A

Anytime AI

Every published capability is model output: medical chronologies and overviews, standard of care analysis, demand letters, discovery review, deposition and filing summaries, motions and memos, and answers across a matter through the Talk to Teddy assistant. No repository, case management, calendar or billing layer is licensed. Integrations connect to what a firm already runs: two way connections to the case management systems SmartAdvocate and Litify, and to SharePoint, Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive and Box for storage. Anytime AI calls itself an all in one agentic AI platform for plaintiff lawyers.

Anytime AI says hallucination is handled by combining information extraction with retrieval augmented generation, and that the assistant is a closed system answering only from the documents in a matter, with every response tied to a cited source in the case file. Its rule is no citation, no answer, and answers come from the medical records, deposition transcripts, discovery responses, photographs and police reports in the matter, not from general training data.

Chronologies come in timeline format with citations, and demand letters are described as citation ready. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or third party evaluation is published, and no failure mode is named. The citations point to the customer's own case file rather than legal authority, and the legal research tool's sources are not identified.

Anytime AI describes agentic discovery review, agentic workflows across the case, an assistant that thinks through facts, timelines and legal theories, and a platform that lets firms run more matters without adding headcount. On oversight, it says the platform works alongside a firm's attorneys and that output is professional documents attorneys can refine and use immediately. No mode, stopping threshold, approval step, review screen or escalation route is described, and nothing separates tasks the platform completes from ones it proposes.

The nearest boundary is the grounding rule that the assistant answers only from the matter file and says when the record has no answer, which limits what it asserts rather than who checks it.

A logo wall shows nine firms: Brown Chiari, Lomurro Law Trial Lawyers, Mandell Boisclair & Mandell, Truck Wreck Justice, Ernst Law Group, Romano Law Group, Tosh Law Firm, Clement Law Group and Garcia & Coman. About eighteen testimonials each carry a named attorney, title and firm, from Stephen Garcia at Garcia & Coman to Blake Dickson at The Dickson Firm and Carma Henson at Henson Fuerst, several describing the work in practitioner terms such as MARs, TARs, ADLs and nursing home flow sheets.

Ernest Tosh of Tosh Law Firm describes eighty percent of the time freed on some tasks, and Stephen Garcia describes running the platform on a past case with results consistent with the firm's own work. Neither has a method, period or dated record behind it. Four named attorneys are published as having helped design the product, two of them also customers, and eight state trial lawyer association partnerships are sponsorships, not deployments.

A home page block headed Attorney Client Privilege says the architecture ensures no third party can access privileged communications or case strategy, and the FAQ describes end to end encryption and firm held encryption keys, stating that only the firm can access and decrypt its data and that Anytime AI cannot view client information, case strategy or communications. Case files, medical records and work product are never used to train any AI model.

Access is documented: role based permissions, a need to know rule backed by contractual nondisclosure agreements, audit logging and a closed private environment. Retention and deletion are not stated, and no position is published on what a third party model provider may retain, as none is named. The firm held key claim sits against a platform that analyzes those same documents on its servers.

The platform is sold only to plaintiff law firms and attorneys, not to consumers or claimants, and its practice material presents output as professional documents attorneys refine and use, which frames it as drafting support. Anytime AI's blog notes that bar associations have reminded lawyers that the duty of competence applies to AI tools, and warns that a general purpose chatbot is not safe for substantive legal work.

No published statement says that the vendor is not a law firm, that output is not legal advice, or that a lawyer must use independent judgment before filing. Nothing addresses supervision of machine drafted pleadings, and no jurisdictional limit is stated despite research claimed across all fifty states. The Master Software Subscription Agreement, dated 5 February 2026, is published ungated as a PDF.

The governance on offer is a closed AI architecture contrasted with public tools, a zero data training policy stated repeatedly, encryption and role based access, and a compliance wall naming NIST 800-171 and the Cloud Security Alliance. No AI governance or responsible AI page exists, no AI framework or certification is named, no one is named as accountable for AI decisions, and nothing describes evaluation before release or any testing or red teaming.

Bias is not addressed, though the platform reads medical records to find deviations from the standard of care and build damages narratives, and nothing considers whether that works evenly across patient populations, care settings or record quality.

AES 256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2 or later in transit, role based access controls, a need to know rule backed by contractual nondisclosure agreements, audit logging, encrypted backups, continuous monitoring and a closed private cloud make up Anytime AI's published safeguards. No retention period is stated for case files, prompts or generated documents, no deletion or export on termination is published, no subprocessor is named, and no breach notification commitment is published. An eighteen page Data Privacy and Security Policy is published as an ungated PDF.

Nothing published says who bears the loss when the system is wrong. No warranty, indemnity, liability cap, exclusion, service credit or insurance position appears on the home page, security page, practice pages or FAQs, and nothing covers a missed treatment entry in a chronology, a misstated damages figure in a demand letter, or a wrong discovery response, on a product whose output goes to insurers and courts. Anytime AI publishes a Master Software Subscription Agreement dated 5 February 2026 as an ungated PDF, which would usually carry these terms.

SmartAdvocate is described as a two way integration, and Litify is also connected; both are case management systems. Storage connections cover SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox and Box. Anytime AI's framing is that a firm connects it to the systems it already uses rather than migrating. Only one integration has its direction stated and none has its contents described: nothing says which objects sync, whether documents are pulled or pushed, whether generated work returns to case management, what a firm must configure, or what permissions connectors need.

No API, developer documentation, connector catalog or integration page is published, and no authentication method is described.

The platform is described as a closed private environment, unlike public AI tools, built on secure private cloud infrastructure with encrypted backups and continuous monitoring, and reached through a hosted application at an enterprise subdomain. No cloud provider, region or data center is named, no residency option is offered or refused, and nothing separates where medical records are stored from where model inference runs.

The product processes protected health information at volume and is marketed as HIPAA compliant without saying where processing happens or who runs the infrastructure. No on premises or single tenant option is described.

Anytime AI's security page shows SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, GDPR, FedRAMP, FIPS 140-2, NIST 800-171, CSA and PCI, with no auditor, observation period, certificate number, scope or route to a report, and there is no trust center. An eighteen page Data Privacy and Security Policy is published ungated as a PDF. FedRAMP is an authorization for cloud services sold to United States federal agencies, not something a private vendor holds by assertion, and the badge does not say which status is claimed.

ISO 27001 appears in a vendor FAQ among standards met but is missing from the security page, so the site is inconsistent.

The only statements are that data is never used to train our models, that the platform is a closed private environment unlike public AI tools, and that hallucination is managed by combining information extraction with retrieval augmented generation. No model, version, third party provider or inference hosting is named, nothing commits to notifying customers of changes, and no subprocessor list exists. The closed environment is offered as the reason a firm can trust the platform with privileged material, without saying whose models sit inside it. The product sends medical records and case strategy to those models.

No pricing is published at any level, including the unit of charge. There is no pricing page and no plan, tier, rate, band, minimum or term, and nothing says whether the platform is licensed per seat, firm, matter or page of records. The only commercial route is a demo booking, with a sales address and telephone number. A Fulfillment Policy is published as an ungated PDF in the site footer and may cover billing cadence, refunds and cancellation.

The segment is plaintiff firms only, especially those with larger and more complex matters, and Anytime AI also says it serves plaintiff firms of every size from solo to large. Five practice areas have their own pages: personal injury, nursing home litigation, medical malpractice, trucking accident litigation and traumatic brain injury. Named attorneys describe the work in practice terms, such as medication and treatment administration records, activities of daily living and nursing home flow sheets.

Partnerships with eight state trial lawyer associations support the segment but are not deployment evidence. No jurisdictional limit is stated, despite a claim of research across all fifty states; nothing says which matter types or claim values are unsuitable; and defense work is excluded by positioning but never stated as a boundary.