Antidote
Antidote is billing compliance software for law firms, aimed at the gap between the way a fee earner writes a time entry and the way a client's outside counsel guidelines require it to be written. It ingests a client's outside counsel guideline documents alongside the firm's internal guidelines and its historical billing data, and builds what it calls Individual Client Standards, a per-client picture of what that client will and will not accept on an invoice. It then analyses time entries continuously through the billing cycle rather than at the pre-bill stage, flagging entries that breach a guideline or are poorly drafted, and generating a corrected version of the narrative that a fee earner can accept in one click. Suggested fixes are pushed to email so they can be approved without opening another system, and the product is designed to sit on top of a firm's existing time recording and practice management software rather than replace it. The commercial argument is revenue recovery rather than efficiency: the company's published illustration, modelled on a hypothetical hundred-partner firm billing 200 million dollars a year, puts write-offs from non-compliant entries at 8 to 10 per cent of fees and partner time spent on manual billing review at roughly 800,000 dollars a year. Antidote publishes a SafeBase trust centre naming ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type 1, listing Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, Linear and WorkOS as subprocessors, and offering data storage in the customer's choice of the European Union, the United States or Australia. The company is Team34 Ltd, trading as Antidote Legal, registered in England and Wales and based in London, and it was founded by Nicholas d'Adhemar, previously the founder and chief executive of the legal spend analytics company Apperio.
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.
Remove the models and there is no product. Antidote ships no document system, no workflow engine and no time recording of its own; it is explicitly an overlay on the firm's existing time recording and practice management software. Every function it performs is a model task: extracting billing rules from a client's outside counsel guideline documents and the firm's historical billing data to build Individual Client Standards, analysing time entries continuously through the billing cycle against those standards, and generating a corrected narrative for a fee earner to accept. The vendor's own naming makes the same point, describing the analysis layer as Antidote AI. There is no rules engine or template library underneath that would survive the models being taken away, and no conventional software product the AI is a feature on. Checked 4 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.
Grounding is described at the level of its inputs and accuracy is asserted without measurement. The source material is named and it is unusually concrete for this axis: outside counsel guideline documents, internal firm guidelines and historical billing data, combined into per-client Individual Client Standards against which entries are checked. That is a real account of what the output is grounded in. What is missing is everything testable. No accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation, no error rate and no description of retrieval method appears on any surface, and nothing addresses what happens when the model misreads a guideline or rewrites a narrative into something the fee earner did not do. Accuracy is instead asserted, with corrected recommendations said to ensure compliance. There is no published statement about hallucination in either direction. Searched the home page, the resources index, the about page, the terms, the privacy notice and the trust centre on 4 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.
A human approval step is published as part of the design rather than added as a caveat, and the threshold structure around it is absent. The workflow is stated in terms: Antidote sends suggested fixes directly to email so fee earners can review, approve and move on, and corrections are described as recommendations accepted with one click. Nothing is presented as writing to the billing system unattended, which matters because the output is text that reaches a client invoice. What is not published is the control structure around that review: no statement of what happens to entries nobody approves, no threshold at which the system acts alone, no confidence signal surfaced to the reviewer, and no description of what a supervising partner sees as against a fee earner. The absence of a described escalation path is the limb this band commonly lacks and it is the position here.
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.
No production evidence was located on any first-party surface. There are no named customers, no case studies, no testimonials and no customer logos anywhere on the site: the only logo strip is headed Backed by and carries investors rather than users. The figures the home page does publish are modelled rather than observed, and the vendor says so in a footnote, stating that the 8 to 10 per cent write-off rate, the 30 extra days to payment, the 17 million dollars of tied-up working capital and the 800,000 dollars of partner time are based on a 100-partner firm billing 200 million dollars annually. Disclosing that basis is more honest than most illustrative arithmetic in this corpus and it is recorded as a point in the vendor's favour, but a hypothetical firm is not a deployment. Trade coverage of the January 2026 funding round refers to adoption by firms in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia without naming any of them, and funding coverage is not deployment evidence. Searched the home page, the about page and the resources index on 4 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.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms and every specific commitment sits behind an access request or in an unpublished contract. The trust centre states that the commitment to data privacy and security is embedded in every part of the business, and lists a Data Protection Policy, an Information Security Policy and an Encryption Policy, all behind a Get access flow. The published privacy notice expressly excludes the material that matters: it records that users may upload confidential company information when using the services, that such information may include personal data, and that its collection and protection are subject to a separate agreement and are not covered by that policy. Nothing published addresses training on customer content, matter or client segregation, tenancy, or what the named model provider may retain. The gap is sharper than the general case because the content ingested is time entry narratives, which describe what a lawyer did on a matter and are among the most privilege-sensitive text a firm holds, routinely redacted in fee disputes for exactly that reason.
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.
Two of this band's limbs do not bite and the one that does is unaddressed. The product gives no legal advice and has no consumer-facing surface: the terms restrict access to Law Firm Users authorised by a law firm, require use in a commercial capacity, and state that the services are not intended to be available for personal use, so the advice line and the jurisdiction limb both fall away on the product class. What bites instead is the professional responsibility limb, and it bites hard. Antidote generates the narrative text that describes a lawyer's work and then travels to the client on an invoice, which engages the rules on fee reasonableness and on candour to a client directly. Nothing published addresses it: no rule of professional conduct, no bar or regulator, no ethics guidance, no statement that a fee earner remains responsible for the accuracy of a narrative the model rewrote, and nothing on whether an AI-corrected entry must still reflect the work actually done. The nearest provision runs the other way, with the terms disclaiming any liability for a law firm's delivery of legal services to its clients. Searched the home page, the about page, the resources index, the terms and the privacy notice on 4 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.
No governance position was located for a system that rewrites the record of billable work. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no named owner accountable for model behaviour, no pre-release evaluation, no testing regime and nothing at all on bias. The site inventory was established from the navigation and footer across four pages on 4 September 2026 and consists of How it works, Resources, About, Contact, Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Cookie Policy and the trust centre; none of them carries governance material. The trust centre's document set is entirely security governance, being an Acceptable Use Policy, Backup Policy, Data Protection Policy, Encryption Policy and Information Security Policy, and security controls are a different subject from AI governance under the axis definition, so none of it is credited here. The trust centre does carry one candid line about an adjacent gap, recording that an application security monitoring programme is being put together.
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.
Real material exists around the edges and the published policy does not reach the content the product ingests. What is published is genuine: a retention table giving 180 days from the end of the relationship for identity and account records, 12 months for technical and usage data, and 7 years for enquiry records; an international transfer position resting on UK adequacy regulations or the International Data Transfer Agreement; an ICO registration number, ZB821053, verifiable on a public register; a named subprocessor list covering Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, Linear and WorkOS; and storage in the customer's choice of the EU, US or Australia. What is absent is the set governing customer content, and the privacy notice says so expressly rather than by omission, recording that uploaded confidential company information is subject to a separate agreement and is not covered by that policy. So no retention period, no deletion route and no incident or breach notification commitment applies to time entries, narratives or ingested guideline documents. Encryption and Backup Policies exist on the trust centre behind an access request and were not read.
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.
Nothing published allocates loss for the platform, and the published document says so itself. The only loss-allocation language on the site is in the website terms of use, which exclude indirect and consequential loss and loss of profit, revenue, contracts, data and goodwill, preserve liability for death, personal injury and fraudulent misrepresentation, and then state that any liability for losses arising from use of the services is limited as set out in the separate agreement between Antidote and the user's employer. That separate agreement is not published. A cap or exclusion in a website terms of use does not grade the platform, so what remains for a buyer is a pointer to a document they cannot read before signing. No indemnity of any kind, no warranty on output and no cap figure appears anywhere in the clear. One artifact exists and is named rather than credited: the trust centre lists a Cyber Insurance document under Legal, behind the Get access flow, so an insurance position exists but its scope and limits could not be established and crediting it on its title would be inference. It is the cheapest available upgrade on this record.
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.
Integration is the product's entire delivery model and not one system is named. The claim is central and repeated: the product works inside existing workflows, promises no workflow disruption, and is described as sitting on top of a firm's existing time recording and practice management software. It is architecturally true, since Antidote reads and corrects entries held elsewhere. But no integrations page exists in the site inventory, and no practice management system, time recording system, eBilling platform or document management system is named on any first-party surface, nor is there an API reference, a connector list or any statement of what syncs in which direction or what a firm must configure. Neither band reads cleanly here and that is worth recording: the band below asserts the product stands alone or no integration is located, which is false of an overlay, while this band contemplates logos or coming-soon markers, and there are none. Graded at the nearer of the two because a real capability is claimed with nothing an implementer could use. Checked 4 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.
Residency is offered as a genuine choice and processing is not addressed separately from storage. The home page states data is stored in-region and names the three options as the European Union, the United States or Australia, which is more than most records in this lane publish, since it is a selectable region rather than a single stated location. Amazon Web Services is identified as the hosting subprocessor on the trust centre, so the infrastructure provider is named. Two limbs are missing. Tenancy is never addressed: nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, and no dedicated or isolated option is offered. And where processing happens is not stated as distinct from where data is stored, which matters on this record because Anthropic and Google are named subprocessors and no location is given for the inference leg, so a buyer choosing EU storage cannot establish that the model call stays in region.
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.
Named certifications and a real trust centre, short of accessible evidence. The SafeBase portal at trust.antidotelegal.com renders in full and carries three compliance entries, GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with the standard version named, and SOC 2 Type 1, alongside a document set listing an Antidote Legal Security Summary 2026, a Pentest Report, the certification documents themselves, Cyber Insurance and five policies. The certifications are therefore stated rather than implied, and a route to the underlying reports visibly exists, which is what lifts this above a badge wall. What holds it here is that no report is readable in the clear: every document sits behind a Get access flow whose tier the portal does not state, offering to start a security review, view and download sensitive information or ask for information without saying whether fulfilment is self-serve or runs through a sales conversation, so the lower tier is assumed and that assumption is stated. No auditor is named, no audit period or report date beyond the year appears, and no scope statement is published. One precision worth keeping: the attestation is SOC 2 Type 1, a point-in-time assessment of control design, not Type 2.
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 provider is named and the rest of the chain is not. The trust centre publishes a subprocessor list in the clear, without an access request, naming Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, Linear and WorkOS. Anthropic being listed identifies whose models process customer content, which is the limb most records in this lane leave blank, and Google appears alongside it though the list does not state whether that entry is infrastructure or a second inference provider. Three limbs fail. No model is named, only the provider, so a buyer cannot establish which model reads a time entry or what version. Where inference runs is not stated, and Amazon Web Services is not counted toward it because naming a cloud host says where the vendor's platform sits rather than whose model reads the content. And no commitment to notify customers when a subprocessor, provider or model changes was located on the portal or elsewhere.
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.
No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. The site inventory taken from the navigation and footer on 4 September 2026 contains How it works, Resources, About, Contact, Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Cookie Policy and the trust centre, and there is no pricing page. Every call to action on every page is Book a demo, routing to a contact form. Nothing states whether the product is charged per fee earner, per timekeeper, per entry checked, per matter or as a platform fee; no tier structure, no band, no minimum, no term and no implementation cost appears anywhere. The terms of use refer to placing an order and to a separate agreement with the customer's employer without describing any commercial term. The absence is notable on a product whose own pitch is quantified in pounds and dollars of recovered revenue, since a buyer is given a detailed model of the benefit and nothing at all about the cost. No pricing row is written, which is the correct outcome where the only thing published is an invitation to contact sales.
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.
The buyer is claimed broadly and the boundary is drawn only in the contract. Marketing addresses leading law firms and leading global firms without defining either, and the single quantitative indicator of segment is the modelled example of a 100-partner firm billing 200 million dollars a year, which is an illustration rather than a statement of who the product is for. The real boundary sits in the terms, which restrict access to Law Firm Users authorised by a law firm and exclude personal use, so in-house and government legal are outside the product by contract rather than by any published statement of scope. Practice area does not bite on this product class and is named rather than penalised: billing compliance operates on time entries irrespective of the underlying matter type, so the absence of practice pages is not a gap. What is missing is size and geography stated plainly. No firm size range, no minimum timekeeper count and no jurisdictional coverage appears, and the only geographic signal is the choice of data storage regions.
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?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No public material addresses training on customer content in either direction, and the reason is that the governing document is unpublished by design rather than missing by oversight. The privacy notice, last reviewed 5 June 2026, acknowledges that users upload confidential company information when using the services, that it may include personal data, and that its collection and protection are subject to a separate agreement with Antidote and are not covered by that policy. The website terms of use contain no training, machine learning or data use clause. The agreement search this value requires was therefore performed and returned a document the vendor states exists and does not publish. The trust centre lists a Data Protection Policy and an Acceptable Use Policy behind an access request, either of which may address it. Anthropic is named as a subprocessor, so a model provider is identified, but no statement was located about what that provider may or may not do with customer content.
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.
A retention table is published and it does not reach the material the product ingests. The privacy notice sets periods for personal data: identity and account records for 180 days from the end of the relationship, marketing data until unsubscribe plus one year, technical and usage data for 12 months, and enquiry and correspondence records for 7 years. Those are specific and dated, and they are recorded here as what does exist. None of them covers time entries, corrected narratives, ingested outside counsel guideline documents or the historical billing data used to build Individual Client Standards, because the same notice states that uploaded confidential company information is governed by a separate agreement and is not covered by that policy. No retention period, no configurable window, no deletion route and no certification applies to the content on any published surface. A Backup Policy exists on the trust centre behind an access request and was not read.
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.
No located material addresses walls or separation. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, and no role or permission model, matter-level partition or client-level partition is described on any surface. Two adjacent facts exist and neither answers the question: SAML SSO is listed among the security features on the home page and WorkOS is named as a subprocessor, both of which govern authentication into the platform rather than separation inside it. The question has particular force on this product because Individual Client Standards are built per client from that client's own guidelines and the firm's historical billing for them, so the product holds one client's commercial standards alongside another's within a single firm tenant, and nothing published describes how those are kept apart. Searched the home page, the about page, the terms, the privacy notice and the trust centre on 4 September 2026.
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.
Compelled disclosure is addressed and customer notice is not mentioned. The privacy notice lists regulators and law enforcement among the categories of recipient, on the basis that the company is required to disclose by law, court order or regulatory requirement, or to protect the rights, property or safety of Antidote Legal, its customers or others. No advance notice commitment appears, and no discretion over notice is reserved either, so the position never reaches the question of telling the customer. Two limits belong on the record. The statement sits in a notice that governs personal data of website and account users, and the same document expressly excludes uploaded customer content from its scope, so nothing published addresses what happens if a firm's billing data is demanded. And no transparency report or request statistics were located. The confidentiality section of a master agreement is this signal's usual evidence home and that agreement 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.
The inputs are named and they are the customer's own documents rather than a licensed corpus. Antidote states that it ingests outside counsel guideline documents, internal firm guidelines and historical billing data to construct Individual Client Standards, so what the model reads is material the firm already holds and supplies. No external corpus is involved: the product does not retrieve primary law, published authority, form libraries or any third-party dataset, and none is named anywhere. There is consequently no licensing question of the kind this signal was written for, and no jurisdictional coverage statement to record. The honest value is the absence with the reason stated rather than a penalty. Searched the home page, the about page, the resources index, the terms and the privacy notice on 4 September 2026.
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.
Nothing on any located surface addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or present legal authority at all. Antidote reads time entries and guideline documents and writes billing narratives; no case, statute or regulation is surfaced to a user at any point in the published workflow. The question does not bite on this product class and the value records the absence rather than a shortcoming. Searched the home page, the about page, the resources index and the legal documents on 4 September 2026.
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.
No located material describes what the system does when it cannot produce a compliant correction. The published workflow moves from detection straight to a suggested fix delivered by email, with no abstention state, no confidence or certainty signal shown to the reviewer, and no described behaviour where a guideline is ambiguous, where two client rules conflict, or where the original entry is too sparse to rewrite faithfully. That last case is the one that matters most on this product, since a model asked to improve a thin narrative has to choose between leaving it non-compliant and adding detail the fee earner did not record, and nothing published says which it does. Searched the home page, the about page, the resources index, the terms, the privacy notice and the trust centre on 4 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name Antidote, the trading name Antidote Legal and the registered company name Team34. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product. The signal also sits at an angle to this product class, since Antidote generates billing narratives rather than legal citations and would not ordinarily produce the kind of output a court sanctions.
Bar Guidance Alignment
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 authority, regulator, conduct rule or ethics opinion is named on any located surface. Nothing in the home page, the about page, the resources index, the terms of use or the privacy notice engages professional regulation, and no jurisdiction-specific guidance is mapped. The absence is more consequential here than on a general productivity tool because the output is the narrative description of billable work that reaches a client, which engages fee-related conduct obligations in every jurisdiction the vendor sells into, and because the company sells across the United Kingdom, United States and Australia, which have different regimes for exactly that question. The nearest published statement runs the other way, with the terms disclaiming any liability for a law firm's delivery of legal services to its clients.
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.
Quantified savings and recovery claims are published and nothing addresses disclosure of AI involvement in the bill. The figures are prominent and modelled on a stated hypothetical of a 100-partner firm billing 200 million dollars: 8 to 10 per cent of fees written off, 30 extra days to payment, roughly 17 million dollars of working capital tied up monthly, and 800,000 dollars of partner time at 8 to 10 hours per partner per month. The stated benefits are increased realisation, reduced lock-up and partner time freed. None of it reaches this signal's question. No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing states whether a time entry whose narrative the model rewrote is flagged as such to the firm or to the client. The direction is also worth recording plainly: this product exists to recover fees that would otherwise be written off, so its effect on the bill is upward, which is the inverse of the compression this signal was written to catch.
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 current subprocessor list is published in the clear and the forwardable pack is not. The trust centre presents subprocessors without an access request, naming Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, Linear and WorkOS, so a firm can tell its client which providers touch its data and, because Anthropic is on that list, can answer the model provider question specifically rather than by naming infrastructure. That satisfies the register limb. The third limb fails: no data processing addendum is published, no consent or notification pack exists, and the Antidote Legal Security Summary 2026, the Pentest Report and the Data Protection Policy all sit behind the trust centre's access flow, so there is no artifact drafted to be forwarded to a client. Worth recording as an edge rather than a defect: this vendor's entire product is helping firms comply with their clients' outside counsel guidelines, and its own readiness on the same question sits mid-tier.
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.
No located material addresses producing a record of AI involvement for a court, a client or an auditor. The product necessarily knows which entries it flagged and which corrections were accepted, since the workflow runs on review and approval, but nothing published says that history is retained, exportable or available to the firm, and no audit trail, log or export is described on any surface. This has practical bite beyond the usual case: billing narratives are disclosable in fee assessments, costs proceedings and client billing audits, and a firm asked whether a narrative was written by its fee earner or generated by a model would need exactly the record that is not described. Searched the home page, the about page, the resources index, the terms, the privacy notice and the trust centre on 4 September 2026.