A
Ajax
Ajax is a passive timekeeping product for law firms that bill by the hour. A desktop application captures the whole working day, documents, email, browser, VoIP calls, calendar, Zoom and Teams, and reads the content of the work rather than window titles or calendar subject lines. It groups related activity by matter and drafts a time entry with a narrative, a matter and an activity code already assigned, written to the timekeeper's own style and learning from their corrections.
The timekeeper reviews, edits and releases entries into the firm's billing system in one click; eight systems are supported by name, including Clio, MyCase, Filevine, PracticePanther, SurePoint, Centerbase, Actionstep and Soluno. Two further features run off the same capture: automatic filing of email to the right matter, and drafted client updates based on recent work. A compliance feature takes a client's outside counsel guidelines as a document, extracts structured rules from them, lets the firm keep or drop each rule, and links every rule back to the page of the source document it was drawn from.
Entries are visible only to the timekeeper until released, capture can be paused in one click, and the published agreement deletes raw data after 30 days and processed data after 60. The vendor is NapoleonScout, Inc., trading as Ajax.
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.
Take the models out and there is nothing to sell. The capture layer produces a stream of activity across documents, email, browser, calls, calendar and meetings; everything the buyer is actually paying for happens after that, when a model reads the content of the work, decides which matter it belongs to, groups fragments that belong together and writes a narrative in the timekeeper's own voice with an activity code attached.
The vendor draws the line itself when it separates its product from tools that record activity without writing entries, and calls that the previous generation of the category. The rules engine that turns a client's outside counsel guidelines into constraints on the wording is model work too. What remains without any of it is a timesheet of raw activity that a lawyer still has to write up. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
On a timekeeping product this axis asks whether an entry is right: the right work, the right matter, the right duration, a narrative that describes what actually happened. The method is described better here than on either comparable record. The vendor states that it reads the content of the work rather than window titles or calendar subject lines, that it clusters activity scattered across the day on one matter into a single entry, and that it identifies the client and matter by matching what is on screen against a live map of the firm's matters.
It also publishes a figure, twice in one explainer of 7 July 2026: matter matching is right about 92 per cent of the time, and improves as the system learns a firm's people, documents and topics. Publishing a number that is not 100 is more candour than either comparable record offers, and it is still short of measurement a reader can test. There is no sample, no period, no stated method and no definition of a correct match, and nothing describes what happens to the entries in the remainder beyond the lawyer's review catching them.
For the narratives themselves, as distinct from matter assignment, no figure is published at all. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
The review step is structural rather than advisory, which is the strongest thing on this record. Nothing the model writes reaches the firm's billing system on its own: entries are drafted throughout the day, they are visible to the timekeeper alone until that person releases them, and the release is a deliberate act. The timekeeper can edit any entry, delete any entry outright, and stop capture entirely with one click, with the vendor stating that nothing is captured until they choose to resume.
The FAQ answers the supervision question in the other direction too, saying the firm cannot see a timekeeper's hours before release. What is not published is the rest of the control structure: no threshold at which the model declines to write an entry, nothing on what happens after an entry goes out wrong, and no statement of what the system may not be used for. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
This is the strongest deployment evidence in the pull and it stops short of the top band on two specific things. Ten firms are named with their practice area, their city and a figure each: Almazan Law in Florida at 1.1 extra billable hours a day, Poole Huffman in Georgia at $32,000 recovered a month, Kirker Davis in Austin at $4,639 per timekeeper a month, Pines Federal at $42,000 a month, King Law at 121 active users across 24 offices, Quill & Arrow at 270 professionals.
Named attorneys are quoted in each. Sixteen further testimonials carry names, titles and firms, and the vendor states that fourteen customers went on to invest personally. Against that: not one case study carries a date, and no method is stated behind the return multiples, so figures like 67x and 58x cannot be checked or compared by a reader. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
For a product that reads everything on a lawyer's screen, the published commitments are substantial and one gap is structural. The addendum of 5 August 2026 prohibits training, retraining or fine-tuning on customer data and binds the named model providers to the same; raw data is deleted after 30 days and processed data after 60; everything is deleted within 30 days of termination. Confidentiality runs mutually in the terms.
Access is answered at the level this product raises it: drafted entries are visible to the timekeeper alone until released, and capture stops on one click, which is the control a lawyer working on a sensitive matter actually needs. The vendor acknowledges in its own words that its users handle privileged client data. What is not published is any treatment of privilege or work product as such, and nothing addresses matter-level separation, which matters where a timekeeper is screened off a matter the capture would otherwise read. Verified 20 September 2026.
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 real position on review before billing is published, and it lives in the wrong place to earn more. An explainer of 7 July 2026 states that the lawyer's job shrinks to review, check the drafts, fix what's wrong, release to billing; that this does not mean the software bills for you; and, answering whether the output is accurate enough to bill from, that the entries are drafts until a lawyer approves them, which is what keeps billing defensible.
The same page answers whether lawyers still review entries before they are billed with a plain yes, and says drafts stay drafts until the lawyer approves them. That engages the duty this product actually raises, which is the lawyer's responsibility for a narrative the client will read as their own account of their work. Three things hold it here. The position sits in a category explainer on the blog, not in the terms, the product pages or anything a customer signs.
The fee rules the vendor names elsewhere are never connected to its own product. And nothing addresses found time, flat fees, or what a client is told about how the entry was written. Verified 20 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Nothing is published about how the models are governed. No one is named as accountable for what they write, nothing describes what is tested before a change ships, no evaluation results appear, and the privacy policy states plainly that the vendor does not test, verify or endorse AI outputs. Nothing addresses whether entry quality holds evenly across practice areas, seniority, or the kinds of work that leave a thin digital trace, which is the obvious question for a product whose output becomes a bill.
The one thing on the estate that resembles a governance surface is the outside counsel guideline feature, where extracted rules are shown to the firm with a link back to the source page before they take effect, but that governs the client's rules rather than the model. Checked the home page, the security page, the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
All five things this band asks for are published and specific. Retention: raw data deleted after 30 days, processed data after 60, stated identically in the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum, and alterable only by written customer instruction. Deletion: everything deleted or irreversibly anonymised within 30 days of termination. Access: SAML 2.0 and SCIM provisioning through the firm's identity provider, centralised control, automated onboarding and offboarding, and entries visible only to their author until release.
Subprocessors: seven named, including the model providers. Incidents: notice to the customer within 48 hours of becoming aware, with remediation committed. Encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or better in transit. One inconsistency belongs on the record: the security FAQ says the vendor does not store customer data, while the agreement and addendum publish the 30-day and 60-day windows above. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
What is published disclaims the exposure rather than allocating it. The service is provided as is, with no warranty of any kind and no undertaking that it will be error-free; AI outputs are expressly not guaranteed to be accurate, complete or suitable for any purpose, and the privacy policy adds that the vendor does not test or verify them. Liability is capped at the fees paid in the preceding twelve months and indirect, incidental, special, consequential and punitive damages are excluded.
No indemnity of any kind runs from the vendor to the customer, not even for intellectual property, and no insurance is mentioned. For a product whose output is a bill a client will scrutinise and a lawyer will sign, nothing published says what happens if an entry is wrong. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
The integrations are real and named, and the depth stops at a sentence each. Eight billing and practice management systems are supported by name, each with its own page: Clio, MyCase, Filevine, PracticePanther, SurePoint, Centerbase, Actionstep and Soluno, with the claim that most other billing systems work too. What moves is clear enough: released time entries with matter, activity code and narrative already applied, out of Ajax and into the system of record.
An explainer of 7 July 2026 goes further and calls two-way sync with all eight table stakes, without saying what comes back the other way, or what happens to an entry edited in the billing system after release. On the capture side the product connects to work email, Microsoft Teams or Slack, calendar, Zoom and supported VoIP platforms, with RingCentral, Dialpad and VXT named. What an implementer would need next is not published: no field mapping, no sync behaviour on edits or deletions, no error handling, and no API documentation, which the vendor offers to share with a technical team on request. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
Cloud delivery is obvious and neither half of the question is answered. There is a desktop application and a hosted service behind it, and nothing published names a hosting provider, a region, a data centre or a tenancy model; nothing distinguishes where the software runs from where captured work product sits. The addendum comes closest, saying customer data may be processed in the United States and other countries where the vendor operates, which names no country beyond the first and offers no choice, and committing to standard contractual clauses for European transfers and to Australian privacy law for Australian ones.
For a product that reads the content of privileged documents across a firm's whole working day, a security reviewer has nothing published to start from. Checked the home page, the security page, the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
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 certification is stated plainly and the evidence behind it is not reachable. The security page claims SOC 2 Type II certification, describing independently audited security controls, data handling and infrastructure, and the terms add CASA certification alongside it; independent audits, penetration testing and 24/7 endpoint monitoring are also claimed. None of it carries the detail the top band asks for: no auditor is named, no report period or scope is published, no date appears, there is no trust portal and no route to the report itself.
The only offer is a security review conversation, which is the same booking form as the sales demo. Verified 20 September 2026.
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 providers are named, which is uncommon, and the disclosure stops there. The addendum lists seven subprocessors and three of them are model providers: OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini, alongside BaseTen for model serving, Amazon Web Services, Vercel and PostHog. The same section binds all of them not to retain or use customer data for their own training or fine-tuning, which is the part a firm's client would ask about.
What is absent is everything downstream of the name: no model or version is identified, nothing states which provider handles which part of the work, nothing says where inference runs, and no commitment is given to notify customers when any of it changes. Verified 20 September 2026.
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 shape of the deal is published in detail and the number is not. There is no pricing page; the vendor answers the question in a post of its own titled how much Ajax costs, and answers it structurally: priced per seat rather than firmwide, because a firm should not pay for timekeepers who keep their own system, with a stated expectation of 70 to 80 per cent take-up; contracts are annual; a two-week pilot on the firm's real work comes before any commitment.
Elsewhere the vendor frames cost against return, saying one recovered hour per user per month covers the subscription and that payback typically lands inside eleven days, and describes itself as premium-priced in its category. The exact figure depends on firm size and seat count and is quoted on a call. No list price, no tiers and no range appear anywhere on the estate. Verified 20 September 2026.
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.
Coverage is shown rather than claimed, through the customers. The named firms span workers' compensation and insurance defence, general practice, family law, personal injury and business litigation, multi-practice, lemon law, community association work and federal employment law, across Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, California, Georgia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and range from solo and boutique practices to 121 users across 24 offices and 270 professionals.
The product requirement is the real boundary and it is only implied: this is built for timekeepers who bill by the hour and work on a screen, so contingency practices, flat-fee work and anything done away from a computer sit outside it. Nothing published states that, or which practice areas or firm sizes the vendor does not serve. Verified 20 September 2026.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for Ajax, 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.
-
joinajax.com2 signals
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
joinajax.com/legal/data-processing2 signals
Client Data in Training, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
joinajax.com/legal/privacy-policy2 signals
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
joinajax.com/legal/terms-of-use1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
joinajax.com/security1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 20, 2026
Not published; quoted per seat on an annual contractUSD, as published, never converted
- Ajax does not publish a price. What it does publish is how the pricing works.
- It is charged per seat, not per firm. The vendor's reasoning is that timekeeping is personal and some people at a firm will keep their own system, so it would not be fair to make the firm pay for everyone; it expects 70 to 80 per cent of a firm's timekeepers to take it up.
- Contracts are annual.
- The exact rate depends on the firm's size and the number of seats, and is quoted on a call.
- Before any of that there is a two-week pilot on the firm's real work, and the vendor states that firms decide after seeing their own numbers.
- The cost framing the vendor uses instead of a figure is that one recovered billable hour per user per month covers the subscription, with payback typically inside eleven days. It describes itself as premium-priced in its category.
Unit and structure published, figure withheld. **Per seat, not firmwide**, stated with the vendor's reasoning: a firm pays only for the timekeepers who use it, because some will keep their own method, and a successful rollout is described as 70 to 80 per cent penetration of a firm's timekeepers. **Annual contracts.** **Two-week pilot** on the firm's real work before signing, positioned as the decision point. **The rate depends on firm size and seat count and is quoted on a call.** No list price, no tiers, no range and no seat minimum appears anywhere on the estate, and there is no pricing page: the question is answered in a vendor post titled how much Ajax costs.
The published cost framing is a return argument rather than a number: one recovered billable hour per user per month covers the subscription, payback typically inside eleven days, 12 per cent more billable hours captured on average, and the vendor describes itself as priced at the premium end of its category. Onboarding is described as included and white-glove, covering billing guideline intake, integration and installation.
Implementation: None published as a separate charge. The vendor describes white-glove onboarding as included, covering billing guideline intake, practice management integration and installation, with setup stated as taking about five minutes at the user end: download the application and connect the billing system. A two-week pilot precedes the contract. No migration, configuration or training fee is mentioned anywhere on the estate.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on any surface read, and none would ordinarily be expected: the product captures a lawyer's own working day and writes time entries, and the compliance frame the vendor publishes is SOC 2 Type II, CASA certification, GDPR, CCPA and the other state privacy statutes named in the addendum. Worth recording for a reader who assumes otherwise: the capture is indiscriminate by design, reading documents, email and calls across whatever the timekeeper works on, so a firm with a healthcare practice will have protected health information pass through the product even though nothing here is sold or certified as a health system.
Note: No figure is published anywhere on the estate, so entryPriceUsd is null under R10 rather than zero: there is no free tier, only a two-week pilot on the firm's real work before any commitment. The unit, the term and the structure are published, which is what puts Commercial Transparency at B rather than C: a buyer can learn how they will be charged, just not how much. Everything here is read from the vendor's own post titled how much Ajax costs and from the pricing framing on the home page and in its own comparison content; the comparison content is used only for the vendor's statements about its own commercial terms, never as evidence about the product or about any other vendor. Third-party trackers list the product as contact-sales with no published tiers, consistent with the estate.
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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The prohibition is in the agreement, not only on a policy page, and it reaches the model providers too. The addendum of 5 August 2026 states that Ajax will not train, retrain or fine-tune any general-purpose AI or machine learning model using customer data, and that it prohibits its subprocessors, naming OpenAI, Anthropic and other LLM providers, from retaining or using customer data for their own training or fine-tuning; service improvement is confined to anonymised analytics that exclude raw or identifiable customer data.
The terms and the privacy policy carry the same commitment in their own words. Two qualifiers belong on the record: the prohibition is written for general-purpose models, and the product page describes the system learning each timekeeper's voice and preferences from their corrections, which the estate does not connect to the training language either way.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
Specific windows are published and the customer can override them. Raw data, which for this product means the logs and screenshots behind an entry, is deleted after 30 days; processed data, meaning the structured records derived from the activity, after 60; everything remaining is deleted or irreversibly anonymised within 30 days of termination. The same figures appear in the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum, and the addendum makes them the default by allowing alternative written instructions from the customer.
Zero retention is not offered as a setting. One inconsistency is recorded as fact: the security page answers the question what happens to my data by saying the vendor does not store customer data and does not engage vendors that store it, while the three documents above publish the windows described here.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
The product runs its own access model and documents it, at the level of the individual rather than the matter. Drafted entries are visible to their author alone until that person releases them, and the vendor states plainly that the firm cannot see a timekeeper's hours before release and that it will not become a tool for the firm to watch its people. Capture stops on one click and resumes only when the user chooses.
Firm-side administration runs through the customer's own identity provider with SAML and SCIM, so joiners and leavers follow the firm's directory. What is nowhere addressed is the matter: nothing describes how capture behaves for a timekeeper screened off a conflicted matter, or whether a released narrative can carry content from a matter the reader of the bill should not see.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
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 tells a firm that its confidential information can leave without its approval where the law or legal process requires it, and stops there. No commitment to notify the customer is made, no discretion over notice is reserved either way, and nothing addresses challenging a request or seeking a protective order first. The terms and the addendum are silent on the subject: the addendum covers security incidents with a 48-hour notice commitment, and data subject requests, but never a government or third-party demand for customer data.
No transparency report is published. Checked the terms, the privacy policy, the addendum and the security page on 20 September 2026.
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.
No corpus question arises in the usual form and none is addressed. What the models read is the firm's own working day, the documents, emails, browser activity, calls and meetings of the timekeeper using the product, matched against that firm's own list of clients and matters. No external legal corpus, licensed dataset or cross-customer collection is used or claimed anywhere, and the addendum prohibits the model providers from retaining the material they see.
The one thing that resembles a source corpus is the client's outside counsel guidelines, which the firm uploads itself and which the product links back to page by page.
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.
Checked the home page, the security page, the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum on 20 September 2026. The product writes time entries and files email; it does not cite legal authority or produce legal argument, so no question of subsequent history arises and nothing on the estate describes one.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Nothing published describes what the system does when it cannot tell what a piece of work was or which matter it belongs to. No confidence score, no flag on a low-certainty matter assignment, no described behaviour for activity it cannot classify, and no account of what happens to time it captures but cannot write up. The vendor's stated position runs the other way, that it does not test, verify or endorse AI outputs and that users should review them, which allocates the duty rather than describing any abstention.
The review surface is real, since nothing releases without the timekeeper, but it is a control on the person rather than a described behaviour of the model.
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.
Searched on 20 September 2026 for any court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Ajax or NapoleonScout in connection with fabricated or hallucinated material. None located. The product generates billing narratives rather than legal citations, so the usual route to such a record does not apply; the exposure this shape carries is a fee dispute or a billing challenge rather than a sanctions decision, and no such record was located either.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.
Named guidance is engaged, in more than one place, and never connected to the product. The same two sentences appear almost word for word in at least two of the vendor's published rankings of time tracking and billing tools: that ABA Model Rule 1.5 requires reasonable, written-out fee arrangements, that ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 prohibits billing more time than was actually spent and recycling work product as original work, and that a system which lets a lawyer double-bill or block-bill creates real ethical exposure.
That is the guidance that governs this shape, named and stated correctly. A separate explainer of 7 July 2026 brings it nearest the product, saying that every serious tool in this category keeps a lawyer in the loop before anything reaches an invoice and that bar guidance expects exactly that; it is general, and it is the only place the two are tied together. Nothing maps the vendor's own machine-written narratives to the duty to bill only for time actually spent, and nothing on the live pages engages the newer guidance on generative AI and fees.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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 premise of this product is that the bill goes up, and nothing published addresses what the client is told. The headline claim is 12 per cent more billable hours captured, with payback in eleven days, and the case studies quantify it firm by firm as recovered revenue per timekeeper per month. Nothing on any page or in any agreement addresses whether a client should know that the narrative describing the lawyer's work was drafted by software, how a firm on a flat fee should treat found time, or what a lawyer should do with an entry for work they would not previously have billed.
The nearest thing to a record of the model's work is the review screen the timekeeper sees before release, and nothing describes what it retains afterwards or what it could show a client who queries an entry. Re-entry condition: a page describing a retained, viewable record of what each entry was built from, or an edit history marking the draft against the human change, would move this.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A firm answering a client's questionnaire has most of what it needs and can read it without signing anything. The addendum names seven subprocessors, including the model providers OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini, and binds them against retaining or training on customer data; the security page states the encryption standards, the certification claimed and the deletion cycle. The product also works the other way round, taking the client's own outside counsel guidelines and turning them into rules applied to every entry for that client, with each rule traceable to its page in the source document.
What is missing is the client-facing half: nothing published helps a firm tell its client that its time entries are machine-drafted, and no disclosure material exists for that conversation.
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.
Checked the home page, the security page, the terms, the privacy policy and the addendum on 20 September 2026. Nothing addresses disclosure of AI use to a court or an adjudicator, and nothing describes a record that would support one. The product does not produce filings; where its output could reach a tribunal is a fee application or a bill of costs, and nothing published addresses that either, or describes an export showing which entries a model drafted and who approved them.