissions and encryption of data in transit, and the company announced in February 2026 that it had completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination. The SRA addendum commits, for those firms, to act only on the firm's instructions, maintain technical and organizational measures, vet staff with access and audit its measures at least annually. What is not published is a list of subprocessors that includes the AI providers behind Actionstep Intelligence, or any commitment on how quickly a firm would be told of a breach.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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 allocation of loss is published in full, and it puts nearly all of it on the firm. Section 7 of the Terms excludes all liability for loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on the service. It limits any claim for Actionstep's negligence or breach to the access fees paid in the previous 12 months, and makes termination the firm's only remedy if it is dissatisfied. Section 6.6 provides the service as is and as available with every warranty disclaimed.

Sections 6.3 and 6.4 exclude liability for regulatory penalties from anti money laundering or trust accounting failures, with the firm indemnifying Actionstep. Nothing in the Terms addresses the AI features, so a time entry billed to the wrong matter or a misleading profitability insight falls under the same general exclusion. Only the SRA addendum adds a duty of reasonable care and skill and an assurance against intellectual property infringement, for regulated firms in England and Wales.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Actionstep positions itself as the hub other tools connect to, and some of those connections are described in depth. The integrations page says the platform integrates with most tools midsize firms use and lists an Outlook add in for Office 365 as its primary integration, with Trace capturing work across Outlook, Word, Excel, PDFs and Teams; the Privacy Policy describes the Google integration's scope in detail, from saving documents to Drive and email records from Gmail to creating and updating calendar appointments; and the company names QuickBooks Online, Xero and DocuSign elsewhere, and offers a public API under published developer terms.

On the AI side, it features Lexidesk, an AI intake service, as a partner integration. The AI page makes the strategic point directly: AI tools need a trusted data layer, and other tools must integrate with Actionstep rather than the reverse. The integrations directory itself notes that listings are not monitored for quality by Actionstep and that firms should assess partner software themselves, and what each connection moves in which direction is documented only for Google.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

Deployment Model and Data Residency

Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.

Regions and processing location are published and chosen by the firm; the tenancy model and the AI processing location are not. Section 9.2 of the Terms hosts the service on Amazon Web Services regions determined by the firm's data sovereignty requirements, and section 9.4 lets the firm elect any AWS region Actionstep supports, commits to keep its data on servers in that region, and notes candidly that because users connect from anywhere, some data may travel outside it.

For firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the addendum fixes storage in the United Kingdom or European Union, requires lawful transfer mechanisms for anything leaving those regions and 28 days' notice before the arrangements change. Actionstep contracts through entities in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, which is why regional hosting matters to its buyers. What is not stated is whether firms share infrastructure, which regions are supported, and where the third party AI providers behind Actionstep Intelligence process a firm's data, which may not be the region the firm elected.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

A real, dated attestation is announced, without a report a buyer can reach unprompted. On 18 February 2026 Actionstep announced it had completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination, explaining that the AICPA standard tests both the design of controls and how they operate over a review period, and the announcement is linked from every page footer. The security page adds AWS hosting, multifactor authentication, single sign on including federated sign on, role based permissions and encryption of data in transit.

The SRA addendum commits to an annual audit of security measures for regulated firms in England and Wales. The auditor, review period and systems in scope are not published, including whether Actionstep Intelligence and Trace are covered, and there is no trust center or route for requesting the report.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

Outside AI providers are acknowledged and deliberately left unnamed. The AI page says Actionstep is model agnostic, so firms can move to better models as they appear without rebuilding. It also says client information, matter history and billing records are not shared with third party AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. Both statements confirm outside providers are involved, and neither names one.

No model, provider, inference location or version appears on the AI, Trace or security pages, in the Terms or in the Actionstep Intelligence webinar recap, and nothing commits the company to tell firms before it changes models. Being model agnostic is a reasonable engineering choice, but it makes notice of changes more important, because the model reading a firm's email and documents to capture time may change without the firm knowing.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

Commercial Transparency

Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.

The unit and structure of charging are published by region, without figures. The pricing page lets a firm choose its region, US, UK, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, and describes each product as priced per user plus implementation fees. Practice Management includes time capture, billing and core accounting, and Legal Accounting, available only in North America, is sold alone or added to practice management. Every tier ends in a request pricing button.

The support center adds that a base access fee covers up to three licenses, with per user charges beyond that. The Terms set billing at the start of each subscription period, prorated additions, no refunds for prepaid periods and no credit for unused licenses. The pricing page does not say whether Actionstep Intelligence and Trace cost extra. A firm can see how it will be charged, including a separate implementation fee, but not what it will pay.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Segments, practices and jurisdictions are described in substance, and the Terms say plainly what the product does not do. Actionstep is built for midsize law firms, with pages for fourteen practice areas, from mixed practice, bankruptcy and banking to personal injury, immigration, residential real estate and tax. It also has pages for six roles, from managing partners and firm administrators to IT and accounting managers.

It contracts through entities in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand, prices by region including Canada, and publishes privacy policies and terms addenda for each jurisdiction, including the SRA addendum for regulated firms in England and Wales. Its legal accounting product is available only in North America. The Terms state that the service is not designed or warranted to meet anti money laundering requirements or any jurisdiction's trust accounting rules, which firms must confirm themselves.

Nothing says how well the AI features serve each practice area or region, for example whether Trace works across languages.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for Actionstep, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.

Pricing

No published figure

  • There is a base fee that covers up to three people, then each extra person costs more.
  • The company does not say what the base fee or the per-person price is on the pages we could read.
  • You pay for each subscription period up front, and there are no refunds if you stop early.
  • If you drop a user mid-period you do not get money back for the empty seat.

Structure published without a figure on the surfaces read. The support center states a base access fee inclusive of up to three licenses with per-user charges beyond that; terms section 3.1 bills all subscription licenses at the start of each subscription period with pro-rata charges for licenses added mid-period and no credit for unused licenses, and section 8.1 gives no refund for prepaid periods. A pricing page exists at actionstep.com/pricing and was not opened on 6 September 2026; a figure there would replace this null. Null means no figure was located, not that the product is free. Read 6 September 2026.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in policy only

A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.

Public material states that customer content is not used to train, and no matching term was located in the published agreement. The AI page states that Actionstep does not use the firm's data to train AI models and that client, matter and billing data are not shared with third-party AI providers in a way that exposes them beyond the firm. The terms of use were read in full: section 5.2 licenses data to Actionstep only to provide the service, and no clause names training either way.

A separately negotiated agreement prevails over the terms under section 10.2 and would be the place a contractual term could sit. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedActionstep does not use your firm's data to train AI modelsAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed fixed window

A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.

A specific period is published and the customer cannot change it. Terms section 8.5 entitles Actionstep to delete all copies of data thirty days after termination, with a backup available on request within twenty days; the New Zealand addendum retains data for at least seven years during the agreement for tax purposes. Nothing states a shorter or configurable window for AI inputs and outputs during the term, and the AI page speaks of visibility and audit rather than retention. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Publisheddelete all copies of your Data after 30 days following terminationAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

The product maintains its own permission model and documents it at the level of a description. The security page describes role definition and per-user permissions with custom data collections restricted to selected users, and terms section 2 gives the subscriber control of each user's access level; nothing describes how the AI features respect those permissions when they act on matter data. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedDefine roles and set permissions for each user within ActionstepAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.

Disclosure is addressed and notice is not. Section 4.1 of the Terms keeps the other party's information confidential except where law requires disclosure, with no commitment to tell the customer when its data is demanded. The SRA addendum separately allows disclosure to the Solicitors Regulation Authority on request without prior consent. The jurisdiction privacy policies incorporated by section 4.2 were not opened and may say more. Checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Publishedunless required to do so by lawAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

No located public material identifies a legal corpus behind the AI features, and the product is not built on one: Trace captures time from a user's activity and Actionstep Intelligence works from matter data, citing no law. AI page, home page and terms checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or cite primary law. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

No located public material describes what the AI features do when they cannot ground an output. The AI page describes visibility and auditability of what the AI has done, which is a record rather than an abstention path, and no confidence signal is described. The Actionstep Intelligence page was not opened. AI page and terms checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Actionstep, Actionstep Intelligence or Trace was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the company and product names, along with a general search for court findings; the results involved general purpose chatbots, and none names this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product. A practice management tool whose AI captures time and surfaces matter data faces only a remote risk here.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

Generic reference. Actionstep's terms deal with a named regulator on outsourcing, not on lawyers' use of AI. Section 11 of the Terms is an addendum for firms regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It recognizes the professional duties attached to client data, waives any lien, fixes data location in the UK or EU, gives twenty eight days' notice of changes, and commits to an annual audit of security measures and to cooperation with the SRA.

No ethics opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is named anywhere, and no similar addendum exists for the US, Australia or New Zealand. Checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Publishedlaw firms in the United Kingdom and Wales who are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation AuthorityAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.

The buyer is a law firm and the product issues the client's invoice, so it sits inside the fee relationship; what it publishes on AI and the bill is time capture rather than disclosure. Trace passively captures billable time and Actionstep Intelligence is marketed as finding efficiency, and the vendor's own survey report frames AI as driving client demands for lower fees; nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded or disclosed on the client's bill when the work takes less time. Home page, AI page and report title checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

Service providers are named in the privacy policy, without a list of model providers. The privacy policy names Intercom and the scope of the Google integration, and section 5.4 of the Terms covers data access by third party applications a firm enables. The AI page says outside AI providers exist and do not receive data in a way that exposes it beyond the firm, without naming them. The privacy policies for each jurisdiction and any data processing agreement were not read in full and may say more. Checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Some elements of a disclosure record are available and no export is described. The AI page states that a firm can see what the AI has done and audit it, which is a record of AI actions inside the platform; nothing states that a per-document record of the model used, sources and human verification can be exported for a court, and the product produces no court-facing work product. AI page checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Publishedyou see what it has done, and you can audit itAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 19, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746