AI Legal Index
Vendors · General Legal Assistants

A
August

August is a legal AI workspace for law firms. It is built around an assistant that answers questions across documents, folders, email and the web, a tabular review surface that turns large document sets into a comparison grid, and configurable agents that chain research, analysis and drafting steps into repeatable workflows. It works inside Microsoft Word, Outlook and SharePoint, generating edits as tracked changes a lawyer accepts or rejects in Word's review mode.

It connects to the SOS practice management system to pull matters into workflows and sync completed work back. The company publishes its platform agreement, security addendum, data processing addendum, subprocessor list, AI policy and law enforcement guidelines in full, including stated liability caps and a contractual prohibition on training models with customer content. Named customers run from a firm of twenty lawyers to the Am Law 150 firm Hughes Hubbard, with deployments in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and India. August is operated by Credicle Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

August, 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

Alternatives

Alternatives to August

Vendors in the same categories as August 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.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Every named capability on the product pages is model driven. An Assistant answers across a document, a folder, email or the web; Tabular Review turns thousands of contracts into a comparison grid; clause drafting and rewriting run inside Word; and Agents chain research, analysis and drafting into multistep workflows. No underlying document management or practice management system would survive the models being removed.

The systems of record belong to someone else: Word, Outlook, SharePoint and SOS are integrations into the firm's existing stack rather than August's own conventional product. The company calls itself 'Configurable Legal AI' in its own footer and describes co developing workflows on a firm's precedent and drafting standards.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

The AI Policy of January 2026 states that August runs 'testing protocols for accuracy and reliability verification before and after deployment' and conducts regular audits of AI system performance. It publishes no figure, no test set and no evaluation that could be assessed. Grounding is claimed in product terms rather than described: SharePoint documents 'become available for citation, analysis, and drafting', and the Assistant answers from documents, folders and the web.

No retrieval method is published, and the product does not ground to primary authority. The Terms of Service at 1.5 and the AI Policy at section 5 both state that output is AI generated and may contain errors, misstatements or be incomplete. That is a real statement of limits rather than a bare claim not to hallucinate. Accuracy is asserted without measurement.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Review surfaces are real and specific. In Word, August 'applies changes you can accept or reject in Word's review mode', and the drafting surface shows a Preview step before generation. The AI Policy commits in writing to communicating how AI generated output should be reviewed and verified and to 'the importance of human oversight in legal work', and the Terms of Service at 1.5 place the product on the tool side of the advice line.

The threshold at which the system acts alone is missing. The product ships Agents running two step workflows and an Outlook capability described as 'Draft and send replies'. Nothing published states what an agent may complete unattended or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Eight named customer stories are published, each on its own page: Hughes Hubbard, described as an Am Law 150 firm deploying August across legal and business teams; Hicksons in Australia; Harrison Drury; Mission Australia; White Summers; ELP in India; HDRB&B; and Dunning Vallejo & MacDonald, a firm of twenty lawyers. One carries a figure, Hicksons at 90 percent faster document review, and a partner at that firm is quoted by name and title.

Measurement is missing: the customer index carries no dates and no basis for the 90 percent figure, and no method is published alongside it. The individual case study pages were not opened and may say more.

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.

Training, provider retention and deletion are settled in the agreement; privilege and matter segregation are not. Section 11.8 of the Terms of Service prohibits training on Content and Customer Data and extends that to subprocessors other than cloud storage providers, which are also barred from retaining the material for human review. That settles the position of third party model providers. Section 7.4 deletes remaining Content within 30 days of termination, and clause 6 of the Data Processing Addendum requires return or deletion on the customer's reasonable request.

Nothing published addresses attorney client privilege or work product treatment. Nothing documents segregation by matter for a product sold to law firms. The home page commits that no client document trains a model reachable outside the firm, which is a boundary at firm level. The SharePoint integration states that August 'gains access to your entire SharePoint repository', which is the shape a firm's ethical walls exist to prevent.

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.

The advice line is stated twice and in the agreement itself: Terms of Service 1.5 and AI Policy section 5 both say the Service is a research tool and its output is not legal advice. The AI Policy reaches part of supervision and competence by committing to communicate the capabilities and limitations of the systems, how output should be reviewed and verified, and the importance of human oversight. The audience is clear: the product is sold to law firms and in house teams, and there is no surface for consumers. No jurisdiction limits are stated, and no bar or ethics opinion is engaged anywhere.

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.

The AI Policy of January 2026 is a real framework rather than a principles page. It commits to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, by name, and requires AI literacy training for all employees involved in AI development, deployment and operations. It lists internal AI governance policies, testing protocols before and after deployment, change management for regulatory adherence on update, and regular audits of AI system performance and safety.

Clause 7.5 of the Data Processing Addendum adds a commitment to review compliance with new AI legislation and negotiate amendments. Two things are absent: no individual or function inside the vendor is named as accountable, and no testing result is published, including nothing on uneven output across matter types or populations.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

AI Safety and Data Stewardship

Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.

All five elements are published and specific enough to hold the vendor to. Retention and deletion: Terms of Service 7.4 deletes remaining Content within 30 days of termination, Data Processing Addendum clause 6 requires return or deletion on reasonable request, and Security Addendum section 9 keeps system audit records for one to ten years. Access control: unique IDs, multi factor authentication and least privilege, with personnel barred from Customer Data except to support the Service or comply with law.

Access to systems holding Customer Data is removed within 1 day of separation and all systems within 3 days, with quarterly privilege reviews and background checks. Subprocessors: a dated list names Microsoft, OpenAI, Google Cloud Platform and Amazon Web Services with processing regions, with 30 days advance notice of additions under clause 3.2 and a 15 day objection right at 3.3. Incident practice: notification without undue delay and within 48 hours of becoming aware, one year log preservation, and independent forensic specialists at August's expense. No default retention window for prompts and outputs during the term is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

A buyer can read the whole allocation of loss before signing, with figures. Section 8.1 gives a third party intellectual property indemnity for use in accordance with the Terms and Documentation, with the exclusions stated. There is no obligation where the claim is attributable to materials not provided by August, or where output results from input the customer knew or should have known was likely to lead to infringement.

Section 10.2 caps liability at the greater of twelve months of fees or 250,000 dollars. Section 10.3 raises it to the greater of twice twelve months of fees or 500,000 dollars for data breach claims under the Security Addendum or Data Processing Addendum and for confidentiality breaches by either party. Section 9.2 warrants conformity with the Documentation, workmanlike delivery, non infringement to August's knowledge and legal compliance, and 11.11 commits to insurance from carriers rated A.M. Best A minus, VI or better.

August does not stand behind output accuracy: the Service is provided as is under 9.3 and the indemnity is confined to infringement.

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.

The integrations page describes what moves, in which direction, and what the firm connects. SOS, the practice management system, is bidirectional and says so: August syncs matters, contacts and case data in, workflows run on live matters, and 'Completed reviews, summaries, and outputs sync back to SOS'. SharePoint is inbound after a one time account connection, with selected documents becoming available for citation, analysis and drafting on the same footing as uploads.

Word is in place rather than sync, chatting with the open document and generating edits as tracked changes in review mode, with firm playbooks applied. Outlook covers search across the mailbox, thread summarization and reply drafting. The limitation worth naming is that all of this lives on a marketing page: no developer index, help center or implementer documentation exists anywhere in the site navigation, footer or legal hub, and iManage and NetDocuments, the two document management systems most large firms run, are not among the named connections.

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.

Section 2 of the Security Addendum states that customer data and content reside in data centers matching the geographic region specified in the order form. A customer may request storage in a separate region, which August will use commercially reasonable efforts to accommodate where its cloud providers support it. The subprocessor list names the regions in play: United States, European Union, Switzerland and Australia.

The home page advertises hosting in the region of the buyer's choice and EU and US options. Two things are absent. The tenancy model is never stated, so a buyer cannot tell whether the deployment is multi tenant, single tenant or private, and the subdomain per firm shown in product images is not described as a separation boundary. Processing location is not addressed as distinct from storage location, since section 2 speaks only to where data reside.

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.

Section 1 of the Security Addendum states that August's information security management system undergoes annual assessment by independent third party auditors. It says the company maintains SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and will adopt an equivalent recognized framework if either is discontinued. Section 4 adds annual third party penetration testing and web application assessment against OWASP. Section 10 gives customers, at no cost, access to SOC 2 Type II reports, penetration test summaries and ISO 27001 certifications, plus up to 100 security questions a year.

No auditor is named, no coverage period or report date is published, and the report route in section 10 runs to contracted customers rather than to a prospect. A trust center exists at trust.august.law, named in Terms of Service 12.5 as where the Business Associate Addendum sits. It blocked automated access on 2 September 2026 and may say more.

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 subprocessor list of January 2026 names four AI providers under its own heading for model providers and infrastructure: Microsoft, OpenAI, Google Cloud Platform and Amazon Web Services, each with its processing regions. Data Processing Addendum 3.2 commits to 30 days advance notice before any new subprocessor begins processing, with a 15 day objection right. Providers, location and change notification are therefore published.

The models themselves are not named. The home page describes August as model agnostic across Anthropic, private OpenAI endpoints and Llama, which mixes two providers and one model family rather than listing models. It also sits awkwardly against the subprocessor list, where Anthropic does not appear. Three further subprocessors that touch content are identified only by function, as web browsing, knowledge source and email subprocessors.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Commercial TransparencyNo pricing information published at any level, including the unit of charge.

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 page appears in the site's own navigation or footer, and no figure, unit of charge or tier structure is published on any page that loads. The routes offered a buyer are Book a Demo and a self serve sign in at app.august.law, alongside a seven day free trial named in the home page metadata and an offer to build a live workflow free within a week. A pricing page at august.law/start-now remains in search results carrying tier names, a feature split and a monthly figure.

It returned a 404 on both the www and non www forms of the URL, so nothing on it could be confirmed against a page the vendor serves. The only other figures located are in January 2026 trade press, and they disagree with the indexed page, so neither is recorded here.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

Coverage is described with substance on both dimensions. Seven practice areas are named on the home page with a time saved figure attached to each: Corporate and M&A, Litigation, Disputes, Real Estate, Capital Markets, Regulatory and ESG, and Healthcare. Segment reach is evidenced by the customer roster rather than only claimed, running from a twenty lawyer firm through midsize firms such as Hicksons and Harrison Drury to the Am Law 150, and including in house teams at Mission Australia, Outside GC and DevRev.

Geography is specific: the About section names expansion into England, Australia, Colombia, the Middle East and India, and dedicated India and Australia pages exist. What is left open is the boundary. Nothing states which practice areas or firm types the product is not built for, and the founding story's emphasis on midsize firms sits unreconciled with an Am Law 150 firmwide deployment.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for August, 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.

What changed

Tracked changes at August

Sep 25, 2026Product / capabilityPartially Verified

August launched August for Agents in beta, which lets a client company's software agents send a bounded legal question to a service that the client's law firm builds and supervises on August. The firm's agent checks the relevant agreement and playbook and returns a sourced answer with an execution record, or routes the matter to a lawyer when judgment is needed. Controls include scoped tools, recipients and data sources, firm defined escalation rules, and identity, permission and retention settings set per client, firm and service.

Bears on: Autonomy and Oversight ModelSource
Sep 23, 2026Integration / interoperabilityPartially Verified

August published documentation for MCP support, which lets August act as a Model Context Protocol client: it finds a vendor's hosted MCP server or takes a user supplied server URL, signs in through the vendor's popup, and calls the tools that server exposes. Users add, test, disable and remove connections from a new Connections tab in profile settings or from chat, and each connection uses the individual user's own credentials, stored encrypted and not shared with the firm. August enables it on request; it is not self serve.

Bears on: Practice Systems Integration DepthSource
Every tracked change for August →

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 prohibition sits in the agreement at clause 11.8 rather than on a policy page, and it extends to subprocessors: all but cloud storage providers are barred from training on the material and from retaining it for human review. Section 3 of the AI Policy repeats the commitment. Two adjacent permissions are disclosed, and neither reaches Content or Customer Data. Clause 11.7 allows Usage Data, defined to exclude Content and Customer Data, to be used for service development.

Clause 3.4 allows free use of Feedback but bars any use that could identify the customer, its users, its Customer Data or its Content.

Source: Vendor PublishedAugust will not train any AI models using Your Content or Customer DataAs of Sep 2, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

Clause 6 of the Data Processing Addendum gives the customer a standing contractual right to require return or deletion at any time, not only at termination, and Terms of Service 7.4 deletes remaining Customer Data and Content within 30 days of termination unless the customer instructs otherwise. Control therefore runs by contractual instruction rather than by a product setting. No default in term retention window for prompts and outputs is published anywhere, and no zero retention option is stated as available.

Separately, Security Addendum section 9 retains system audit records for a minimum of one year and a maximum of ten, which covers system activity logging rather than prompt and output content.

Source: Vendor Publishedupon your reasonable request, August shall return to you or delete the DPA DataAs of Sep 2, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

The boundary is drawn at the firm rather than the matter, with no ethical walls or segregation between matters described. No located material addresses ethical walls or segregation of one matter from another. The nearest statements point the other way: the home page commits that no client document trains a model anyone outside the firm can access, which draws the boundary at the firm rather than the matter, and the SharePoint integration states that August gains access to the firm's entire SharePoint repository once connected, without describing whether retrieval enforces the source system's per user access model at query time.

Security Addendum section 4 constrains August personnel access but says nothing about separation between the firm's own users.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026

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.

August publishes a dedicated Law Enforcement Guidelines page committing to notice unless legally prohibited. Where a gag order applies, it states it will request a waiver, document that request in writing, and notify the customer as soon as the restriction expires. It also directs requestors to the customer first where legally possible, states it does not volunteer data to government agencies, and limits foreign government responses to MLAT, letters rogatory and CLOUD Act channels.

Terms of Service 11.6 gives advance notice of legally required disclosure where permissible, and Data Processing Addendum 4.1 repeats the commitment. Section 5.3 says records of requests received and responses are maintained, but no transparency report was located.

Source: Vendor Publishedinforming customers about law enforcement requests for their data unless legally prohibitedAs of Sep 2, 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.

Section 3 of the AI Policy states that August secures the necessary rights and licenses for datasets integrated into the Service and monitors third party compliance when collecting such information, but it identifies no source. Checked the home page, the Assistant, Tabular Review and integrations pages, the AI Policy and the subprocessor list on 2 September 2026; no primary law collection, publisher or jurisdiction coverage statement was located.

The product works chiefly on the firm's own documents plus SharePoint, email and web content rather than a published body of primary law, so the usual coverage risk does not arise. The subprocessor list carries an unnamed knowledge source subprocessor for knowledge sources and URL searching, so a third party sits behind that retrieval and is not identified.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026

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.

Good law checking is absent from a product whose retrieval targets are documents, SharePoint, Outlook and the web. No located material addresses subsequent history, treatment flags or citator coverage. The product does not claim to retrieve primary law and its named retrieval targets are uploaded documents, SharePoint, Outlook and the web, so no good law check is offered and none is asserted. The honest reading is that the question is not addressed rather than that a check exists in some weaker form.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Limits and errors are acknowledged in general terms, but behavior when an answer cannot be grounded is undescribed. Section 5 of the AI Policy commits to communicating the capabilities and limitations of the systems, and Terms of Service 1.5 states that output is AI generated and may contain errors, misstatements or be incomplete. Neither describes what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. No abstention or no answer path is documented, and no confidence or grounding score is shown in any published material.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026

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.

Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting on it, on 2 September 2026 on both the product name August and the corporate name Credicle Corporation. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The search is weaker than usual because August is a common word that appears in case names, dates and party names throughout the database.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 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.

Checked the home page, the AI Policy, the Terms of Service and Platform Agreement, the Security Addendum, Data Processing Addendum, Privacy Policy, Law Enforcement Guidelines and subprocessor list, and the product, integrations and customers pages on 2 September 2026. A search scoped to the domain was also run. No located material names ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar opinion. The AI Policy does engage a named instrument, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. That is legislation binding the vendor rather than ethics guidance binding its buyers.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026

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.

The home page publishes a time saved figure for each of seven practice areas, from two hours in Capital Markets to seven in Disputes, and the customer material claims 90 percent faster document review at one named firm. Nothing located addresses what happens to the invoice when that compression occurs. The home page metadata names invoicing among the tasks the product automates, but no material shows that the invoicing feature records or distinguishes AI assisted work on a per matter basis, so no audit record of AI assisted work was established. Checked the home page, product and integrations pages, the customers page and the AI Policy on 2 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 2, 2026

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Disclosure pack published

A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.

All three artifacts a firm needs are published and reachable without an agreement. The subprocessor list of January 2026 names the AI providers as AI providers rather than as infrastructure, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google Cloud Platform and Amazon Web Services, each with processing regions. The Data Processing Addendum is published in full and its clause 3.2 commits to 30 days advance notice of new subprocessors with a 15 day objection right, which is the forwardable client facing instrument.

Alongside it sit an ungated AI Policy, Security Addendum and Law Enforcement Guidelines, all of which a firm can hand to a client. The limitation worth naming is that three subprocessors that touch content are identified only by function, as web browsing, knowledge source and email subprocessors, so a firm answering a client cannot name them.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 2, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

A judge's standing order on AI would find review artifacts and security logs in the product, but no record built for disclosure. No located material addresses judicial standing orders on AI disclosure, verification certification, or exporting a record of which model produced which passage and who checked it. The Word integration produces tracked changes a lawyer accepts or rejects, which is a review artifact rather than a disclosure record, and the audit logging at Security Addendum section 9 covers information system activity for security investigation rather than document level model use.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 2, 2026
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 16, 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