A
AI Demand Pro
AI Demand Pro is personal injury settlement demand software from AI Demand Pro, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California, built by personal injury attorneys from the Easton & Easton firm for personal injury firms. A firm uploads police reports, medical records and bills, and the software drafts a formatted, narrative settlement demand with a medical summary and hyperlinked exhibits in about 15 to 20 minutes, delivered as a Word document on the firm's letterhead for attorney review.
Demand Studio lets attorneys edit the demand directly or have AI rewrite any section, an AI assistant answers questions from the case file, and medical summaries and hyperlinked chronologies during the case are included. Life care plans, discovery and deposition tools are announced as coming soon. It is sold by subscription under a master services agreement that references a business associate agreement, and an older product page still online describes a per-demand charge that firms can invoice to the client's case.
AI Demand Pro, 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.
Alternatives to AI Demand Pro
Other products that do the same kind of work as AI Demand Pro, and what each one does.
- EEvenUpEvenUp is a vertical AI platform built only for plaintiff personal injury firms, marketed as a Claims Intelligence Platform.
- DDarrowDarrow works upstream of litigation. It ingests signals from regulatory filings, incident reports, litigation patterns and market activity and turns them into structured legal intelligence about where exposure is forming.
- EEsquireTekEsquireTek is a written discovery platform and service from EsquireTek, Inc. of San Diego, built for plaintiff trial lawyers, litigation firms and corporate legal teams.
- IInPracticeInPractice reads medical records and turns them into chronologies and narrative summaries for legal and medical professionals.
- NNeosNeos is cloud case management software built for plaintiff personal injury firms.
- NNovoNovo drafts the two documents that carry a personal injury claim through the stage before litigation: the medical chronology and the demand letter.
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.
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 Demand Pro's AI reads uploaded records and bills and drafts the full settlement demand, rewrites sections or the whole strategy on instruction in Demand Studio, answers questions from the case file and produces medical summaries and chronologies. An older product page still online says the software is built on OpenAI and tuned exclusively for personal injury demands. Without the models there is nothing left to sell.
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 site describes attorney-quality, evidence-backed demands with hyperlinked exhibits, an assistant whose answers are grounded in the actual record, and built-in accuracy when switching demand types. Section 17 of the master services agreement and the AI disclaimer say output is not guaranteed to be error-free, complete or current and must be independently verified, and the disclaimer adds that results depend on the quality of the input. No error rate, test or evaluation is published.
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.
Demands are delivered as drafts for final review before sending. Demand Studio lets attorneys select any section for an AI rewrite, make bulk edits, switch demand types and rework the whole strategy, and Section 17 of the master services agreement says a competent attorney should always review and double-check the work product before submitting it; the disclaimer adds that no ethical attorney should submit an AI-created document without careful review.
An older product page still online describes the draft as needing a final review by competent staff or attorneys before it goes to the carrier the same day. No limit on what the AI assistant may do is 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.
The customer story features Easton & Easton, the firm whose attorneys founded AI Demand Pro, quoting managing partner Matthew D. Easton and reporting a 100% revenue increase and a cut of more than 200% in time to complete demands. Aaron Hicks, founding partner of Hicks Law Firm, is quoted without figures, and the site links customer firms including Ledger Law. The figures are undated and give no method, and none comes from a firm outside the founders' own.
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.
Section 14 of the master services agreement protects AI Demand Pro's own confidential information, and its return or destruction duty falls on the subscriber, so the agreement carries no confidentiality commitment over the firm's case files. Protected health information is covered by a business associate agreement that the master services agreement references and that is not published. The privacy policy says client health information is handled under HIPAA and that personal information is not sold, and an older product page still online says patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth are redacted before records reach the AI.
Nothing addresses whether customer data trains any model, what OpenAI, named on that page, retains, privilege, or how long case files are kept.
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 master services agreement says the professional duty to the client lies solely with the personal injury attorney, that a generated demand supplements and does not replace the attorney's judgment, and that the firm is solely responsible for the quality, accuracy and legality of what it submits. Section 17 and the AI disclaimer say output must be reviewed by a competent attorney before submission, that users are responsible for submitting inaccurate AI content, and that no ethical attorney should submit an AI document unreviewed; the disclaimer adds that the tool is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The jurisdictions its demands suit are not stated, and no ethics opinion is named.
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 demands vary across case types is published.
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 site describes HIPAA-compliant document handling and enterprise-grade security, the privacy policy and disclaimer refer to industry-standard security measures, and the master services agreement references a business associate agreement for protected health information that is not published. An older product page still online says patient identifiers are redacted before records are submitted to the AI. The agreement's return or destruction clause binds the subscriber to return AI Demand Pro's confidential information, not the vendor to delete case files. No retention period, subprocessor list, security controls or incident notification timeframe is published.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The master services agreement, last modified in December 2023, has AI Demand Pro indemnify the subscriber against third-party claims arising from its breach of the agreement, its material breach of the confidentiality article or the business associate agreement, HIPAA violations and security incidents it causes, its negligence, and bodily injury it causes. Liability on indemnified claims is capped at the fees paid in the twelve months before the claim, with no special or punitive damages.
Section 17 excludes liability for AI inaccuracies, errors and omissions and provides the services as is. Both parties must carry insurance sufficient to cover their obligations under the agreement, with no amounts stated.
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.
Documents are uploaded and demands download as Word files on the firm's letterhead; no connection to a case management or document system is 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.
No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published.
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 site describes HIPAA-compliant software and enterprise-grade security, the privacy policy says the website is designed to be fully compliant with HIPAA, and the master services agreement references a business associate agreement. No audit, certification, report or trust center is published.
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.
An older product page still online says AI Demand Pro is built on the backbone of OpenAI and enhanced exclusively for personal injury demands. The master services agreement says the services use generative AI and may incorporate web-based applications and software tools of third-party licensors. No model, version, inference location or change notification is named.
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.
An older product page still online describes a flat price per demand set by monthly volume and invoiced demand by demand, with figures that conflict on the same page: no more than $600 a demand with $450 a demand in the Boutique Firm package at about ten demands a month, and no more than $500 a demand with $300 a demand at the same volume. The master services agreement refers to monthly fees, set-up and professional services fees, census allotments and client overages set in each order, a 12-month initial term that renews automatically, non-refundable payments, a 1.5% monthly late charge, and renewal price increases capped at 6.5%. The current site routes pricing questions to a demo or an ROI calculator.
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.
Personal injury firms, from solo attorneys to multi-state firms, are the market, and the outputs are settlement demands, medical summaries and chronologies, with life care plans, discovery and deposition tools marked as coming soon. The injury types, jurisdictions and carriers it handles less well are not stated.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for AI Demand Pro, 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.
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Nov 9, 2026
-
demandpro.ai/disclaimer1 signal
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
demandpro.ai/product-old1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Nov 9, 2026
No published figure
- AI Demand Pro charges a flat price for each demand letter, not per user.
- The price per demand goes down as a firm produces more demands each month.
- An older product page gives two sets of figures: no more than $600 a demand with $450 as an example, and no more than $500 a demand with $300 as an example.
- The current site gives no figure and sends pricing questions to a demo or an ROI calculator.
- Contracts run 12 months and renew automatically.
AI Demand Pro prices per demand. The price is the same whether a demand has 100 or 10,000 pages of medical records, it is set by the number of demands a firm creates each month, and each demand is invoiced on its own so the cost can be billed to the case. Packages are offered for firms of every size.
The current site publishes no figure. An older product page that is still online gives two sets of figures that conflict. One says a firm never pays more than $600 a demand, with $450 a demand in the Boutique Firm package at about ten demands a month. The other says never more than $500 a demand, with $300 a demand at the same volume. Neither is repeated on the current pages, so no figure is shown as the entry price here.
The master services agreement refers to monthly fees, set-up and professional services fees, census allotments and client overages, all set in each order.
Implementation: The master services agreement provides for set-up and professional services fees set in each order. No figure is published.
Note: Under the master services agreement, the initial term is 12 months and renews automatically. Payments are non-refundable, late amounts carry a 1.5% monthly charge, and renewal price increases are capped at 6.5%.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA 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.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
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 master services agreement, terms, privacy policy and AI disclaimer are all published, and none addresses whether subscriber data or uploaded case files are used to train or improve any model; no improvement right over subscriber data is granted either. An older product page still online names OpenAI as the backbone of the software without saying what OpenAI receives or keeps.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
No retention period for uploaded records, case files or generated demands is stated in the master services agreement, privacy policy, terms or disclaimer. The agreement's return or destruction clause binds the subscriber to return AI Demand Pro's confidential information rather than the vendor to delete case files, and the business associate agreement it references is not published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Separation inside a firm's account, between matters or users, has no described controls. Nothing addresses separating matters or users within a firm's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No published term addresses court or government requests for subscriber data. The master services agreement's required disclosure clause binds the subscriber when it must disclose AI Demand Pro's confidential information, and the business associate agreement it references is not published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Source material comes from the firm alone. Demands are drafted from the firm's own uploaded records and bills; no body of law or verdict data behind the drafting is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Any legal authority a demand cites goes out with no currency check. Nothing addresses checking any legal authority cited in demands for currency.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Incomplete records and unanswerable questions have no described handling. Nothing describes what the software does when records are incomplete or a question cannot be answered from the file; the disclaimer says output depends on the quality of the input.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
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 kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming AI Demand Pro or Demand Pro as the tool used.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The AI disclaimer and master services agreement tell attorneys that ethical practice requires careful review of any AI-created document before submission and that a competent attorney should always check the work product. No rule or ethics opinion is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The vendor’s charge reaches the client as a disbursement or case expense, typically advanced by a contingency firm and recovered from a settlement, so the fee question is disclosure of a pass through cost rather than compressed hours. The summary records whether the vendor addresses that disclosure.
An older product page still online says each demand is invoiced individually at the per-demand rate so that a firm can pass the whole cost of the service onto the client's case costs, which it calls ethical. Nothing addresses how that charge is disclosed to the client. The current pages cite faster demands, lower overhead and a customer's doubled revenue.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material is published. An older product page still online names OpenAI as the backbone of the software, and the master services agreement refers to tools of unnamed third-party licensors.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Disclosure of AI use in a demand gets no supporting record. Demands go to insurers rather than courts, and nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use.