Aline is a contract lifecycle management platform with AI built in, made by Aline Technologies, Inc. It is aimed at lean in house legal teams of two to five people at companies of roughly 100 to 1,000 employees. It brings drafting, redlining, approvals, electronic signature and a searchable contract repository into one system that runs in the browser. Its AI drafts agreements, memos and policies from a team's own clause library, redlines third party contracts against playbooks built from the team's templates, answers questions about a single contract or across thousands, and extracts terms such as renewal dates and indemnities without manual tagging.
The AI runs on models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, and Aline's terms commit it not to train its AI features on customer inputs or outputs. Workflows let sales, procurement and finance launch agreements within guardrails set by legal, and Aline connects to Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox, Box and CRMs such as Salesforce and HubSpot. It publishes its pricing, starting at $200 per full user per month. Founded in 2019 by a former general counsel, it lists its headquarters in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Aline whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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.
Aline's AI drafts agreements and memos from a team's clause library, redlines third party paper against playbooks generated from the team's templates, answers questions about one contract or thousands, and extracts terms from the repository without tagging. The vendor itself says the contract infrastructure came first and the AI layer was added to a system that already understood the documents. Approval and intake workflows, native electronic signature through AlineSign, a document repository and sync with file storage all function without the models.
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.
Aline's Legal AI page says every output cites the clause, source or precedent it came from, and that research answers are grounded in the customer's contracts, statutes and approved legal sources and never a hallucinated case. It also says the product reads whole contracts rather than a slice. None of this is measured. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, no failure mode is named, the approved legal sources are not identified, and nothing describes what the system does when it cannot support an answer.
Section 9(d) of the published terms states that outputs are not tested, verified, endorsed or guaranteed to be accurate and makes customers responsible for checking all outputs themselves.
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.
Final calls and the read on a deal stay with in house counsel, Aline's about page states, while legal sets the playbook and everyone else works inside it. The product routes contracts for approval on triggers such as value, department or risk at clause level, and keeps an audit trail of decisions. Redlines are proposed against playbooks for a lawyer to accept. The terms require customers to verify all outputs and bar using the AI for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects without adequate human review.
No threshold or categorical limit applies to a named mode: sales users can launch agreements without legal inside the guardrails, and nothing states which outputs may go out without a lawyer's review.
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 site attributes results to named people at named companies. Xevant's senior legal director says a mutual NDA redline fell from up to 45 minutes to under two, and a PharmaCann attorney says the first pass of a 50 page commercial agreement takes 15 minutes. Testimonials name Muon Space, Telly, 7th Level, Bison Transport and DailyPay, with a linked 7th Level case study. The about page adds aggregate figures: 95 percent faster review, $40,000 a year in outside counsel spend saved and 8,400 contracts analyzed by one team, and 2,000 users across more than 100 companies.
None of the figures states how it was measured or over what period, so they are testimonial figures rather than measured outcomes.
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 9 of the Terms of Service states that Aline shall not use inputs or outputs to train its AI features, names OpenAI and Anthropic as the providers behind them, and leaves intellectual property in inputs with the customer. The security page adds that agreements with the model providers legally prevent training on customer data. The agreement has no general confidentiality clause protecting customer contracts. The privacy policy permits use of aggregated or deidentified information for any purpose and archiving after removal.
Privilege and work product are not addressed, and the only separation statement is that requests run inside the customer's secure contract environment. Section 1 states that no attorney client relationship or privilege is created with Aline, which concerns Aline's own role rather than the customer's privilege.
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.
Section 1 of the terms states that Aline is not a law firm or an attorney, nothing on the service is legal advice, no attorney client relationship is created, and anyone needing legal advice should consult a licensed attorney. The product is sold to sales, procurement, finance and founders as well as lawyers. The home page promises accurate documents drafted without expensive counsel, and according to the FAQ, business users can launch agreements without deep legal expertise.
Legal sets the playbook and others work inside it. Nothing addresses supervision or competence duties for the lawyers who set it, and no jurisdiction limit is stated.
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.
Section 9(f) of the terms prohibits using the AI for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on individuals without adequate human review, for discriminatory or harmful purposes, or to represent output as vetted by Aline or as wholly human generated. The about page publishes principles, including that judgment stays human and that claims should be earned. No one inside Aline is named as accountable for model behavior, nothing describes testing before release, and nothing is disclosed about uneven output.
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.
Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, according to Aline's security page, which also lists regular penetration testing, single sign on through Microsoft Entra and Okta, and hosting on AWS in the United States. The pricing FAQ says customers own their data, can download it at any time, and have a grace period after canceling before it is removed. The privacy policy, last revised in November 2023, retains information as long as needed and permits keeping data in archives after removal from the service.
It names AWS, Sendgrid and Stripe among providers without a full list and states no incident notification commitment. Nothing addresses how long prompts and outputs are kept.
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.
Section 14 of the terms gives a vendor indemnity against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property, with modify, license or refund remedies and stated exclusions. Section 15 caps Aline's liability at fees paid in the prior twelve months and excludes indirect damages for both parties. Section 9 then excludes infringement claims arising from outputs, states that outputs are not tested or guaranteed accurate, and applies the service disclaimers to the AI features. No insurance position is published.
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.
Aline's public help center has a Salesforce managed package guide that sets out who installs what, the install scopes and the Aline Admin permission set. It covers OAuth pairing, in which Aline writes a signing key into the Salesforce org and signs every request with it, and revocation on disconnect. It lists which Opportunity, Account and Owner fields flow into documents, how editable and read only fields behave at launch, and an error log tab with named failure cases.
A companion article documents mapping CRM fields from Salesforce or HubSpot into template fields, with override at launch. The pricing and product pages name sync with Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, OneDrive and SharePoint, CRM integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive and Close, approval notifications in Slack, and single sign on through Microsoft Entra and Okta. The storage sync is not documented to the same depth. No document management system used by law departments, such as iManage or NetDocuments, is named.
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 in the United States, Aline's security FAQ states, and the terms and privacy policy confirm storage and processing in the United States, while also reserving processing in any country where Aline maintains facilities. No single tenant or private deployment is offered and no other region is available; Aline describes neither its tenancy model nor a separate processing location for calls to the model providers.
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.
SOC 2 Type II certification and regular penetration testing are both claimed on Aline's security page. No auditor, report period or scope is given, no trust center exists, and no route to obtain the report is described beyond contacting the team. The same page describes Aline as GDPR certified, though GDPR offers no such certification, and the pricing FAQ calls the SOC 2 claim compliant.
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.
Section 9(e) of the Terms of Service names OpenAI and Anthropic as the providers behind the AI features, and the home and about pages say the product runs on Anthropic Claude, OpenAI and Google Gemini, picked per task. The contractual list, last revised in November 2023, no longer matches the site, which adds Google. No model version is given, and the terms reserve the right to modify the service without notice, so there is no commitment to tell customers when a provider changes.
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.
On Aline's pricing page, the Team plan starts at $200 per full user per month and $50 per support user per month, with unlimited documents, workflows, templates and AI reports, playbooks and chat. Up to 20 hours of onboarding, implementation and training are included. According to the FAQ, there are no maintenance fees or fees based on contract volume, and a 21 day free trial is offered. Enterprise pricing is by quotation, and the page's annual figure is shown as $24,00, a display error.
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.
In house legal departments of two to five people, and teams led by a general counsel at companies of 100 to 1,000 employees, are the stated market for Aline, which contrasts itself with enterprise CLMs built for departments of 50. It also serves procurement, finance and sales users and has recently added an offering for law firms. The work covered is commercial contracting: NDAs, MSAs, DPAs, vendor agreements, policies and board memos, plus legal research questions.
Nothing states which jurisdictions or contract types it handles less well, and the scope of the research function is not bounded.
The public pages on file for Aline, 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.
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 18, 2026
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 18, 2026
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
Team plan: from $200 per full user per month and $50 per support user per month; unlimited workflows, documents, templates, AI reports, playbooks and chat; unlimited electronic signature through AlineSign; file storage integrations; up to 20 hours of onboarding. Enterprise: by quotation; adds CRM integrations, SSO, directory sync, Aline Groups and bespoke onboarding; support users at $0. No maintenance or contract volume fees.
A 21 day free trial needs no payment details. Subscriptions renew automatically unless canceled 30 days before renewal (terms section 10).
Implementation: Team plan includes up to 20 hours of onboarding, implementation and training; Enterprise onboarding is bespoke. No maintenance fees.
Note: Figures are from Aline's pricing page. The page labels the Team figure 'starting at'. Its annual figure is displayed as '$24,00 annually', a formatting error recorded as shown; the monthly figure is used here.
Release 803 lets Aline's AI Chat answer questions across a customer's whole contract repository or a single report, such as which governing law most NDAs use, and returns a counted answer with links to the contracts behind it. When some contracts have not been analyzed yet, Aline says so and fills the gap, and users can open the raw data behind any answer.
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.
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 published Terms of Service prohibit training on customer inputs and outputs. Section 9(b) bars Aline from using inputs or outputs to train its AI features, and the security page adds that agreements with its third party model providers legally prevent training on customer data. Two things sit alongside and are recorded: the privacy policy permits use of aggregated or deidentified information for any purpose, and the Legal AI page says the product learns a team's negotiating positions and applies them, which is described as personalization rather than model training.
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is acknowledged without a stated period. The privacy policy keeps information as long as needed to provide the service and meet legal obligations and allows archiving after removal from the service; the pricing FAQ says customers can download data at any time and have a grace period after canceling before data is removed. No period is given for prompts or outputs and no zero retention option is published.
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
The Legal AI page says requests run inside the customer's secure contract environment, and the Enterprise plan includes SSO, directory sync and Aline Groups. Nothing documents how access is separated between matters, teams or users within a customer, or whether it follows permissions from connected file stores.
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.
Disclosure in response to legal process is addressed and customer notice is not. Section 7 of the terms lets Aline access, preserve or share information when it believes in good faith that doing so is reasonably necessary to comply with legal process, and the privacy policy permits disclosure as required by law. Neither document commits to notifying the customer or reserves a position on notice.
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.
The research function is said to draw on the customer's contracts, statutes and approved legal sources, but no source of statutes or other law is named on the home, about, Legal AI, security or pricing pages or in the terms, and no jurisdictions are listed.
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.
Nothing on the home, about, Legal AI, security or pricing pages or in the terms states whether any authority the research function cites is reviewed for subsequent history. Most output cites clauses in the customer's own contracts, where the question does not arise.
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.
No abstention or uncertainty behavior is described on the home, about, Legal AI, security or pricing pages or in the terms. The Legal AI page says answers are cited and never a hallucinated case, which is a claim about output rather than a description of what the system does when it cannot find support; the terms say outputs are not verified and must be reviewed by the customer.
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 maintained by Damien Charlotin, and trade press reporting, record no court finding addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from Aline. This is a statement about reported court decisions rather than a finding about the product, and it covers fabricated citations only, not litigation history of any other kind.
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No bar ethics opinion or court rule on AI is named or engaged on the home, about, Legal AI, security or pricing pages or in the terms. The terms do state that Aline is not a law firm and gives no legal advice.
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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.
The product is bought mainly by in house legal teams that bill no client for the work. The savings it claims are the buyer's own, including $40,000 a year in outside counsel spend and faster reviews. Aline has recently added an offering for law firms, where a fee relationship would arise, and nothing addresses billing or disclosure for that use.
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.
Providers touching customer content are named across the AI and the infrastructure, without a formal list or forwardable DPA. Section 9(e) of the terms names OpenAI and Anthropic as AI providers, the home and about pages add Google Gemini, and the privacy policy names AWS, Sendgrid and Stripe among service providers. The contractual list dates from November 2023 and no longer matches the site, and no data processing agreement is published.
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Aline says every output cites the clause, source or precedent it came from, and approval workflows keep an audit trail of decisions. Nothing records which model produced an output or who verified it, and no disclosure export at document level is described.
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.