Blue J
Blue J is an AI research platform for tax law, sold in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. A tax professional asks a question in plain language, optionally attaching their own documents, and receives a structured answer built from a curated database of primary tax authority together with licensed commentary from Tax Notes and IBFD, with inline citations, a source list, and the relevant passage of each source highlighted so it can be opened and checked. Answers can be turned into memos and client emails and exported to PDF or Word, and the content database is updated daily. Blue J does not build its own models, using large language technology from OpenAI and Google under signed agreements that prohibit those providers from training on Blue J data, with abuse monitoring switched off at both. The security page publishes an unusually complete disclosure, including a thirty-one entry subprocessor table with locations, a named executive owner for security compliance, and an explicit statement that all data is stored and processed in one United States region with no other jurisdiction and no on-premise option available. Pricing is published: an individual plan at 1,498 US dollars per user per year, purchasable online, with team pricing on request. Named customers include Crowe, RSM US, Adams Brown, GreerWalker and Barnes Dennig, and the buyer base is predominantly accounting and tax practices rather than law firms. Blue J is operated by Blue J Legal Inc. of Toronto, contracting in the United States through BJL US Inc.
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.
The models are the engine of the product a buyer uses, and a real content asset sits beneath them. Blue J states plainly that it does not create or train its own generative models, using large language technology from OpenAI and Google, so the differentiator it owns is the curated tax database rather than the model. That database is sold as a feature in its own right: the individual plan leads with full US federal and state tax coverage, the feature matrix lists case law, primary and secondary source materials and an authoritative database updated daily as line items, and the content includes licensed Tax Notes and IBFD material. Strip out the AI and what remains is a licensed tax content collection, which is a product this market already buys from Checkpoint and CCH. That is the B band: models as the engine of the core capability, layered on something that would still function as a document system. 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.
Grounding is real, documented and unusually well built out at the interface. Every answer carries inline citations and a source list, and the feature matrix adds affordances most competitors do not describe: the relevant section of each source is highlighted, a user can ask for more sources, and a user can put questions to a single source in isolation. The corpus behind it is named rather than gestured at, combining primary tax authority with licensed Tax Notes and IBFD content, and it is stated to be updated daily. What is absent is measurement. No accuracy figure, test set, benchmark or evaluation result appears on any Blue J surface. One negative finding belongs on the record because a buyer will meet the number: a 90 per cent accuracy claim circulates in third-party software directories and review sites, attached to Blue J's earlier outcome-prediction product rather than to the current research platform. It was searched for on 2 September 2026 and could not be confirmed on any Blue J page, so it is recorded here as unverified and is not treated as evidence. The vendor's own subprocessor table does disclose ValsAI for LLM response benchmark testing, so testing exists; no results from it are published. 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 obligation is contractual and the verification surface is strong. Section 7 of the Subscriber Agreement makes it the express responsibility of the subscriber and its users to review and determine the suitability of any output and to consult their own independent legal, tax and accounting advisors before using it, and section 12 of the Terms of Use frames the platform as an information tool only. The privacy notice adds a specific negative under GDPR Article 22, stating that automated decision-making of the kind that provision governs does not take place. On the product side the checking affordances are real: inline citations, source lists, highlighted source passages and the ability to interrogate a single source. What is not published is any account of what the system does on its own. No modes, thresholds or escalation conditions are described, and nothing states what happens after an answer is wrong. Autonomy is inherently modest for a research tool, but the boundary is asserted by disclaimer rather than described. 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.
The named base is deep. Roughly twenty firms are identified across the home page and customer material, including Crowe, RSM US, Adams Brown, GreerWalker, Saville, Ketel Thorstenson, Larson Gross, Barnes Dennig, Bartlett Pringle and Wolf, ELO CPAs, HMV CPAs, AGT CPAs, MBE CPAs, Perelson Weiner, Sorren, MMB and Co and the National Association of Tax Professionals, most with a named individual and job title speaking on the record. Figures are published too: three hours saved per user per week, 75 per cent less time spent on research, more than 70 per cent of users logging in weekly, and one named partner describing four to five hours of work completed in fifteen minutes. What holds it below A is that the figures and the names sit apart. The percentages are aggregate claims across the user base rather than measured outcomes at any named firm, no dates appear, and the only stated basis is that the savings calculator reflects average savings observed among users. 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.
The third-party model provider limb is answered better here than by almost any record in this pull. Blue J states that it is opted out of abuse monitoring with both OpenAI and Google and that it holds supplementary signed agreements with both prohibiting them from training models on any data coming from Blue J, and that no customer files are used for training. Retention and deletion are addressed concretely, with uploaded files older than 24 hours deleted automatically and a right to be forgotten under which any client, present or past, can have all their data permanently erased on written request with confirmation. A mutual confidentiality article sits at section 10 of the Terms of Use. Two limbs fail. Nothing published describes segregation between customers, users or matters: no tenancy or isolation statement was located on any surface. And nothing addresses privilege or work product treatment, the only mention being that no solicitor-client relationship arises with Blue J, which is a different question. The training limb is also qualified rather than clean, for the reason set out on the training signal. 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.
The advice line is stated twice, in both operative documents, and stated well. Section 7 of the Subscriber Agreement records that Blue J is not engaged in rendering legal, tax, accounting or other professional advice, that the product is neither intended nor authorised as a substitute for the knowledge, expertise, skill and judgment of a lawyer, accountant or other professional advisor, and that users must review the suitability of output and consult their own advisors before using it. Section 12 of the Terms of Use repeats it in capitals and adds that no solicitor-client relationship is formed. Naming accountants alongside lawyers is honest given who actually buys this product. The competence and supervision dimension is therefore reached. Two limbs fail: no jurisdiction limits are stated for advice purposes, the three-country split being a commercial and coverage division rather than a professional one, and no bar, law society or professional body guidance is engaged anywhere, with neither ABA Formal Opinion 512 nor AICPA standards named. 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.
Governance exists as security governance and is documented well in that register, without ever reaching model behaviour. A named executive owns it, with security compliance stated to be overseen by CTO Brett Janssen, which is more accountability than most records in this pull offer. Fifteen information security policies are listed by name and reviewed annually, whole-corporation risk assessments run annually using the Cloud Security Alliance CAIQ, and Drata continuously monitors more than a hundred controls. The subprocessor table discloses ValsAI for LLM response benchmark testing, which shows a model evaluation regime exists. What is missing is everything about that regime and everything about fairness. No governance framework for AI is published, no owner of model behaviour as distinct from security is named, nothing describes what is tested before a change ships or what the benchmark measures, no certification such as ISO 42001 is claimed, and nothing at all is published about uneven output across taxpayer types, entity structures or populations. 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.
All five elements are published, current and specific enough to hold the vendor to, and the subprocessor disclosure is the most complete located in this pull. Thirty-one named entities appear in a table with description and location, covering not just infrastructure but the AI layer specifically: OpenAI for large language model AI, Google for LLM and AI services, Microsoft for cloud AI services, Pinecone for vector database services, Elastic Cloud for search, Exa Labs for web data search and ValsAI for benchmark testing, plus both Blue J affiliates identified as subprocessors in their own right. Retention is stated with a period where it matters, uploaded files older than 24 hours being deleted automatically, and removal of customer data is available on request through a named route. Deletion is unusually strong, with a right to be forgotten open to any client present or past and a confirmation email on completion. Access control covers enforced two-factor authentication, least privilege, annual access reviews, Auth0 identity management and BastionZero remote access with SSH disabled. Incident practice is a maintained and annually tested response plan with a commitment to report promptly to required parties. Encryption is AES-256 at rest under AWS KMS with TLS 1.2 minimum in transit, backups run daily with five-minute incrementals, and third-party penetration testing is annual with quarterly vulnerability scanning. The one gap is that no fixed breach notification deadline to the customer is published. 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.
The allocation is published in full, is specific, and leaves the buyer with essentially nothing. Section 13 of the Terms of Use disclaims all warranties expressly including accuracy, reliability, currency and completeness, states that Blue J will not be liable for damages of any kind including direct damages, and then caps total aggregate liability at ten US dollars or the local currency equivalent, adding that multiple claims do not increase the ceiling. Against an individual plan priced at 1,498 dollars a year, that cap is under one per cent of a single user's annual fee, and it is the lowest located anywhere in this pull. Section 14 runs an indemnity from the customer to Blue J, expressly extending to the customer's use of the platform in connection with any legal activities, and no indemnity runs the other way. One genuine protection is published and is worth naming: the Tax Analysts terms reproduced in section 13 commit that Tax Analysts will defend against good faith, reasonable claims that use of the licensed content infringes another party's rights, so intellectual property risk on the licensed corpus is covered by the content licensor. B rather than A because nothing here is a recourse a buyer can invoke when an answer is wrong; B rather than C because a complete warranty, limitation, indemnity and content-licensor structure is published rather than a bare limitation clause. 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.
No integration into the systems tax and legal work already lives in was located, and none is claimed. Checked the home page, how it works, the pricing page and its full feature matrix, the security page, the Subscriber Agreement, the Terms of Use and the privacy notice on 2 September 2026. There is no integrations page, no named connector, no API or developer documentation, and no mention of document management, practice management, tax preparation or workflow software of any kind. What exists is adjacent but is not integration: answers can be downloaded as PDF and DOCX, which is export, and single sign-on is offered with custom SSO options on the team plan, which is authentication. This matters more than it might for a research tool, because tax work runs through preparation and workflow software and a 2023 company announcement described planned API integrations that would securely leverage firm data; nothing on any current surface indicates that shipped. 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.
Residency is answered completely and unusually honestly, including the negatives. The security page states that all data is stored and processed in the United States in the AWS us-east-1 North Virginia region, and then states plainly that Blue J does not currently offer the ability to store data in any other jurisdiction and does not currently offer an on-premise solution. Publishing what is not available, rather than leaving a buyer to infer it from silence, is the best-evidenced form of a restriction. Hosting is named as Cloudflare and AWS, the whole subprocessor estate is listed as United States, and the privacy notice discloses that personal data of EEA, Swiss and UK individuals may be processed in the United States under transfer safeguards. What keeps this off the top band is tenancy. Nothing published describes whether the platform is multi-tenant, single-tenant or how one customer's data is isolated from another's, which is the limb this axis pairs with region and which the two European records in this pull both cleared. 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.
Certification is real, current and described with more process detail than most: an independent auditor maintains a SOC 2 Type 2 report on an annual basis, Drata's platform continuously monitors more than a hundred controls with automated evidence collection, third-party penetration testing runs annually and third-party vulnerability scanning quarterly. A trust centre exists and is linked by full URL rather than merely named. The access tier is established on the page itself rather than needing to be inferred, and it is the reason this is not an A: Blue J states that it can provide its SOC 2 report to customers upon receipt of a signed non-disclosure agreement, so the evidence sits behind a negotiated document rather than being reachable by a prospect. Nor is the surrounding detail published: no auditor is named, no report date or coverage period is given, and the trust services criteria actually covered are not stated. The linked trust centre was not opened this pass, but because the NDA gate is stated in terms, opening it would not change the tier. 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.
The providers are named and the architecture around them is described in real detail. Blue J states that it does not create or train its own generative models and uses large language technology from OpenAI and Google, and the subprocessor table adds Microsoft for cloud AI services, Pinecone for vector database services, Elastic Cloud for search infrastructure and Exa Labs for web data search, which together describe a retrieval architecture rather than just a model dependency. Where it runs is given: AWS us-east-1, with every listed subprocessor located in the United States. The commitments about those providers are specific, with abuse monitoring opted out at both OpenAI and Google and signed agreements prohibiting either from training on Blue J data. Two of the four things the top band asks for are absent. No model is named anywhere on Blue J's own surfaces, only the houses they come from, so a buyer cannot tell which model answers their question or when it changes. And no commitment to notify customers of supply chain or model changes was located. 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.
This is the strongest commercial disclosure in the pull and it sits at the top of this band rather than in the next one. The individual plan is published at 1,498 US dollars per user per year with what it includes spelled out, a seven-day free trial requiring no credit card, and a purchase path that completes online without speaking to anyone. A feature matrix of roughly twenty-five rows sets out exactly what separates sole practitioner from team access, covering answers, sources, support and security lines including which tiers get a dedicated customer success manager, usage analytics and custom single sign-on. The page states there are no add-ons, no extra fees and no surprises, and the FAQ explains that plans are annual, changeable at any time, with access retained to the end of a cancelled period. What places it in this band rather than the top one is that the team tier, which is what most of the six thousand firms cited actually buy, is contact for pricing, with enterprise plans handled separately by sales. Regional pricing pages exist for Canada and the United Kingdom and were not opened; the figure recorded is the United States one. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Segment coverage is documented precisely and the practice area is unambiguous. Four firm sizes each have a dedicated page, running from sole practitioner through local and regional to national, and four use cases are separately described as advisory, compliance, tax writing and training. Jurisdiction is handled properly rather than assumed, with separate United States, Canada and United Kingdom sites carrying their own pricing, security and contract sets, and the substantive coverage of the US product is stated as full federal and state and local tax. The practice area is tax and only tax, which the whole site makes plain. Two things are left open. Nothing addresses in-house tax departments or government use, which the four firm-type pages exclude by omission rather than by statement. And nothing states the boundary within tax: no list of what the corpus does not cover, and no statement of where the product stops. Worth recording for a buyer of this index: the named customer base is overwhelmingly accounting and tax practices rather than law firms, so the professional audience is broader than the lane implies. 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?
The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
Section 3 of the Terms of Use takes the licence quoted above over any data, information, records and files a user enters, expressly including all results from processing them and all compilations and derivative works, for four stated purposes of which the fourth is to improve the Blue J Platform. Section 4 of the Subscriber Agreement adds a separate permission to review all inputs and corresponding outputs for enhancing functionality and user experience. Neither names training or machine learning, but both permit unqualified use of customer content to improve the product, without any de-identification or aggregation limit, which places this in the agreement rather than on a policy page. Two things run the other way and a buyer needs them. The security page states that customer data is not used to train generative AI models, that Blue J neither creates nor trains its own models, and that signed agreements with OpenAI and Google prohibit those providers from training on any Blue J data, with abuse monitoring opted out at both. And section 3 ends with a deletion right on request, which sits oddly against a perpetual and irrevocable licence. Trial users get a narrower and revocable version of the review permission; paying subscribers do not.
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.
One pathway carries a hard period and the main one does not. Uploaded customer files, where the optional file upload capability is enabled, are deleted automatically once older than 24 hours, which is the tightest published file retention rule located in this pull. Prompts and answers are a different matter: they persist as Threads, which is a described product feature rather than an incident of storage, and no retention period for them is published anywhere. Removal is available rather than scheduled, through a request to a dedicated customer success manager or the security address, and the security page adds a right to be forgotten under which any client present or past can have all their data permanently erased with confirmation on completion. The privacy notice states only that personal data is retained as long as necessary and may survive termination for legitimate business purposes. Retention is therefore acknowledged, one narrow period is fixed, and the window that matters for prompts and outputs is left open.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
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.
Checked the home page, how it works, the pricing page and feature matrix, the security page in full, the Subscriber Agreement, the Terms of Use and the privacy notice on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes segregation between customers, between users inside a customer, or between matters. No tenancy or isolation statement appears anywhere, which is a notable omission on a security page that is otherwise the most detailed in this pull and covers encryption, access control, backups and subprocessors at length. What exists is adjacent and internal: least privilege and two-factor authentication govern Blue J's own staff access, and Workspaces are mentioned in passing as the unit across which email notifications support user collaboration, without any description of what a Workspace separates. Team plans offer custom access controls as a paid feature, which is stated as a line in the pricing matrix and nowhere explained.
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 privacy notice addresses compelled disclosure directly and then commits to notice before acting. It records that Blue J and its Canadian, US and other service providers and affiliates may disclose personal information in response to a search warrant or other legally valid inquiry or order, including lawful access by governmental authorities, courts or law enforcement, and then states that where disclosure of a customer's information is required by law or court order it will promptly notify the customer prior to complying, unless prohibited by law, and will co-operate with the customer on the response. Notice before rather than after, plus an undertaking to co-operate on the response, is at the stronger end of this value. It is not the top value because no transparency report was located: nothing published records how many such requests have been received or how they were answered.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The vendor names its primary law sources and the licence or public domain basis for each, with an update cadence.
Sources are named, the licensing basis is stated, and the update cadence is published, which is the full set. Blue J identifies its content as primary authoritative tax material together with Tax Notes and IBFD, and the feature matrix breaks it down into case law, primary source materials and secondary source materials curated by tax experts. The licensing basis is not left to inference: section 13 of the Terms of Use reproduces Tax Analysts' own terms, referring throughout to Licensed Content and the licensed materials, disclaiming warranties on the publisher's behalf, and committing the publisher to defend infringement claims, which is what a content licence looks like on the page. Cadence is stated twice, with the database of primary tax sources described as current and updated daily. Two limits belong on the record: no equivalent licensing statement was located for IBFD, which is named but whose basis is not set out, and no coverage dates or corpus size are published on any first-party surface.
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, how it works, the pricing page and its full feature matrix, and the Terms of Use on 2 September 2026. No public material addresses whether an authority the product returns is still good law. The nearest claims concern the freshness of the collection rather than the standing of any individual authority: the database of primary tax sources is described as current and updated daily, and the FAQ answers the recency question in those terms. Neither speaks to superseded regulations, revoked rulings, or decisions overtaken on appeal, which is the question this signal records. It bites here because the product retrieves case law, Treasury regulations and administrative rulings and presents them as the basis for a defensible answer.
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, how it works, the pricing page and feature matrix, the security page, the Subscriber Agreement and the Terms of Use on 2 September 2026. No current material describes what the product does when it cannot ground an answer, and no confidence or grounding indicator is described. One statement of abstention exists but not on any current surface: a company announcement issued in August 2023 quotes Blue J's head of legal research saying the platform is trained to admit when it is not able to formulate an answer supported by authoritative sources. That is a claim in a three-year-old press release rather than documented behaviour, and nothing on the site today repeats or elaborates it, so it is recorded here for a later grader rather than relied on. The current surfaces answer the adjacent question instead, offering the user tools to verify what was produced.
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 both the product name Blue J and the corporate names Blue J Legal Inc. and BJL US Inc. 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. One structural point: tax practice generates filings before the Tax Court and administrative submissions to revenue authorities rather than the general litigation filings that dominate the database, and the buyer base is largely accounting firms whose work product is often not filed by them at all, so the exposure this signal tracks is shaped differently here than for a litigation research tool.
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, how it works, the pricing page, the security page, the Subscriber Agreement, the Terms of Use and the privacy notice on 2 September 2026. No public material engages with professional guidance from any body governing this product's users. Neither ABA Formal Opinion 512 nor any state bar opinion is named, and no AICPA or state accountancy board guidance appears either, which matters because the named customer base is predominantly CPA firms whose AI use is governed by that guidance rather than by bar rules. Blue J does address the underlying professional obligation in substance, at section 7 of the Subscriber Agreement and section 12 of the Terms of Use, but as its own framing rather than by reference to the standards its users are bound by.
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.
Savings are claimed, quantified, and converted into money without the billing question ever being reached. The home page publishes three hours saved per user per week and 75 per cent less time spent on research, and the pricing page carries a calculator that turns a firm's headcount and research hours into recovered capacity, illustrated at 208 hours, 412,000 dollars of billable capacity and eighteen additional client matters annually, with the basis given only as average savings observed among Blue J users. Expressing the benefit in billable dollars puts the question squarely in view and nothing answers it: no published material addresses how AI-assisted work should be recorded, billed or disclosed to a client, and no per matter record of AI-assisted work was located. The point has force here because the buyer is a professional firm that bills clients for the time the tool compresses.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A current subprocessor list is published openly on the security page and it is the most complete located in this pull: thirty-one named legal entities with a description of each role and its location, covering the AI layer explicitly with OpenAI for large language model AI, Google for LLM and AI services, Microsoft for cloud AI services, Pinecone for vector database services and ValsAI for benchmark testing, alongside infrastructure and business tooling, and including both Blue J affiliates as subprocessors in their own right. Section 11 of the Terms of Use ties the list into the contract, taking the customer's general authorisation for the subprocessors listed at that address. The reason this is not the top value is the third limb: no forwardable client-facing disclosure pack exists, the SOC 2 report requires a signed non-disclosure agreement, and no data processing agreement is published, so the material a firm would hand to a client is available only in part.
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, how it works, the pricing page and feature matrix, the security page, the Subscriber Agreement and the Terms of Use on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses standing orders, AI use disclosure or any certification that citations were checked by a person. The product does produce an artifact a professional could keep, since answers carry inline citations and source lists and can be exported to PDF or Word, but nothing describes that export as a record of model use, and it does not capture which model produced which passage, what was retrieved, or who reviewed it. The obligation this signal tracks also lands differently in tax practice, where work more often reaches a revenue authority than a court, and the vendor engages neither setting.