A
Athennian

Athennian manages entity records, ownership structures, appointments, corporate minute books and compliance work for legal, finance, tax and investment teams. Paper Interactive incorporated in Calgary in 2016 and adopted the Athennian name in 2018. Its current platform combines structured corporate data with AI agents that prepare record changes for human approval. Intelligence answers questions across minute books, links to supporting passages and identifies missing information.

Users can select the entities involved and continue structured results in reporting tools. Read MCP connects live, authorized Athennian data to external assistants such as Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot. That connection cannot alter the underlying records. Administrators govern entity access, file visibility and AI exclusions, while integrations move data through iManage, Power Automate and an API. Named customers describe faster filing and easier access to corporate records, although those accounts do not measure the newest Intelligence and MCP offerings.

Native AI terms prohibit model training with customer data. Essentials begins at $25,000 annually for one hundred entities, with AI and selected integrations added separately. Regional hosting choices do not fully determine provider processing or external assistant retention.

Compared with

Athennian, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

Athennian combines entity and people records, ownership structures, appointments, minute books and compliance tasks with AI assisted governance work. Its agents extract information from source files and prepare changes to registrations, authority and entity profiles for approval. Intelligence answers questions across corporate material, with citations and optional restriction to selected entities. Read MCP extends current records into external AI assistants for ownership analysis, diligence and reporting.

These capabilities reduce manual administration within a larger platform that still supports charts, templates, permissions and recordkeeping without generation. AI Intelligence and AI Core are separately priced additions, and the general workflow automation feature remains labeled beta.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Intelligence retrieves information from minute book files and connects findings across entities. Each answer links to the relevant source section so a reviewer can inspect the underlying material. Users can restrict the source entities, and structured results can open in Custom Reports for filtering and further analysis. The system says it identifies missing information instead of guessing when the minute books lack an answer.

Read MCP can also cite the live Athennian records used by an external assistant. No reproducible accuracy measurement, evaluation collection or distribution of failure types accompanies these claims, and corporate source links do not validate external legal authorities.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Autonomy and Oversight ModelWhat the system runs alone, what constrains it, and how a lawyer checks it are all published: modes, thresholds, review surfaces, and the route a matter takes back to human judgment. A categorical limit on a named mode or tier, stating what its output may not be used for, meets the threshold limb without a number.

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.

Entity agents extract proposed changes from source files but require a user to review and approve each update before it reaches the corporate record. Administrators can exclude entities from AI access, control intake visibility and set naming and filing preferences. Intelligence supplies direct source references for review. Read MCP has a separate categorical limit: connected assistants can retrieve authorized information but cannot add, change or delete Athennian data.

Its setup assigns an API role and access groups, with returned findings reviewed in the connected assistant. The AI terms require human judgment before reliance and prohibit representing generated output as human work.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

KMSC Law partner Todd Strang describes using Athennian AI to reduce time spent uploading corporate files by half, alongside smoother annual returns and bulk generation. The account names the firm, responsible lawyer, workflow and claimed improvement, but gives no measurement period, sample or timing method. Hitachi Digital separately identifies legal counsel Thao Harrington and legal project manager Susan Pimlott, with more than one hundred twenty entities centralized and implementation completed six months ahead of schedule.

Its filing workflow stages suggested names and locations for legal approval. These accounts describe daily operations, while neither establishes measured performance for the newly launched Intelligence or MCP capabilities.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

The AI terms treat inputs and outputs as customer data and prohibit Athennian and its model providers from training any AI or machine learning model with that material. Service terms protect confidential customer information through reasonable care, purpose restrictions and commitments from authorized personnel. Entity, folder and file permissions limit access, while administrators can exclude records from AI use. A broader license permits aggregated or deidentified service improvement, subject to the express training restriction.

Privilege and work product treatment are not specifically addressed, and model provider retention is not mapped. External assistants connected through MCP also introduce the customer's separate provider arrangements.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Responsibility for legal and regulatory compliance rests with the customer, and Athennian states that its service does not provide legal advice. The AI terms require appropriate human review before using or relying on outputs, and forbid presenting them as human generated. Proposed entity changes require approval in the product, while MCP cannot change the underlying records. Those controls support supervision of administrative and analytical work for legal, tax and finance teams.

They say nothing about competence across every jurisdiction and do not define licensing requirements for nonlawyer users. Templates and third party content also carry no warranty of legal currency or suitability.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner.

AI Governance and Bias Disclosure

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.

Athennian's AI terms commit it to internal governance practices, including periodic evaluation and testing of output quality and reliability. They also allocate responsibility for human review, protect customer ownership of inputs and outputs, prohibit model training with customer data and require equivalent confidentiality and security obligations from model providers. Current product controls add approval before entity updates, source references, missing information responses and entity exclusions.

The framework identifies actual commitments rather than relying solely on a general responsible AI statement. It does not identify a governance owner, release acceptance criteria or results showing performance differences across corporate tasks, jurisdictions or populations.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

The service agreement requires incident reporting within twenty four hours after a material security incident is determined; the data addendum sets twenty four hours after awareness for covered personal data incidents. It also provides subprocessor controls and notice subscriptions. After termination, customers have ninety days to request an export. The addendum requires deletion of personal data after that period unless law prohibits it, while broader service terms permit deletion and retain archival exceptions.

Administrators can remove intake copies after filing and restrict access. No distinct schedule covers all AI conversations, provider traces and backup copies, leaving the complete retention boundary less specific than the incident commitments.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

Customers are defended and indemnified against covered intellectual property claims involving the service, with exclusions for third party content, unauthorized combinations, modifications and misuse. Ordinary liability is capped at the preceding twelve months of relevant fees. Security, confidentiality, data processing and indemnity obligations have higher limits tied to annual fees, ranging from twice the ordinary cap to specified amounts reaching $2,000,000.

Service warranties also permit termination after a breach, and deficient consulting work can trigger reperformance or a fee refund. AI accuracy remains disclaimed, including responsibility for incorrect filing and data entry. These protections do not amount to a remedy for every generated legal error.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

A GraphQL interface supports reading and changing entities, appointments, ownership records, registrations and tasks. Setup requires an API key supplied in the request header, with separate regional endpoints and explicit access validation. The file interface uploads material to an entity or person and can create nested destination folders. iManage import and export uses the customer's credentials and selected folders or matters, through the Document Automation bundle.

Read MCP instead requires the All-Access API addition, a configured role and access groups, and authorization in the connected assistant; it cannot write back. Power Automate connects governance events with enterprise systems and communication workflows.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Canada is the default core region on Amazon Web Services, with an American option specified in the order form without an additional residency fee. The legal portal identifies Montreal storage and Toronto backup locations for Canada, and Oregon for the American option. The newer processor list and API references also identify European and Middle Eastern infrastructure, without mapping all deployment terms or AI features to individual locations.

Direct processing follows the contracted region, subject to support, investigation and third party exceptions. Google and Amazon support AI processing, and external MCP assistants operate under separate arrangements. Core storage location therefore does not determine every processing location.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Annual independent audits back the SOC 2 Type II assurance Athennian identifies, covering security, availability and confidentiality. Its security explanation includes AES encryption, protected transport, access logging, multifactor authentication, penetration testing and incident response. The legal portal offers the SOC report and summaries of recovery, incident and penetration tests after a nondisclosure agreement.

The open trust center does not expose report details, so the auditor, examination dates and precise covered services remain unresolved. References to NIST, ISO 27001 guidance and OWASP practices describe security approaches rather than additional certifications. These infrastructure controls also do not independently test the correctness of AI governance answers.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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 AI terms name Google Gemini and Amazon Bedrock, and the service agreement identifies Google's Vertex AI in the processing workflow. The current processor list distinguishes infrastructure, application services, support contractors and customer selected integrations. Anthropic and OpenAI appear under customer success analytics, a listing that says nothing about whether they power native Intelligence answers. Read MCP separately connects customers' external assistants.

Subscribers to processor updates receive advance notice of new processors under the data addendum, but that mechanism does not promise notice of every model version change. The providers are identifiable, but Athennian gives no model versions or feature specific processing regions.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

Essentials starts at $25,000 annually with one hundred entities. Professional includes two hundred entities and Enterprise three hundred, with prices supplied through sales. Additional capacity comes in bundles of fifty entities. Intelligence, AI Core, enterprise authentication and other functions can add charges; the relevant API and document connections have separate entitlements. AI action credits expire annually, and the service terms set overage at $2 per additional unit, with skill consumption subject to change on thirty days of notice.

Implementation covers configuration, migration, integrations and training but has no standard fee. The entry rate is therefore a platform starting point rather than a complete AI deployment price.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Athennian supports corporate legal, tax, treasury, finance and compliance teams, alongside law firms and other professional advisers. Its private markets workflows cover funds, special purpose vehicles, portfolio companies and layered ownership, with clients able to review selected records and approvals. Governance work includes appointments, authority, equity and debt, minute books, reporting and regulatory dates. The company identifies more than five hundred thousand entities across over one hundred fifty countries.

The figure measures operational reach, not uniform filing availability or legal research coverage in every country. Detailed boundaries for supported legal advice, practice specific accuracy and jurisdictional automation remain outside the stated coverage.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

8 public documents

The public pages on file for Athennian, 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.

Pricing

Essentials from $25,000 annually for 100 entities

USD, as published, never converted
  • Essentials starts at $25,000 per year for 100 entities.
  • AI features and selected integrations cost extra.
  • Larger plans and implementation require a proposal.
  • AI overage is $2 per additional usage unit, with consumption varying by task.

Essentials includes 100 entities at $25,000 per year. Professional includes 200 and Enterprise 300, with quoted prices. Additional entities come in bundles of 50. Intelligence and AI Core are additions to every plan. AI action credits expire after twelve months; service terms set overage at $2 per additional unit, while consumption varies by skill.

Implementation: Implementation includes configuration, migration, API integration, training and launch support. Consulting services use an order form or statement of work, without a standard implementation rate.

Confidentiality and data terms: No healthcare BAA plan or related charge is identified. The data addendum covers relevant personal data processing when executed under the applicable agreement.

Note: Read MCP requires the All-Access API addition; iManage transfer requires the Document Automation bundle. Enterprise includes the Open Read API and sandbox, while broader API access, authentication, customer encryption keys and premium support can add charges. The displayed $25,000 price uses a dollar sign without a separate currency label; the service terms default contractual amounts to USD. Quantities cannot decrease during the term, and AI bundles renew unless canceled under the agreement.

What changed

Tracked changes at Athennian

Oct 6, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

Athennian launched Athennian Intelligence, which answers plain language questions over corporate records and minute books with links to the source and returns structured results to Custom Reports. It also launched Athennian MCP, a read only connection that gives ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Copilot live entity data while applying each user's existing roles and permissions. Admins choose which entities and documents the AI can reach and can exclude individual documents, and it rolls out without setting up API keys for each user.

Bears on: AI CentralitySource
Sep 25, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

Athennian's 25 Sept release lets organizations decide whether pending transactions count in ownership calculations and structure charts, with ownership views now showing issued, pending, reserved and available amounts. The same release adds expiration dates on documents, with email or in app reminders a week before expiry, on the day, or both.

Bears on: Firm and Practice CoverageSource
Sep 25, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

Athennian's September 25, 2026 release lets admins restrict individual structure chart views to specific teams, adding a layer of access control beyond entity level permissions. The control requires the Enterprise plan or the Enterprise Charts add on.

Bears on: Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSource

Legal Signals

What each signal means

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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

The April 2026 AI terms explicitly prohibit Athennian and its model providers from using customer data to train AI or machine learning models. Inputs and outputs are included in customer data. The general service agreement separately permits aggregated or deidentified analysis to improve services and other offerings, but the specific AI restriction supplies an express training boundary. Customer chosen external assistants reached through Read MCP remain a separate arrangement; the Athennian prohibition does not itself rewrite those assistants' customer contracts or retention settings.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

AI inputs and outputs fall within customer data, but no distinct conversation or provider retention period is specified. The service agreement preserves a ninety day export request window after termination and permits later deletion, while the data addendum requires deletion of covered personal data after that period unless law prohibits it. Archival exceptions remain relevant. Administrators can delete Centralize intake copies after filing, but that setting addresses uploaded files rather than establishing zero retention for prompts, answers or external assistant histories.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

Access runs on Athennian's own roles, access groups and entity permissions, with additional restrictions for individual folders and files on eligible plans. Intelligence respects those controls and permits entity or file exclusions from AI access. Read MCP applies the configured Athennian role and groups to live retrieval, so an external assistant cannot reach material its user lacks permission to view. Centralize administrators retain visibility over uploaded intake material.

These controls are specific, though Athennian describes no automatic inheritance of a law firm's external document system walls.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

The service terms require prompt notice of legally compelled disclosure and other third party requests for customer data unless law prohibits notice. Athennian says it will reject requests it is not legally required to satisfy and attempt to redirect valid requests to the customer. Confidentiality provisions also provide advance notice where lawful and assistance with a challenge at the customer's expense. The data addendum repeats notice protections for personal data.

No public transparency report supplies request totals, challenge outcomes or a record of how those commitments have operated.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

Intelligence draws on corporate minute books and other customer maintained records, with direct links to the sections supporting its answers. Read MCP retrieves current entity, ownership, appointment and filing information from the platform. Those sources support governance analysis but are not an identified primary law research collection. Global compliance and beneficial ownership guides are separate resources, and the number of countries represented by customer entities does not identify an underlying legal corpus. No comprehensive inventory, rights basis and update schedule for legal authorities is specified.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Ownership, authority, registrations and the corporate material supporting those records are all open to analysis. Intelligence links answers to source files, and MCP can identify expired registrations or incomplete records. No integrated judicial citator or subsequent treatment check is described. A registration date comparison or cited board resolution concerns the customer's governance state rather than whether a judicial authority has been overruled.

The legal guides and compliance workflows therefore include no automatic check on the continuing validity of case law used in legal advice.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.

Athennian Intelligence says it identifies missing information rather than guessing when the answer is absent from the minute books. Its cited answers let users inspect the material that does support a response, and entity selection can narrow the available context. This is an explicit no answer behavior, although no public evaluation establishes how reliably it triggers. The statement applies to native Intelligence; an external assistant connected through Read MCP has its own response behavior and cannot be assumed to follow an identical abstention rule.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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 contained no entry naming Athennian or Paper Interactive as the responsible tool as of October 16, 2026. Neither name appeared incidentally in the reviewed database material. That finding neither shows reliable output nor measures error frequency, particularly for internal corporate administration that may never reach a filed court record. Native Intelligence and external assistants connected through MCP also have different response paths. Users still need to inspect the cited records and confirm conclusions before using generated analysis.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

Athennian's terms require human judgment before relying on AI output and prohibit describing it as human generated. The service agreement also excludes legal advice and leaves regulatory compliance with the customer. These product and contract boundaries address use of the system, but no named bar opinion or professional responsibility framework is connected to its features. Corporate ownership guides concern a different subject.

Client consent, supervision, competence and confidentiality duties therefore remain questions for the firm's own professional framework rather than an Athennian ethics mapping.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

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.

KMSC Law reports that AI reduced time spent uploading corporate files by half and made annual return work faster. Athennian also records platform changes and offers AI cost and usage visibility. Neither feature establishes a client invoice entry identifying AI assistance, actual lawyer time or the treatment of saved effort. The subscription's own usage charges are separate from the legal fee charged to a client. No fee guidance explains how a firm should disclose or bill the faster entity work described in that customer account.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

Athennian supplies a current processor list with names, purposes and locations, together with AI terms identifying native model providers and a contractual training prohibition. The legal portal also provides service terms, a data addendum and security information. Detailed audit reports require a nondisclosure agreement. No dedicated client consent or notification package is identified, and external MCP assistants add the customer's chosen providers to the assessment.

The available provider information supports initial diligence without itself implementing each client's outside counsel restrictions.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Enterprise administrators can view and export the Global Audit Trail as an Excel file, including changes to entities and people, access events and API activity. Entries identify dates, users, affected records, locations and change details. AI source citations and mandatory approval of proposed updates provide additional review context. No combined output is described that joins every generated passage with its exact model version, complete retrieval context and a named human verification step. Regulatory or court disclosure may therefore require reconstruction beyond the exported application activity.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

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.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 19, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746