Billables AI
Billables AI records a lawyer's billable time without the lawyer recording it. Rather than timers or end-of-day reconstruction, it connects to the applications work actually happens in, including Microsoft 365 with Outlook, Teams and Word, Google Workspace, Adobe, Zoom and the Chrome and Edge browsers, and watches activity as it occurs. From that stream it separates billable work from everything else, calculates a duration for each piece without any start and stop input, matches it to the right client and matter, reconciles overlapping and multitasked activity, and writes a narrative description. The result is a completed daily time report waiting in a dashboard rather than a blank timesheet. The system adapts to each timekeeper over time, learning individual billing preferences and narrative writing style, so entries increasingly read as that person would have written them. Nothing leaves the timekeeper without their say-so: the vendor states that a user's time reports are visible only to that user, who can edit or delete any record before it is exported or shared, and the terms of service separately require the customer to review output for accuracy and appropriateness before relying on it. Alongside timekeeping sits an intelligence layer giving firm leadership visibility into billable and non-billable hours, realisation and approval status by user, client and matter. Named customers include Tycko & Zavareei, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, Corporate Law Partners, Mohan Groble Scolaro, Zigler Law Group, Pulse Law, Finch & Hammer and Acevedo Belt. Billables Incorporated is based in San Francisco.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Every output is a model output and the comparator is explicit. What the product delivers is a set of inferences: deciding which activity in a stream of email, documents, calls and browsing is billable, calculating a duration without any timer input, matching each piece of work to the right client and matter, reconciling overlapping and multitasked activity, and writing a narrative in the timekeeper's own style. The company describes machine learning models adapting to each user's billing preferences and narrative writing style over time. There is no conventional product beneath it and no content asset. The alternative the vendor names is not other software but manual timekeeping, and a customer on its own page draws the sharper line, contrasting the product with timekeeping applications that merely compile time from screenshots. That is the distinction between capturing pixels and understanding work, and only the second requires a model. Verified 2 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Accuracy is asserted, disclaimed in the agreement, and measured nowhere. The published figures are business outcomes rather than accuracy measures: more billable time captured and less time spent on billing describe what a firm gains, not how often the system attributes work to the right matter or writes a narrative that survives review. No figure is published for matching accuracy, duration accuracy or narrative quality, and no evaluation, benchmark or test method is described. Three headline statistics on the home page rendered as zero because they are animated counters that did not execute, so even those could not be read; the labels establish that figures exist and the values could not be retrieved, which is recorded as a limit on this reading. Against the marketing, section 6.3 of the terms of service states plainly that the service is designed to generate output, that such output may not always be accurate, and that the customer agrees to evaluate and review it for accuracy and appropriateness before relying on it. That is candid and it is the operative position. Nothing describes how an entry traces back to the underlying activity that produced it. Verified 2 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The review gate is real, named as a design principle, and backed by contract. Under a heading of human-guided automation the vendor states that a user's time reports are visible only to that user, and that any billable record can be edited or deleted before it is exported or shared with anyone else. That is an unusual and meaningful boundary: nothing the system infers about a lawyer's day reaches a billing administrator or a partner until the lawyer releases it. Section 6.3 of the terms turns the expectation into an obligation, requiring the customer to evaluate and review output for accuracy and appropriateness before relying on it, which places the duty in the agreement rather than in marketing. What is missing is the shape of the automation on the other side of that gate. Nothing states what the system decides without any prompt, what confidence or threshold governs whether an activity is classified billable at all, what happens to activity it cannot attribute to a matter, or whether bulk approval is available, which matters because a review step that can be cleared in one click is a different control from one exercised entry by entry. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
This is the strongest evidence base in the pull on this axis and it stops just short of the top band. Eight customers speak on the record with name, title and firm, spanning Tycko & Zavareei, Mohan Groble Scolaro, Pulse Law, Zigler Law Group, Finch & Hammer, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, Corporate Law Partners and Acevedo Belt, which is a mix of managing partners, a COO, office administrators and directors of operations rather than a single flattering role. Three attach a figure to a named person: a managing partner reporting at least ten per cent more time captured, a chief executive reporting thirty per cent, and a founding partner stating he recouped his annual investment in two days. Aggregate claims carry a named and dated basis, footnoted to a 2025 pilot programme, and one statistic is labelled by the vendor itself as unsubstantiated, which is a joke that also signals where the line between measured and asserted sits. What holds this below A is method. No baseline is defined for what counts as more time captured, no sample size or firm count is given for the pilot, and the aggregate figures appear inconsistently across the vendor's own surfaces, as 10 to 30 per cent in one listing and 15 to 30 per cent in another. Verified 2 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Four limbs are met and one of them is answered better than by any comparable record. The product watches a lawyer work inside their email, documents and calls, so the obvious fear is that privileged material is being copied to a vendor, and the agreement addresses it head on rather than reassuring around it. Section 1.9 states that Billables AI stores only metadata regarding user activity and the generated billable records, and that it will not store or retain underlying work product such as documents or emails, a commitment the home page repeats as not storing privileged data. Not holding the material at all is the strongest form this limb can take. Section 1.9 also names data isolation and confirms the customer retains full control of Customer Data with the ability to access, delete and manage it, and section 1.6 confines Billables AI's use of Customer Data to what is necessary to provide the service. Section 4 gives mutual confidentiality with a compelled-disclosure notice commitment. Two things keep this off the top band: no model or AI provider is named anywhere, so a firm cannot say whose model reads the activity stream, and no retention period is stated for the metadata and generated records that are kept. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
One limb of this axis does not bite and the other bites hard and is unaddressed. The product gives no legal advice and generates no legal work product, so the unauthorised practice question is largely inapplicable and its absence is not held against the record. The professional responsibility question is the opposite: billing judgement is a core duty, and this product's central promise is that firms capture ten to thirty per cent more billable time than their previous methods. That raises the reasonableness of fees directly, together with the question of whether time surfaced by inference from an activity stream was properly billable to that client at all, and whether narratives written by a model accurately describe what the lawyer did. Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the site footer and the solution pages for timekeepers, managing partners and legal administrators on 2 September 2026: nothing engages any of it. No bar rule, ethics opinion or fee-reasonableness principle is named, and no guidance is offered on reviewing machine-surfaced time before billing it. The closest published language is section 6.3's requirement that the customer review output for appropriateness, which gestures at the question without naming it. Verified 2 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No governance material was located on any surface. Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the privacy and site terms links, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. There is no responsible AI page, no framework or set of principles, no individual or function named as accountable for model behaviour, no account of what is evaluated before a model change ships, and no certification such as ISO 42001. Nothing anywhere addresses uneven output, which is a live question on this product in a specific way: the system classifies which activity is billable and adapts to each user's patterns, so it plausibly performs differently across practice areas, working styles and roles, and a model that learns from a user's history will reinforce whatever that history contains. Nothing states whether the adaptation is evaluated for drift or for systematic over- or under-capture. The only governance-adjacent statement is the contractual requirement at section 6.3 that the customer review output, which places responsibility rather than describing control. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 security position is in the agreement rather than on a marketing page, which is where it counts, and two of five elements are absent. Section 1.9 commits Billables AI to encryption of all data in transit and at rest, strict access controls, routine audits and vulnerability testing, secure coding practices, continuous monitoring and data isolation, and then goes further than most by limiting what is held at all: only metadata regarding user activity and the generated billable records are stored, with underlying work product such as documents and emails expressly not stored or retained. Data minimisation of that kind is stronger protection than any control applied to data a vendor is holding. The home page adds user opt-ins per connected tool, single sign-on to third-party applications and audited access logs, and section 1.9 confirms customer ability to access, delete and manage its data. What is missing is retention and disclosure: no retention period is stated for the metadata and records that are kept, no subprocessor is named anywhere, and no incident or breach notification practice was located. A trust centre is linked from the home page and could not be reached on this pass, recorded as a retrieval limit rather than an absence. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 complete allocation is published and readable without a sales conversation, which by itself puts this ahead of most records here. Section 7 caps liability at the greater of fees paid in the preceding twelve months or one thousand dollars, and excludes lost profits, business interruption and other indirect damages. Section 5.2 gives the customer an intellectual property infringement indemnity covering United States and Berne Convention rights, with defined exclusions, and section 5.1 runs the reciprocal obligation. Section 6.1 warrants that the service will perform in all material respects the functions described in the documentation for the whole term, which is a functionality warranty rather than a bare as-is disclaimer. Support and uptime commitments are referenced at section 1.10. Three things hold it below the top band. The consequential damages exclusion at section 7 protects Billables AI only and is not mutual. The sole remedy for breach of warranty at section 6.2 is prompt correction, with no refund, service credit or termination right. And no insurance position is stated, while the uptime service level itself lives in a Service Description that is not published. Verified 2 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Integration is the product rather than an add-on, and the named systems are the ones lawyers actually work in. First-party material names Microsoft 365 including Outlook and Teams, Google Workspace, Adobe, Zoom and the Chrome and Edge browsers, covering email, calendar, documents, calls and browsing. The connection model is described rather than merely claimed: the customer selects which daily work tools to connect, described as a two-click setup with custom-built integrations, which means capture scope is opted into tool by tool rather than imposed. The direction of flow is stated for the outbound side too, with entries exported or shared only after the timekeeper releases them. Two gaps keep this below A. No practice management or billing system is named on any first-party page read, which matters more here than on most records because a time entry that cannot reach the billing system is unfinished work; third-party sources name several, and third-party sourcing is not credited. And no connector list, API reference or developer documentation was located, with the integrations page not opened on this pass. Verified 2 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Nothing published addresses where the platform runs or how customers are separated within it. Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. No cloud provider is named, no hosting region or country is stated, no residency option is offered, nothing distinguishes processing location from storage location, and no on-premises or customer-cloud path exists. Section 1.9 names data isolation, which is a separation claim rather than a tenancy model, and no mechanism is described. The gap has particular weight on this product because the platform connects into a firm's email and document systems and processes a continuous stream of activity derived from client work, so a firm with residency obligations, or one whose own outside counsel guidelines specify where client-related data may be processed, has nothing published to assess. A trust centre is linked and could not be reached on this pass, which is recorded as a retrieval limit. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
A trust surface exists, is signposted, and could not be read on this pass. The home page carries a security section headed with a statement that the company is serious about security and links to a trust centre on its own subdomain, so the vendor plainly maintains one. That page could not be retrieved: a direct fetch was refused and a targeted search did not surface it, and both failures are recorded as a limit on this reading rather than as an absence on the vendor's part. What can be established from pages that did render is that no certification is named anywhere on them. Neither SOC 2 nor ISO 27001 nor any other standard appears on the home page, in the terms of service or in the footer, no auditor or report period is published, and no penetration testing programme is described beyond the reference at section 1.9 to routine audits and vulnerability testing. The underlying security commitments are unusually concrete for a company of this size and sit in the agreement rather than on a badge page, which is why this is not the bottom band. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Nothing identifies what powers the product. Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. No model is named, no version, no provider entity, and nothing states whether any component is built in-house or reached through a third party. Nothing describes where inference runs, what any provider may retain, or whether customers would be told if the model set changed. Section 1.7 of the terms refers to methods, techniques or models in the abstract when permitting use of aggregated de-identified usage data, which names the category without identifying anything within it. No subprocessor list exists in the agreement or anywhere else. The absence is consequential here rather than formal: the system reads a lawyer's email subjects, document activity and calendar to infer what work was done, and a firm cannot tell from anything published whether that stream reaches a third-party model provider or stays inside Billables AI's own systems. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
The structure is published in the agreement in real detail, no figure is published anywhere, and the agreement points at a page that does not exist. Section 1.1 of the terms establishes the commercial model: fees sit in a Service Description that also sets out use limitations, specified either in a signed Service Order or, for customers without one, in a Service Description the vendor states it publishes at a named plans page on its own site. Section 2.2 sets monthly invoicing or the frequency stated in the Service Description, with late interest at 1.5 per cent per month, and section 3.1 provides automatic renewal with thirty days notice of non-renewal. Section 1.2 offers trials expressly on an as-is basis without indemnification, support or warranty, which is candid about what a pilot does and does not include. The charging unit is per user. That published structure is what lifts this off the floor. The page the contract names returns a 404. This was re-checked on 2 September 2026 and is an established absence rather than a retrieval limit: no first-party figure is published in any currency on any surface, and third-party sources disagree among themselves, variously quoting 39 to 99 dollars per user per month, 25 to 50, custom pricing by firm size, and no public listing at all, which corroborates the absence rather than supplying a number. A contract directing a customer to a fee page that does not resolve is itself a disclosure gap and is recorded as one.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The buyer is segmented clearly and almost nothing else is bounded. Three dedicated solution pages address timekeepers, managing partners and legal administrators, which is a sensible split because each wants something different from the same data, and the named customer roster bears it out with managing partners, chief executives, office administrators and directors of operations all speaking. The buyer type is stated broadly as lawyers, consultants and professional services providers. Beyond that, coverage is undefined. No jurisdiction is named anywhere, which is less consequential for timekeeping than for substantive legal work but still leaves unstated whether the product handles non-English activity or non-US billing conventions. No practice area is mentioned and no firm size band is given, though the named customers are visibly small and mid-sized firms rather than large ones. Nothing states what the product does not cover, including the obvious limit that work performed away from a connected application cannot be captured at all. Verified 2 September 2026.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No clause names training on customer content in either direction, so the value is silent, but the surrounding structure is tighter than that word suggests and belongs on the record. Section 1.6 confines the vendor's use of Customer Data to what is necessary to provide the service. Section 1.7 does name models, permitting use of Usage Data in connection with improvements and enhancements to the service and to any methods, techniques or models, but Usage Data is defined as diagnostic, performance and telemetry data in aggregated de-identified form, which by definition excludes the customer's work content. And section 1.9 removes the material a training clause would otherwise reach, committing that only metadata about activity and the generated billable records are stored and giving the quoted commitment about underlying documents and emails. So the agreement names models for telemetry, purpose-limits customer data, and states that the work product itself is not retained at all. What it does not contain is a statement that customer content is or is not used to train, and no policy page supplies one. This is the fifth record in this pull with that shape.
Prompt and Output Retention
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.
What is retained is stated with unusual precision and how long is not stated at all. Section 1.9 of the terms limits storage to metadata regarding user activity and the generated billable records, and commits that underlying work product such as documents and emails is not stored or retained, so a reader knows the categories held and the categories excluded. The same section confirms the customer retains full control of Customer Data and the ability to access, delete and manage it, which gives a deletion route on demand. Section 1.6 adds that Customer Data may be irretrievably deleted if the account is terminated, which is a warning rather than a commitment and cuts against a customer needing its historical time records after leaving. No period is stated for anything: nothing says how long activity metadata, generated entries or narratives persist during the term, and no retention setting is described as available. A data processing addendum is referred to at section 1.8 as agreed between the parties and is not published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Isolation is asserted in the agreement and on the product pages, and no mechanism is described. Section 1.9 of the terms names data isolation among the security practices followed, and the home page states that customer data is isolated and anonymised. Neither says what is isolated from what, whether the boundary runs between customers, between users within a firm, or between matters. One related control is described concretely and is worth recording even though it answers a different question: the vendor states that a user's time reports are visible only to that user until released, which is a per-timekeeper boundary inside the firm rather than a boundary between firms. The matter-level question this signal asks is not reached. The product attributes activity across a lawyer's whole day to different clients and matters, so whether a conflicted matter's activity can surface to a user who should not see it is a live question, and nothing published addresses it.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The commitment sits in the operative agreement and has both halves this value requires. Section 4 of the terms permits disclosure of Confidential Information as required by law or court order, and then conditions it on the quoted terms, so the customer is told and the vendor must actively try to narrow what goes out rather than simply complying. The obligation is mutual and survives termination under section 3.4. Two limits belong on the record. The clause protects Confidential Information, which section 4 defines by marking or by what the recipient reasonably should have known was confidential, rather than protecting Customer Data as a defined category, so the fit with a demand for a firm's time records is left to construction. And the notice is prompt rather than advance, so it does not commit to telling the customer before disclosure occurs, which is the difference between an opportunity to intervene and a notification after the fact.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. The vendor ships no corpus and none is claimed. The input to the product is the customer's own activity stream drawn from its connected applications, so there is no licensed database, no published collection and no third-party content behind any output, and the provenance risks this signal tracks do not arise in their usual form. The honest record is that the question is not addressed rather than that a corpus was withheld. One adjacent dependency is undescribed: the system must recognise client and matter identifiers to attribute work, which implies it consumes a client and matter list from somewhere, and nothing published states where that comes from or how it is kept current.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. The product retrieves no legal authority and cites none, so this signal has nothing to operate on and its absence is not a criticism of the record. The nearest analogous question concerns whether the reference data the system attributes work against stays current, since a time entry assigned to a closed matter or a superseded client code is wrong in a way a citator-like check would catch, and nothing published describes any validation of that kind.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes what the system does when it cannot determine an answer, and no confidence indicator is described as shown to the user. The questions this raises are concrete on a timekeeping product: nothing states what happens to activity the system cannot attribute to any client or matter, whether such activity is surfaced as unassigned, silently dropped, or guessed at, and nothing states whether an entry the model is unsure about is flagged differently from one it is confident in. The review gate before export is an oversight control rather than an uncertainty signal, since it gives the user the last word without telling them where the system was least sure and therefore where to look hardest.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting drawing on it, on 2 September 2026 on the product and corporate name Billables AI and Billables Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located, and a separate search for billing or fee disputes involving the product returned nothing. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The signal fits this product class poorly and the reason is worth stating: the platform generates time entries and billing narratives rather than legal citations, so its characteristic failure is an entry attributed to the wrong matter or a narrative describing work inaccurately. That surfaces as a client fee objection, a write-down at pre-bill review, or in the worst case a fee dispute or disciplinary complaint, and none of those is indexed anywhere comparable to a court sanctions tracker.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages for timekeepers, managing partners and legal administrators on 2 September 2026. No public material engages guidance from any professional body. That absence is more pointed here than on most records, because billing is one of the most heavily regulated things a lawyer does and the relevant guidance is long-established rather than new: nothing names the duty to charge a reasonable fee, the guidance on billing for time actually expended, or any state bar opinion on automated or reconstructed timekeeping. Nor is any newer guidance on generative AI cited in connection with machine-written narratives that will be read by a client as the lawyer's own description of their work. The only related published language is the contractual requirement at section 6.3 that the customer review output for accuracy and appropriateness, which allocates the duty without naming what governs it.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure.
This is the record where the signal's premise inverts most sharply, and the inversion is the finding. The signal exists because AI compresses work that was formerly billed by the hour, and asks whether the vendor gives the firm something disclosable when six hours become one. Billables AI runs the other way: its central published claim is that firms capture ten to thirty per cent more billable time than under their previous methods, alongside a ninety per cent reduction in time spent writing narratives. The bill goes up rather than down. What is published is therefore efficiency and revenue claims with no disclosure treatment attached. Nothing addresses whether a client is told that narratives on their invoice were machine-written, whether entries surfaced by inference rather than contemporaneous recording are identified as such, or how a firm should satisfy itself that newly captured time was properly billable to that client. The product generates a per matter record of time, which is not the same as a record of AI-assisted work, and nothing marks which entries the model produced.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The agreement is public and the AI-specific disclosure material is not. What a firm can forward today is genuine: the terms of service are published in full and contain concrete commitments a client can be shown, including the section 1.9 undertaking that underlying documents and emails are not stored or retained, encryption in transit and at rest, data isolation, and the section 4 confidentiality and compelled-disclosure notice provisions. That is more than many vendors expose without an agreement. What is missing is everything specific to the model layer. No subprocessor list exists in any form, no AI or model provider is named anywhere, and the data processing addendum is referred to at section 1.8 as agreed between the parties rather than published. A trust centre is linked from the home page and could not be reached on this pass, recorded as a retrieval limit. A firm asked by a client which third parties process the activity stream drawn from its matters could not answer from anything published and would have to obtain that by request.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Checked the home page, the terms of service in full, the full footer and the three solution pages on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses disclosure of AI involvement, and no record identifying which entries or narratives a model produced is described as available or exportable. The forum here is not usually a court but a fee audit, a client billing guideline review or a fee dispute, and in each the question is the same: which of these entries did a person write and which did a system infer. The platform holds the answer, since every entry originates as a machine-generated draft that the timekeeper may then edit or delete, so the distinction between accepted-as-generated and materially revised exists inside the product. Nothing states that it is captured, retained or exportable, and no audit trail of edits is described. Time records themselves export to billing systems, but that is the work record rather than a record of how it was produced.