Avvoka turns a firm's precedents into automated templates and then carries the resulting document all the way through negotiation to signature. A user answers a questionnaire and the platform assembles a first draft from the firm's own approved language, with no coding needed to build the automation behind it. From there the work happens in one live document rather than across emailed versions: counterparties and colleagues collaborate on a single controlled draft, comments can be turned into assigned tasks, every version is saved automatically, and the firm decides in advance which clauses are locked and which are open to negotiation. Documents are signed inside the platform or through Docusign and Adobe Sign. What distinguishes it from ordinary document automation is the data it captures on the way. Because clauses are structured rather than free text, Avvoka records how each one is marked up across a portfolio, producing negotiation heatmaps showing what changes, how often and where, reporting on pushback against standard positions, and comparisons of how individual negotiators perform, so a firm can revise its precedents against what actually happens at the table. Its AI layer builds templates from existing documents, drafts inside the rules a firm has set, and drives MassDraft for high-volume repapering exercises, and the company has published a partnership with Harvey that lets a lawyer working there draft from the firm's own Avvoka templates and clause library. It is sold to law firms and in-house teams, with pages addressed separately to the people who build automations, the people who run them and the leaders who buy them. Avvoka Limited is independent, with offices in London and Singapore.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the engine of a core capability and a complete platform sits underneath them that would work without any. Avvoka's own framing is precise about the split: its Harvey partnership announcement describes combining domain-specific legal AI with a deterministic drafting engine, and the features overview says the platform brings AI and automation together. The AI does real work, building templates from existing documents through AI-powered no-code automation, drafting inside firm rules, and driving MassDraft for high-volume exercises. Remove it and a firm still has questionnaire-driven document assembly, a clause library, live multi-party negotiation on a single controlled draft, clause locking, version history, e-signature and the negotiation analytics layer, which is the product's most distinctive feature and is a data property rather than a model output. That is the definition of a model layer on a working system rather than a product that disappears without it. Checked 4 September 2026.
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 real and described in architectural terms, and nothing about it is measured. The mechanism is published rather than asserted: drafting runs on a deterministic engine, generation is constrained to the firm's own approved templates and clause library, and the company describes the AI as running inside firm rules and keeping the firm's language, logic and standards consistent in every draft. The Harvey announcement makes the same point from the other side, a lawyer drafting from the firm's approved template and clauses so the firm's precision is carried into every draft. For a drafting product that constraint is the substantive answer to hallucination, and it is more than most in this lane publish. What is absent is any test of it. No accuracy figure, no evaluation, no test set, no error rate and no statement of failure modes appears anywhere, and there is no accuracy or benchmark page on the estate, while the marketing carries unmeasured superlatives including flawless, perfectly every time and full confidence in every draft. The limbs about linked primary sources and citation status do not apply to a drafting tool and are named here rather than counted against it.
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.
Controls are published with mechanisms rather than promises, short of the threshold at which the system acts alone. The strongest is clause locking: a firm decides in advance which clauses are open to negotiation, which are locked and what can be changed, so the boundary of permitted variation is set by the firm and enforced by the platform rather than reviewed after the fact. Around it sit routing of drafts to named people at defined points, tracking of every decision as the deal progresses, automatic saving of every version, and conversion of comments into assigned tasks with an owner. The company's own summary is that AI works inside firm rules with the customer in control end to end. What is missing is the account of the machine's own behaviour: nothing states what the AI does unattended, what happens when it produces something outside the firm's standards, whether generated text is marked as generated, or how a reviewer is alerted. Clause locking constrains the document; it does not describe the model.
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.
Attributed customer voices with no figures attached to any of them. Two testimonials carry a name, a role and an organisation: Karen Soan, a solicitor at CLS Holdings, on the platform adapting as requirements change, and Greg Snow of the same company, stating that Avvoka delivers measurable business value at scale. That is real attribution a reader can check, which is what separates this from a logo wall, and it is also the whole of it: both come from one customer, neither is dated, and the claim of measurable value carries no measurement. The only scale claim published is unattributed, that the product is trusted by one in five of the world's top firms and by corporate teams everywhere, with no basis given for the ranking or the count. No case study, no named deployment and no published figure for time saved, volume processed or negotiation outcome was located on the estate. Trade press names larger customers; it is third-party and was not used.
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.
Substantive published security commitments, an unusually candid statement about privilege, and no agreement behind either. The security page is specific: documents encrypted at rest with AES-256, each with a unique initialisation vector and each key encrypted under a regularly rotated master key, connections including API access over HTTPS, passwords filtered from logs and hashed with BCrypt, two-factor authentication enforceable company-wide, SSO-only enforcement with automatic revocation for leavers, and ISO 27001 certification behind it. On privilege the vendor does something rare and states the position against itself: the legal advice disclaimer records that all information provided to Avvoka is not protected by legal advice privilege. That is an express treatment of the question, and it is a disclaimer rather than a protection, so a buyer knows where they stand. Three things hold the grade here. No position on training use appears anywhere. Nothing describes separation between customers or matter-level walls. And no customer agreement, master subscription agreement or data processing addendum is published, so every commitment above sits on a marketing surface rather than in a contract.
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.
The fullest advice-line statement located in this pull, on a dedicated page, and no engagement with the professional rules. The disclaimer states that Avvoka is not a firm of solicitors, does not practise law and does not give legal advice, that it is not the user's solicitor, is not a substitute for a solicitor's advice and has no solicitor-client relationship with the user, and that a user entering into a document created on the platform does so at their own risk and represents themselves. It then does what most disclaimers omit and enumerates what the product does not do: it does not review information for legal accuracy or sufficiency, does not draw legal conclusions or provide opinions about the documents a user selects or creates, and does not apply the law to the user's circumstances. It also states that information provided is not covered by legal advice privilege. What is absent is the professional layer: no Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance, bar rule or ethics opinion is named, and nothing addresses a firm's supervision or competence duties when generated drafting reaches a client. One scope point is recorded: the page opens by framing itself as terms in relation to use of the website, while its substance plainly addresses documents created on the platform.
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 of any kind was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no accountable owner or function named, no pre-release testing regime, no AI management system and no certification such as ISO 42001. The company holds ISO 27001 and publishes its ISMS policy, which is an information security management system and a different subject; it is credited on the certification and stewardship rows rather than counted here. Nothing addresses uneven output, which on a drafting product would bear on how generated language performs across document types, jurisdictions and the languages a multinational user base drafts in. The site navigation and footer were inventoried in full on 4 September 2026 and the published policy set is the GDPR policy, the privacy policy, the legal advice disclaimer, the signing disclaimer and the security page.
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.
Most of the ground is covered in real detail, with retention the notable gap. Published: AES-256 encryption at rest with per-document initialisation vectors and a rotating master key, HTTPS for all connections including the API, BCrypt password hashing with passwords filtered from logs and definable rotation rules, enforceable two-factor authentication, SSO-only enforcement with automatic revocation when a user leaves, real-time replication of all production databases with a hot-standby failover arrangement, and encrypted backups. Testing and response are addressed rather than asserted: annual black-box penetration testing restricted to CREST-approved providers with the latest scorecard available to clients on request, a published vulnerability reporting process with a PGP key, a pipeline continuously tested for CSRF, XSS and SQL injection, and a breach procedure committing to identify compromised information and notify affected individuals and the bodies required by law. What is missing is a retention period, the GDPR policy saying only that data is retained when necessary and deleted on a data subject's request, and any subprocessor list beyond the named infrastructure providers.
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 addresses who bears the loss when the product is wrong. The full navigation and footer were inventoried on 4 September 2026 and the published legal set comprises a GDPR policy, a privacy policy, a legal advice disclaimer, a signing disclaimer and a security page. There is no terms of service, no customer agreement, no master subscription agreement and no service level agreement anywhere on the estate, so no indemnity, no liability cap, no warranty position, no disclaimer of warranties and no insurance statement exists to read. The legal advice disclaimer allocates responsibility for the decision to enter into a document to the user, stating they do so at their own risk, but that is a statement about advice rather than about loss, and it does not address a defective template, a clause assembled incorrectly, a negotiation control that failed to lock, or a generated draft that departed from the firm's standards. The band above does not fit, because it requires a standard limitation clause disclaiming the exposure, and no such clause is published.
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Named connections with the object of the connection described, short of implementer documentation. The most substantial is the Harvey partnership, announced first-party and specified rather than badged: a lawyer starting work in Harvey can draft from the firm's own approved Avvoka template with matter details in place, draw on the clause library the firm has approved, and carry the document through negotiation, with the announcement describing the combination as domain-specific legal AI over a deterministic drafting engine. Execution integrations are named for Docusign and Adobe Sign, with completion tracked inside the drafting flow. API access is confirmed on the security page, which describes API connections as encrypted over HTTPS. A dedicated extend page in the navigation promises connection to existing systems across teams and the wider business. What is absent is depth a buyer could plan against: no document management, matter management or CRM counterparty is named on any page read, and no field mapping, sync direction, trigger or developer documentation was located. The extend page was not opened in this pass and is named here as the limit.
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The residency limb is answered with genuine specificity and the tenancy limb is not addressed at all. The security page states that servers are located in clients' core business regions, naming the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and Australia, and identifies the datacentre providers as AWS, OVH and Azure, with physical access by Avvoka staff restricted. Naming both the regions on offer and the providers behind them is more than most records in this corpus publish, and it lets a buyer with a data residency requirement start a real conversation. Against it, nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no dedicated or isolated instance is described at any tier, and no on-premises option is mentioned. One conflict is recorded rather than resolved, because a buyer will hit it: the GDPR policy states that the main application server is in the United Kingdom with the backup in France and that the application is hosted by OVH, which describes a narrower and older arrangement than the security page, and the same policy dates its most recent penetration test to Q3 2020 where the security page describes annual testing.
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.
A named standard with a stated history and a published artifact behind it, short of naming the certifier or the scope. Avvoka states that it is ISO 27001 certified, continuously certified since October 2017, and subject to annual external audits, and it publishes its executed ISMS policy as an ungated PDF a buyer can download without an account or a conversation. That combination, a period, a recurring audit cycle and a readable governing document, is materially more than a badge. Penetration testing is addressed with the same specificity, annually, black-box, and restricted to CREST-approved providers, with the latest scorecard available to clients on request, which is a gated tier and is credited as such rather than as open publication. What is missing is what an assessor would need: the certification body is not named, no certificate number is given, and no scope or statement of applicability is published, so a buyer cannot establish which systems and which locations the certificate covers. There is no trust portal.
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 vendor refers to its AI throughout and identifies nothing underneath it. The estate speaks of AI-powered automation, drafting at AI speed and AI running inside firm rules, and describes a deterministic drafting engine combined with legal AI, without naming a model, a version, a provider or a processing location anywhere, and without committing to notify customers when any of it changes. Three companies are named on the estate and none of them answers this question: AWS, OVH and Azure are datacentre providers, which is infrastructure rather than a model and is graded on the deployment row, and Harvey is an integration partner whose own models sit on its side of the connection. No subprocessor list exists. The question has weight here because the material passing through the system is the firm's own precedent language and live negotiation positions, and a buyer cannot learn from any published source whose model reads them. This is the middle band because a distinct AI capability is described rather than merely labelled.
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. There is no pricing page in the site navigation, which carries features, solutions, resources and company sections only, and no pricing entry appears in the footer. Every commercial route on every page read is the same single call to action, book a demo, and no self-service signup exists. Nothing published states whether the platform is licensed per user, per template, per document, per matter or per firm, no tier names appear, no minimum commitment or term is mentioned, and no implementation or template-build cost is described even though building automated templates from precedents is plainly a delivery exercise. With no customer agreement published either, the payment terms that would ordinarily disclose the charging structure are also unavailable. A buyer can learn nothing about cost without entering a sales process. No pricing row is owed on this record.
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 two axes and the boundary is left open. The vendor publishes solutions by sector, separating law firms from in-house teams with a dedicated page each, and unusually also publishes solutions by role, addressing automators who build the templates, operators who run them and leaders who buy them, which is a more precise account of who inside an organisation the product is for than most records offer. Document coverage is evidenced through the drafting examples and feature material, reaching complex negotiated instruments including merger and financing documents and confidentiality provisions, and MassDraft is positioned for high-volume repapering. Geographic presence is stated through offices in London and Singapore. What is absent is any limit: no practice area is identified as unsuitable, no firm size band is given, nothing states which jurisdictions the templates or the AI have been built against, and nothing addresses languages, which matters for a vendor with an Asian office and a European base.
Avvoka launched Curate, a standalone product that reads a firm's historical transaction documents, extracts the clause variations that performed best, and generates templates from them. The output feeds back into Avvoka's automation and AI drafting workflows.
A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No located term or policy addresses the question either way. There is no customer agreement, terms of service or data processing addendum published on the estate, so there is no instrument in which a training permission or prohibition could sit, and no product, security or policy page states that customer content does or does not train models. The agreement search this value requires was run against the full page inventory on 4 September 2026: the published legal set is the GDPR policy, the privacy policy, the legal advice disclaimer, the signing disclaimer and the security page, and none mentions training, machine learning or model improvement. One nearby feature was weighed and declined: the analytics layer invites a firm to embed documents with metadata that its AI can learn from, which describes the customer's own drafting data improving their own templates and reporting, not a reservation of rights by the vendor over customer content.
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is acknowledged in published material with no period stated. The GDPR policy addresses it under its own heading and says only that Avvoka ensures data is retained when necessary, with deletion following a request by a data subject. No period appears, no configuration option is offered, and nothing separately addresses how long drafts, template content, clause libraries, negotiation history or the prompts behind generated drafting are held, either during a subscription or after it ends. The platform's own design points the other way and is recorded because it bears on the question: every version of a document is automatically saved and negotiation data is retained across a portfolio to build the analytics the product is sold on, so material plainly persists by design. The deletion route published is a data subject request to a data protection mailbox, which is a personal data right rather than a customer's contractual entitlement to return or destruction of its documents.
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 between customers or between matters. Access control is published in real detail, with enforceable two-factor authentication, SSO-only enforcement, automatic revocation of SSO users when they leave, password strength and rotation rules, and restricted physical access by staff to datacentres, but every one of those governs who can get into an account rather than how one firm's drafting is partitioned from another's. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, and no matter-level walls inside a firm's own workspace are described. The question has an edge on this product because counterparties are invited into the same live document and because the analytics layer aggregates negotiation data across a portfolio, and nothing published describes the boundary either of those crosses. Searched the security page, the GDPR policy, the legal advice disclaimer, the features overview and the live contract editor page on 4 September 2026.
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data. There is no customer agreement or terms of service on the estate, and the confidentiality section of a master agreement is where this signal's evidence normally sits, so the usual home for it does not exist here. Nothing in the GDPR policy, the privacy policy as described, the security page or the legal advice disclaimer sets out what happens when a subpoena, court order or government demand reaches documents held in the platform, and no commitment to notify the customer, reservation of discretion over notifying, or transparency report was located. The GDPR policy addresses breach notification, which is a different event: it commits to identifying compromised information and notifying affected individuals and the bodies required by law, and says nothing about lawful compelled disclosure. Searched the full published legal set and the security page on 4 September 2026.
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.
No located material identifies a corpus, and the question does not bite on this product class. The material the platform works on is the firm's own precedents, templates and clause library, uploaded and approved by the customer, and the drafting is assembled from that language rather than retrieved from any published legal source. There is no case law database, statutory source, form publisher or licensed reference set behind an output. Recorded as the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the features overview, the build, draft and learn feature pages and the published legal set on 4 September 2026.
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 addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product neither retrieves nor cites primary law. Its outputs are assembled contracts, negotiated drafts, clause comparisons and negotiation analytics, none of which rests on an authority a user would need to verify as still good. The nearest adjacent question is whether a firm's own clause library remains current, which the product supports through single-click updates from the library, and that is a version control practice rather than a legal currency check; it is recorded here so a reader sees it was considered. The value is the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the feature pages and the published legal set on 4 September 2026.
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 reliable output. There is no abstention path, no no-answer state, no confidence indicator and nothing on behaviour where a source document cannot be automated cleanly, where a clause has no equivalent in the firm's library, or where a negotiation position falls outside the approved set. One published control sits nearby and answers a different question: clause locking lets a firm designate which clauses may be changed and which may not, which constrains the document by rule rather than describing the model recognising its own limits, and it is graded on the autonomy row. The vendor's marketing runs the other way, promising flawless drafting and full confidence in every draft, which asserts the absence of uncertainty rather than describing how it is handled. Searched the features overview, the build and draft pages and the published legal set on 4 September 2026.
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 Avvoka and on the corporate name Avvoka Limited. 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.
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Professional responsibility is engaged in general terms and no authority is named. The legal advice disclaimer works in the vocabulary of the professional rules rather than around it, stating that Avvoka is not a firm of solicitors, does not practise law and does not give legal advice, that no solicitor-client relationship exists, that it is not a substitute for a solicitor's advice, and that information provided to it does not attract legal advice privilege. Engaging privilege and the solicitor-client relationship by name is more than a bare disclaimer and is why this sits above the floor. What is absent is any identified source: no Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance, code of conduct, bar association rule or ethics opinion is cited anywhere on the estate, no jurisdiction is named for the propositions asserted despite the company operating from London and Singapore, and nothing maps what a firm must do to discharge its own supervision and competence duties when generated drafting reaches a client.
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.
Time savings are the central promise and nothing addresses the billing consequence. The estate offers templates in hours and days rather than weeks and months, contracts created in minutes, less manual work, freeing lawyers from repetitive work so they can focus on strategy and clients, and MassDraft for high-volume repapering, all directed at how much faster the work gets done. None of it reaches the question this signal asks, which is what happens to the bill when drafting that took a day takes an hour. No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available to a firm, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a client is told when a document was assembled and drafted by the platform. The analytics layer is worth recording as the nearest thing and as evidence that the data exists: it tracks document activity, negotiation patterns and individual negotiator performance across a portfolio, so the underlying record of who did what is captured, and it is presented as a drafting improvement and client value tool rather than a billing or disclosure artifact.
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No located material would let a firm answer a client's AI clause. No subprocessor register is published, no model or model provider is named anywhere, and no data processing addendum, consent pack or client notification material exists or is offered on request on the surfaces read. Two published artifacts are real and neither answers this question, so both are recorded rather than credited: the ISMS policy, published ungated as a PDF, is an information security management document, and the annual penetration test scorecard, available to clients on request, is a security testing result. Both speak to how the vendor secures data rather than to who processes it, and naming AWS, OVH and Azure identifies the datacentres rather than whose model reads a firm's precedent language. A firm forwarding what exists here could evidence ISO 27001 certification and encryption practice and could not state which AI provider sees client content.
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-assisted work. The platform captures an unusually complete drafting history, automatically saving every version of a document, recording how each clause is marked up, tracking every decision as a deal progresses, and reporting negotiation patterns across a portfolio. None of it distinguishes machine-generated text from human drafting: nothing identifies which model produced a clause, nothing marks generated language as generated once it is in the document, and no export is described that would attribute authorship for disclosure to a client, a counterparty or a tribunal. That distinction is why this records an absence rather than a partial record, since what is captured is document change rather than model authorship. No disclosure template or guidance is published, and with no customer agreement on the estate there is no instrument addressing it either.
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.