A
Aerofiler

Aerofiler is contract management software from Aerofiler Pty Ltd of Sydney, founded by former MinterEllison lawyer Don Nguyen with Jarrod Mirabito and Stuart Loh. It is sold to in house legal teams and to sales and HR teams that handle contracts. The repository files contracts into folders automatically, reads image PDFs with OCR and flags duplicates. Rapid Learning AI learns new contract data points from a few examples and extracts key terms, which drive obligation tracking and renewal reminders.

Templates with smart fields generate contracts for self service requests such as NDAs and sales agreements, parallel and sequential approval workflows route them, and signatures run through DocuSign, Adobe Sign or Namirial eSignAnyWhere. Reports turn the repository into metrics on workload and contract terms. Integrations cover Salesforce, Microsoft Teams, Slack, Google Drive, Microsoft Word and Zapier, with an API on the Enterprise plan.

Customers named include Allianz, Sophos, Amnesty International and BBP. Plans are Starter, Standard and Enterprise, priced after a demo.

Compared with

Aerofiler, 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.

AI drives the repository. Rapid Learning AI learns a new contract data point from a few examples and extracts key terms, dates and obligations across the stored contracts, and OCR reads image PDFs. The extracted data feeds obligation tracking, renewal reminders and reports, and Sophos used it to mine audit and regulatory data from its contracts.

Much of the product runs without models: templates with smart fields, approval workflows, electronic signature routing, automatic folder structures, permissions and audit logs. Remove the AI and Aerofiler still works as a contract workflow and filing system, with extraction done by hand.

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.

The AI is said to learn contract data accurately from only a few examples, and extracted values sit beside the contract they came from in the repository. No accuracy figure, test set, error rate or failure mode is published for extraction, and nothing describes how an extracted value is traced back to the clause or flagged when the model is unsure. The product works on a customer's own contracts and cites no legal authority.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Autonomy and Oversight ModelAutonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a mechanism. Human in the loop appears as a phrase rather than a described control.

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.

Approvals are human: parallel and sequential approval workflows route generated contracts to the right people, and templates with smart fields limit what self service users can change. Comments and notes sit inside the application.

For the AI itself, nothing describes whether extracted data is reviewed before it drives reminders and reports, what confidence threshold applies, or how a user corrects a wrong extraction. Bulk editing lets an administrator change hundreds of records at once.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

Operational and Outcome Evidence

Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.

Allianz cut approval and signing time from a week to a day, in a case study Aerofiler publishes, and its senior regional legal counsel, Eric White, praises the team's flexibility with Allianz's security requirements. Mark Nishihara, legal operations manager at Sophos, says contract lookups and data extraction now support decisions that were not possible before, saving the team days of manual work.

BBP's legal and corporate development lead and Amnesty International's legal counsel are also quoted, on organized information and obligation tracking. The case studies carry no dates, and only the Allianz figure is measured.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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.

Contracts are encrypted at rest and in transit, administrators set who can see what, and links replace email attachments so access can be tracked and withdrawn. Aerofiler's ISMS is certified to ISO 27001.

The terms of service, effective since August 2021, do not address AI, training on customer documents or what the AI providers on the subprocessor list may keep. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Litera appear on that list, Litera to process customer documents, without a stated limit on their use of the data. No confidentiality clause covering customer contracts was found in the terms, and the EU data processing addendum dates from 2018.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureNothing published on the advice line for a product that produces legal work, including where it is sold to people who are not lawyers.

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.

Contract templates, generation and extraction are sold to in house legal, sales and HR teams. No position is published on legal advice, on who must review generated contracts, or on the responsibility of the lawyers who own the templates. The terms address acceptable use and the customer's responsibility for its own data, not the legal effect of output.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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 policy, governance framework, owner or testing program is published. Rapid Learning AI is described by what it does, learning from a few examples, without any account of how its extraction is tested, monitored or corrected over time.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

Documents sit in Amazon S3 and metadata in MongoDB Atlas, both encrypted with AES 256 at rest, and all traffic runs over TLS 1.2. Staff reach systems over encrypted, MFA protected connections on a least privilege basis, and customers get two factor authentication, forced sign outs, password rules, user suspension and audit logs of who viewed, downloaded or edited each document.

An incident response program monitors production, and affected users are told of a breach, without a stated deadline. The subprocessor list names each provider, its purpose and country. Personal data is kept as long as the contract and the law require, and under the EU addendum it is deleted on termination; no retention period for contracts or AI processing is set out.

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.

Under the terms of service, effective 9 August 2021 and governed by New South Wales law, Aerofiler's aggregate liability is capped at the fees paid in the 12 months before the event. The cap does not apply to fraud or willful misconduct, death or personal injury, or infringement of third party intellectual property. The customer indemnifies Aerofiler against third party claims about its use and data, and no indemnity runs the other way. Nothing addresses AI output or errors in extracted data.

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.

Native integrations, set up in a few clicks, cover Salesforce, DocuSign, Adobe Sign, Namirial eSignAnyWhere, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Google Drive, and Aerofiler works with Microsoft Word documents. Zapier connects other applications, Okta handles single sign on, and the Enterprise plan adds an API.

What each integration moves, such as whether Salesforce opportunities create contract requests or signed documents file back automatically, is not described, and no document management system used by legal teams is named.

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.

The service runs on AWS across data centers in several locations, and Aerofiler says it can work with customers who need data held in a particular place. Documents sit in Amazon S3 and metadata in MongoDB Atlas.

The default region is not stated, the subprocessor list puts most providers in the United States and Microsoft in Australia and the United States, and nothing separates where AI processing runs from where contracts are stored.

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.

The ISMS is certified to ISO 27001 and audited annually by an independent JAS-ANZ accredited body, which is not named, and regular security testing is described. No certificate, scope statement or audit report is published, and there is no trust center. Physical security rests on AWS data centers with their own SOC reports.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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 subprocessor list names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Microsoft, all as infrastructure and cloud services, and Litera to process customer documents. Which of them runs Rapid Learning AI, which models are used and for what, and where the processing happens are not stated, and no notice of changes to the list is promised.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

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.

Three plans are published with their features and no prices. Starter covers OCR, custom fields, smart file naming, reports, reminders and dynamic folders. Standard adds electronic signature integration, approval workflows, document generation, role based permissions and onboarding help, and Enterprise adds custom reports, single sign on, custom branding, custom automations and API access. Each plan is booked through a demo, and a free trial needs no card details.

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.

Solution pages address legal, sales and HR teams, with plans from early stage companies to enterprises. For legal teams the product supports buy side and sell side contracts, self service templates with approval guardrails, data extraction and analytics on workload and headcount.

Customers range from Allianz and Sophos to Amnesty International. Which contract types, languages and jurisdictions the extraction handles well, and law firm use, are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for Aerofiler, 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

  • Aerofiler sells three plans, called Starter, Standard and Enterprise.
  • Each plan adds more features than the one before.
  • The prices are not shown on the website.
  • You book a demo to get a price.
  • There is a free trial that needs no card details.

Three tiers with published features and no published prices. Starter includes OCR, custom fields, smart file naming, reports and reminders, and dynamic folders. Standard adds electronic signature integration, approval workflows, document generation, role based permissions and onboarding assistance. Enterprise adds custom reports, single sign on, custom branding, custom automations and API access. All plans include ISO 27001 certified security, setup without IT support and an in application knowledge base. Each plan is quoted after a demo.

Implementation: Not stated. Onboarding assistance is listed as a Standard plan feature.

Note: A free trial is offered with no card details needed. Plans are described as scaling with the size of the business.

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?

Terms silent

A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.

The terms of service, effective since August 2021, the privacy policy and the 2018 EU data processing addendum say nothing about training AI models on customer contracts, either way. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Litera sit on the subprocessor list without a stated limit on their use of customer documents.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Personal data is kept as long as needed to perform the contract and meet legal obligations, and the EU addendum deletes it on termination. No period is stated for stored contracts or for data sent to AI providers.

Source: Vendor Publishedfor as long as is necessary to perform the contract between you and usAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

Administrators set who can see which contracts through role based permissions, and audit logs record who viewed, downloaded or edited each document. How permissions are scoped, by folder, contract type or team, is not documented.

Source: Vendor PublishedAerofiler provides granular control over who can access what in the application.As of Oct 13, 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.

The privacy policy allows disclosure to courts, law enforcement or government authorities where the law requires or permits it, including to comply with legal process. No commitment to notify the customer is made, and no transparency report is published.

Source: Vendor Publishedrequired or permitted to do so by lawAs of Oct 13, 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.

The product works on the customer's own contracts and templates and retrieves no primary law, so no legal corpus sits behind it. Extraction learns from examples the customer supplies.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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 case law or legislation is cited, since the product manages contracts and extracts data from them, so no check of good law applies to its output.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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.

Nothing describes what happens when Rapid Learning AI cannot find a data point in a contract or is unsure of a value, and no confidence signal is shown on extracted fields.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Aerofiler. Its AI extracts data from contracts rather than citing authority.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

No ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility guidance is discussed in Aerofiler's material, which addresses business teams as much as lawyers.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Outside the fee relationship

The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.

In house legal, sales and HR teams buy the product, and the named customers, Allianz, Sophos, Amnesty International and BBP, use it on their own contracts rather than billing clients for the work. Its savings claims, hours of filing avoided and approvals cut from a week to a day, are aimed at the buyer's own costs.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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.

A public subprocessor list names thirteen providers with purpose and country, including AWS, MongoDB, Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Litera, DocuSign, Adobe, Namirial, Okta, Twilio and Zapier. The roles of the AI providers are described only as infrastructure and cloud services.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

Contracts, not court filings, are what the product handles, and nothing addresses disclosure of AI use to a court. Audit logs record document activity but not which model extracted a value.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026
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 430 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 14, 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