A

AI.Law

The Free Forever tier is described in AI.Law's own words as the full practice setup with no AI tools: unlimited matters and seats, CRM, lead pipeline, intake, conflict checks, calendar, billing, IOLTA trust accounting, document storage, electronic signature and workflow automation, at zero cost and with no time limit. That is a working practice management system standing on its own. The AI is sold on top, by seat and by role, at three price points, and the paid tiers are organized around what the models do: understand, draft, win.

The drafting and analysis catalog is large and model driven, from complaints and discovery to deposition analysis and medical chronologies. The vendor publishes what remains without the models as a product of its own.

Output is confined to the file: AI.Law states that the AI can only cite what is in the matter's files, and that every claim carries a clickable citation to the source document and page or transcript line. Caselaw is grounded in a named external source, Court Listener, against which every case citation is said to be verified, and the research tool is said to produce no invented cites. A separate brief analyzer checks citations and surfaces counter authorities.

The published Citation Accuracy Guarantee sets out three steps: the AI drafts with a citation on every claim, the user clicks through to the exact source, and if a citation is wrong the vendor credits the account. No accuracy figure, test set, error rate, sample or third party evaluation is published. The guarantee concerns linkage rather than correctness: it addresses whether a citation points at a real source, not whether the proposition it supports is right.

AI Controls lets a firm switch AI categories on or off firm wide or matter by matter, an administrative switch over what the models may touch. Permissions and Roles supplies fifteen built in roles with matter visibility, so who can invoke which tool is configurable. The Citation Accuracy Guarantee makes the user's click through to the source the second of its three steps, so checking the source is part of using the product.

The seat structure carries a supervision model AI.Law states openly: the Associate seat is for associates, of counsel attorneys and senior paralegals drafting under supervision. Nothing published states a confidence threshold, describes what the system does when the file will not support an answer, sets out an escalation route, or separates work the AI completes from work it proposes.

Three firms are named on AI.Law's own pages with attributed quotations. Liu Law Firm speaks to searching key information across large volumes of legal documents. Akiva Shappiro of Akiva Shapiro Law, PLLC is quoted as a solo litigator on value for money and reduced drafting time, and Sean Akari of Akari Law Firm on accuracy and speed. No measurement is attached to any of them. The figures the vendor publishes stand apart from the customers.

A Paralegal seat is said to pay for itself by reducing around twenty hours of paralegal work a month, and an Associate seat with one drafted motion or one set of discovery responses. In a third party interview, deposition summarization is said to have reduced billable time in an insurance defense case by up to twenty percent. None states a basis. The founder's own law firm has handled over 2,200 matters and resolved more than $500 million in claims, which is the vendor's background rather than a customer outcome. A case studies page is published.

AI.Law publishes fifteen built in permission roles with matter visibility, automatic conflict screening, AI controls that can be switched off firm wide or per matter, a scoping statement that the AI can only cite what is in the matter's own files, and an assertion of a completed SOC 2 Type II examination. Together those describe a product built with a firm's confidentiality obligations in mind. The Terms of Service and Privacy Policy are published, ungated and linked in the footer of every page.

No statement on training on client data, retention, deletion, segregation between matters at the model layer, or what any model provider may retain appears on the marketing, features, pricing or guarantee pages, and nothing there addresses privilege or work product. Cross Matter Intelligence and Firm Intel run retrieval across every matter in the firm, which is the capability a matter level wall would need to constrain.

AI.Law markets the platform as ABA Opinion 512 Guided, putting the profession's own generative AI ethics opinion on the face of the product. The Citation Accuracy Guarantee opens on the fact that courts are sanctioning attorneys for hallucinated AI citations and presents the guarantee as the answer to that exposure. The product is sold only to litigation attorneys and law firms and priced by professional role. The Associate tier is described as being for those drafting under supervision, which is a supervision statement in commercial form.

Nothing on the marketing, features or pricing pages states that output is not legal advice, that the vendor is not a law firm, or that a lawyer must use independent judgment before filing. Nothing sets out how a supervising attorney meets competence and supervision duties over pleadings drafted by machine. No jurisdictional limit appears, although caselaw coverage is claimed across every US jurisdiction.

AI Controls switch AI categories on or off firm wide or per matter, fifteen permission roles govern who may invoke what, and AI.Law states alignment with ABA Formal Opinion 512. A completed SOC 2 Type II examination is asserted, but that is a controls attestation rather than an AI governance one. None of the parts of a governance program is published. There is no responsible AI or AI governance page, no named framework and no one identified as accountable for AI decisions.

Nothing describes what is evaluated before a model or tool ships, and no testing regime is set out. Bias is not addressed, on a platform whose outputs include dismissal risk scoring, settlement correspondence and medical causation analysis, all of which can vary by claimant, venue or injury type. The Citation Accuracy Guarantee is the one place where the vendor commits to a standard and accepts a consequence for missing it, and it covers citation linkage only.

Fifteen built in roles with matter level visibility, automatic conflict screening, AI controls that can be disabled firm wide or matter by matter, firm wide document search scoped by permission, and a completed SOC 2 Type II examination asserted on the vendor's own pages make up the published controls. The platform also holds trust money through IOLTA accounting, which raises the stakes on access control. No retention period, deletion right, subprocessor list, encryption statement, breach notification commitment or incident practice appears on the marketing, features, pricing or citation guarantee pages. The Privacy Policy, which would ordinarily carry these terms, is published and ungated.

The Citation Accuracy Guarantee is published at its own URL as a commitment with a consequence: every hyperlinked citation is verified against the source document, and if a citation link is wrong the vendor credits the account. The page says so twice and calls it a written guarantee. That is a specific remedy for a defined failure of the output itself, offered to every customer without negotiation. The remedy is an account credit, not an indemnity, and it covers citation linkage only.

It does not reach a wrongly drafted claim, a missed affirmative defense, a mistaken limitation calculation or an incorrect medical causation analysis. Nothing published addresses indemnity, insurance, or a warranty covering the substance of any document the platform drafts. The Terms of Service are summarized on their page as covering subscription, billing, arbitration, class action waiver and governing law.

The named connections cover the systems a small litigation firm runs on: Google and Outlook calendar sync for matter events and deadlines, email integration inside client and contact management, and Stripe for invoicing and payments alongside IOLTA trust accounting. Two further connections are published as plan features rather than roadmap. A RESTful API is described as reaching any AI.Law data point, and MCP connections attach external AI agents to the platform, with white glove onboarding for both included at the Partner tier.

No developer portal, API reference, authentication description, field mapping or statement of sync direction is published, and nothing describes what a firm must configure to make any connection work. The platform largely absorbs adjacent systems rather than connecting to them, since it ships its own CRM, document management, calendar and billing.

The product is a hosted web application reached through a browser sign in, provisioned instantly on self serve signup and priced per seat per month. No cloud provider is named, no region or data center is identified, no residency option is offered or refused, and no single tenant or private deployment is mentioned. Nothing separates where documents are stored from where model inference happens, though the platform routes work to ten large language models it does not name. No on premises or self hosted option is described, for a product holding client files and IOLTA trust records.

AI.Law's own pages assert a completed SOC 2 Type II examination, in the same banner as the patent number and the ABA Opinion 512 alignment. No auditor is named, and no observation period or report date is given. No scope statement identifies which trust services criteria or systems were covered, no certificate or attestation letter is published, and there is no trust center, security page or route to request the report.

No penetration testing regime, vulnerability disclosure program or encryption statement is published. A fuller scope description, naming security, availability, processing integrity and confidentiality, appears only in company boilerplate on a third party business directory, not on the vendor's own site.

The one published fact about the supply chain is a count: the AI Associate is described as letting a user chat with ten large language models, with every answer citing source pages. No provider is named, no model or version is identified, nothing states which model performs which task or which one drafts a complaint as against summarizing a deposition, no default is stated, and nothing commits to notifying a customer when the set changes.

There is no subprocessor list. What is disclosed is the data side: Court Listener is named as the caselaw source and AI.Law states that generated text can only cite what is in the matter's files. Those describe where the grounding comes from, not what generates the text. A firm is invited to select among ten models for work on privileged client files without being told whose they are.

Rates are published outright: Paralegal seats at $149 per seat per month, Associate at $299 and Partner at $699. An Owners' Suite option costs a flat $999 per month for the whole firm, and a Free Forever tier at $0 has unlimited matters and seats. Seats are bought by professional role and can be mixed across one firm, with each user on their own tier. Annual billing saves ten percent, and cancellation is allowed at any time with access to the end of the billing period.

What each tier contains is set out feature by feature, including which tools are free forever and which are Partner only. AI.Law publishes a worked example: a six person firm with one Partner, one Associate, two Paralegal and two free seats at about $1,296 per month. Purchase is self serve, with paid checkout in the product and no credit card required to start. No implementation charge applies, since the product provisions on signup, and white glove API and MCP onboarding is included at the Partner tier.

The segment is named: the platform is built for solo and mid size litigation firms. The pricing describes the roles it expects to find, with seats for paralegals and admin staff, associates and of counsel attorneys, and partners and solo trial attorneys running their own cases. For research, caselaw is claimed across every US jurisdiction through Court Listener. Practice coverage can be read from the tool catalog. It covers general civil litigation on both sides through complaints, answers, discovery and motions, a substantial plaintiff personal injury group, insurance coverage analysis, and contract drafting at the edge.

Intake runs in English and Spanish, with translation that handles dialects. Nothing states which practice areas the platform does not suit. No limit is placed on the jurisdictions whose procedural rules its drafting and formatting tools handle, although court compliant captions are a named feature. Nothing separates what a paralegal seat may do on a matter from what a partner seat may do beyond the tool list.