B
Bounsel

Bounsel combines contract lifecycle management with an AI add on for document questions, summaries and clause extraction. Its Flow workspace turns Word, Google Docs and editable PDF templates into forms, using conditional logic to create agreements from the answers. Legal teams share these forms with colleagues, customers and suppliers, then manage approvals, comments, reminders and versions in a common repository.

Bounsel AI adds natural language processing to that workflow. It generates questions when a template is uploaded, summarizes an agreement and answers questions about its contents. The AI functions are available with Premium and Enterprise plans. Separate Sign and Ticketing products handle electronic signatures and incoming legal requests. API access, webhooks and Zapier connect contract activity with other business tools.

Founded in Valencia in 2019 by Pilar Prados and Marcos Sanz, Bounsel serves legal departments and business teams, with law firms also among its stated users. Customers include Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, Iryo and Forus. Its data terms allow structural contract information to improve the service, and its privacy policy explicitly describes internal AI training. Plans require a quote, with no current subscription amount shown.

Compared with

Bounsel, head to head

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

Build your own comparison

Capability grades

All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.

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

AI Centrality

How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.

Bounsel AI generates summaries, answers questions about an uploaded agreement and extracts clauses within the Flow contract workspace. Natural language processing also creates the questions for a form when a team uploads a template. The underlying application supports conditional document generation, approvals, comments, version management, reminders and repository filtering without requiring those AI functions. AI is purchased as an add on to Premium or Enterprise.

Sign supplies electronic signatures, and Ticketing handles legal requests separately. The combination places language models inside a broader contracting process, from gathering the information for a template to reviewing and organizing the resulting agreement.

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

Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure

Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.

The Q&A assistant works on the contract being reviewed, while automatic summaries condense that agreement and clause extraction isolates relevant text. Those functions give users a specific source file to examine beside the generated explanation. The product describes a custom language model and natural language processing, but does not show a retrieval method with linked passages, an accuracy test set or a citation checking process.

Section 4 of the service agreement also disclaims the accuracy and reliability of information produced through the software. Contract questions and summaries therefore remain distinct from verified legal research or a check of current judicial authority.

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

Autonomy and Oversight Model

What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.

Users build the templates, define conditional flows and request approvals before completing agreements. The shared editor supports changes, comments and version access, and the activity feed tracks the contract's progress. A guest receives a particular task such as reading, commenting, approving or signing, with access assigned by the inviting user. These review surfaces let a legal team control work that begins with AI generated questions or summaries.

The service agreement leaves responsibility for the resulting documents with the customer. No AI confidence threshold, automatic stop condition or correction route after an unsupported answer accompanies these workflow controls.

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

Operational and Outcome Evidence

Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.

Hospital Sant Joan de Deu describes using Bounsel in its legal department, including regular follow up meetings and support for resolving problems. Legal counsel Edith Alcaide Cano names two teammates and describes more than six months of use. Iryo and Forus also have named legal executives discussing contract organization and implementation. For the AI add on itself, Shakers cofounder Adrian de Pedro describes using its capabilities to analyze complex data.

Flow's headline claims include faster approvals and more completed agreements, but those figures are not tied to a dated study with a baseline and a measurement method.

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

Privilege and Confidentiality Posture

How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.

The service agreement restricts access to confidential information to users who need it for the contract and binds them to confidentiality. Its document access permission also allows Bounsel to analyze structural information to improve the service, while excluding personal or confidential information from its own purposes. The privacy policy goes further into the operation: authorized staff can access encrypted files to refine internal AI models, and document information can remain for improvement after personal data is deleted.

These commitments do not amount to a blanket prohibition on training. Privilege handling, model provider retention and enforcement of matter boundaries during AI retrieval are not specified.

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

UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture

Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.

Bounsel's service agreement describes a technological document management tool and limits its use to professional purposes. Customers remain responsible for the documents they create and for the consequences of using information from the software. The workflow gives legal teams templates, approval requests and collaboration tools to manage contributions from other departments and external guests. These functions support work supervised through the customer's contracting process.

The legal solution targets internal counsel handling employment, commercial and administrative agreements. No jurisdiction specific competence or supervision guidance accompanies the AI assistant, and the professional use restriction does not require every user to be a lawyer.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

AI Governance and Bias Disclosure

Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.

The company discusses accuracy, fairness and confidentiality as challenges when lawyers use AI. Its contract assistant is aimed at questions, summaries and extraction, while template controls and approval steps remain part of the broader Flow application. Bounsel also describes internally training models on contract patterns and limiting access to authorized staff. These statements explain its general approach to AI use and data handling, without a release evaluation method, a testing schedule or results comparing performance across contract types or populations. The named founders and product team do not come with an explicit assignment of accountability for AI governance.

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

AI Safety and Data Stewardship

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

The data processing agreement requires confidential staff access, equivalent obligations for subprocessors and notification of a known personal data security breach within 24 hours. At the end of processing, the customer chooses return or deletion of personal data, subject to mandatory retention. The privacy policy separately describes account deletion and the removal of personal data when a document is deleted, while retaining other document information for AI improvement.

Role permissions, encryption and SAML support access controls. A complete processor inventory, a retention period for AI prompts and outputs, and a schedule for deleting retained training information are not provided.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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.

Section 4 of the service agreement supplies the software as is and disclaims warranties concerning accuracy, reliability and fitness for a purpose. Customers are responsible for their use of generated information and for the documents they produce. The agreement excludes consequential damages and lost profits, with liability limited to the amounts Bounsel has received under the contract. It also promises diligent service and support for interruptions, rather than a remedy for a mistaken AI answer.

No separate output indemnity, financial recovery for an incorrect contract analysis or applicable insurance commitment appears in the customer terms.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Zapier links the contract workspace with storage, messaging and calendar applications. Bounsel describes moving files into Google Drive, Dropbox or OneDrive, sending contract updates to Slack or Teams, and adding milestones to Google Calendar or Outlook. API access and webhooks provide another integration route. A developer first creates a Bounsel account and organization, holds the Admin role and generates an API key in Integrations.

Word, Google Docs and editable PDF files can also become templates. These are business workflow connections; the available material does not describe a legal document system connector inheriting its permissions at AI query time.

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

Deployment Model and Data Residency

Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.

Flow is a hosted web application with a private customer workspace, user licenses and separately invited guests. The security page identifies AWS hosting in Ireland, while the homepage also names Google Cloud in Belgium. The privacy policy places stored documents in AWS and says personal data is not transferred outside the European Economic Area. Access uses the browser, with SAML available for larger deployments. The sources do not distinguish where each AI processing step runs from the storage location, nor offer a customer selected region, private deployment option or region schedule by plan.

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

Security Certifications and Trust Center

Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.

Bounsel states that it holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification. Its security controls also include encrypted connections, file encryption, role based access and SAML sign in, with AWS infrastructure in Ireland. Sign supports advanced electronic signatures under eIDAS, which addresses signing rather than the quality of generated contract answers. The security page does not expose the certificate's scope, issuing body, validity dates or an independent assessment report.

References to GDPR, PIPEDA, CCPA and OWASP describe compliance and security practices alongside the certification; they do not establish additional independent audits of the AI functions or the full service.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

Model Supply Chain Disclosure

Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.

The AI product uses a custom large language model and natural language processing for contract questions, summaries and clause extraction. Its research projects focus on Spanish legal language, and the privacy policy describes internal training to identify recurring patterns in customer files. AWS is identified for document storage, with Google Cloud also named on the homepage for infrastructure. Those hosting references do not identify the language model's underlying provider or production version.

No model inventory, separate inference location or commitment to notify customers before a model replacement accompanies the description of the custom model.

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

Commercial Transparency

Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.

Premium and Enterprise organize the current Flow offer, with unlimited templates and repository storage on both. Premium includes 1,000 automatically generated documents per account each year, while Enterprise removes that limit. AI, Sign and Ticketing are separate add ons, and AI requires one of these paid plans. Both plans route buyers to a sales conversation without a numeric subscription amount. The customer agreement describes user licenses and one or two year terms, with a month of notice before ending the relationship. Custom development and integration work is negotiated separately, and no fixed implementation fee is supplied.

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

Firm and Practice Coverage

Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.

Legal departments use the product for labor, commercial and administrative agreements, while HR, sales and operations teams can create contracts from approved templates. Sector pages cover medical, agrifood and financial organizations. Named users include hospital counsel and legal executives at Iryo and Forus, and the Flow FAQ also identifies law firms and consulting businesses among its users. Spanish language legal processing is a specific focus of the AI research projects.

The product does not define a jurisdiction by jurisdiction support matrix or claim a comprehensive legal research collection, and no explicit boundary lists unsupported contract types.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

6 public documents

The public pages on file for Bounsel, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.

Pricing

Price on request

  • Both current plans require a quote.
  • AI is an add on to the contract workspace.
  • Premium limits automatic generation to 1,000 documents per account each year.
  • Custom development and integrations can add costs.

Premium allows 1,000 automatically generated documents per account each year; Enterprise has no stated generation limit. Both include unlimited templates and storage. AI, Sign and Ticketing are separate add ons. AI is available with Premium and Enterprise, and neither plan carries a public subscription amount.

Implementation: Custom development, integration and other services are negotiated separately. No fixed implementation amount is given.

Confidentiality and data terms: Customer terms allow structural data use for service improvement; the privacy policy describes internal AI training.

Note: The current offer shows Premium and Enterprise. Older terms and product FAQs also refer to Free and Standard plans, so those are not treated as current purchasable offers. The agreement describes one or two year terms and excludes taxes from charges.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

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

Permitted, in the contract

The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.

Section 5(h) authorizes access to structural contract information to improve Bounsel Services, while excluding personal or confidential information from its own purposes. The privacy policy expressly describes internal model training and confidential staff access for improvement. It also retains document information after deleting personal data from a removed file. The agreement therefore allows an improvement use beyond processing the customer's immediate request, without an express training exclusion.

Source: Vendor Publishedto improve Bounsel ServicesAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Uploaded contracts remain in the repository, and the privacy policy describes removal of personal data when a user deletes a document. Other information from that document can remain to improve the AI system. The data processing agreement offers return or deletion of personal data when processing ends. Neither provision sets an in use retention period for prompts and generated answers or a zero retention setting for the AI assistant.

Source: Vendor Publishedonly retains the information in the documentAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Own model, documented

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

A customer receives a private workspace and assigns roles and permissions to its users. Guests gain temporary access to a specific document for an action such as reading, commenting, approval or signing, with rights set by the inviting user. These controls belong to Bounsel's own application. No connection to a law firm's ethical wall system or explanation of permission enforcement during AI retrieval accompanies that access model.

Source: Vendor PublishedClient’s private workspaceAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.

The service agreement permits disclosure required by an administrative or judicial authority or by law. Its privacy policy also covers judicial, administrative and Armed Forces requests, while the data processing agreement permits disclosures for legal obligations or public interest. None of those provisions commits to notifying the customer before a compelled production. Confidentiality and the separate breach notification promise do not supply that legal request notice.

Source: Vendor Publishedunless required by an administrative or judicial authorityAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

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

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

The assistant answers questions about the agreement a user is reviewing and creates summaries from customer supplied material. Templates originate in Word, Google Docs or editable PDF files, while the repository also accepts scanned contracts. Spanish legal language is a stated focus of the AI research projects. No licensed collection of cases or statutes is identified for the assistant, and its underlying model training sources are not listed.

Source: Vendor PublishedAsk questions about a documentAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

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

Not addressed

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

Bounsel's AI functions cover agreement questions, summaries and clause extraction. The surrounding workflow tracks versions, approvals, reminders and the status of a contract, rather than the treatment of a legal authority by later courts. No citator connection, negative treatment warning or current law verification feature is specified. A contract status or approval state therefore describes that agreement's workflow, without checking whether a legal proposition remains authoritative.

Source: Vendor PublishedGenerate executive summaries of the documentAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

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

The document assistant responds to questions about an agreement and supports review with summaries and extracted clauses. Product descriptions promise precise answers, while the service agreement disclaims their accuracy and reliability. Neither explains an explicit no answer response, an uncertainty indicator or an automatic escalation when the file provides insufficient support. Users can review the contract through Flow, but that review surface is not a specified refusal behavior.

Source: Vendor Publishedprecise Q&AAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

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

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

No court order or disciplinary record concerning fabricated legal citations from Bounsel appears in the AI Hallucination Cases database. Its assistant focuses on contract questions, summaries and clause extraction inside the Flow workspace. The database result does not establish an accuracy rate for those functions. Customers remain responsible under the service agreement for the information and agreements they use, including material produced through the AI add on.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordBounsel name and product search: no matching entry.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

Bounsel discusses accuracy, fairness, privacy and the training lawyers need to use AI. Its legal profession article distinguishes routine contract analysis from the more strategic work lawyers perform and describes the difficulty of adopting new tools. It does not map the product to a named bar opinion or a jurisdiction specific competence rule. The service remains restricted to professional use, with the customer responsible for generated agreements.

Source: Vendor PublishedAdapting lawyers and legal professionalsAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Savings claims only

Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.

Flow promotes faster contract creation and approvals, with headline claims of 53% time saved and 89% more completed documents per month. Legal departments and business teams are prominent customers, and the product also names law firms among its users. No client billing rule, adjustment of hours or AI work disclosure method accompanies those savings claims. Its contract activity feed tracks workflow rather than an identified record of billable AI assisted work.

Source: Vendor Published53%As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

The privacy policy identifies AWS as the platform storing uploaded contracts, and the homepage also identifies Google Cloud hosting. The data processing agreement requires auxiliary providers to follow equivalent data protection obligations and keeps Bounsel responsible for their compliance. Model providers and a complete current subprocessor inventory are not identified. No client facing AI consent pack or model change notification document accompanies the infrastructure information available to customers.

Source: Vendor PublishedAmazon Web Services (AWS)As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

The application records contract activity, versions, comments, approvals and signature progress. Those records help teams follow how an agreement moves through negotiation and execution. No export is specified that connects each AI passage to a model version, retrieved sources and a named human verifier for a court certification. Bounsel Sign's electronic signature controls concern execution of the agreement, rather than disclosure of the AI assistance used to prepare it.

Source: Vendor PublishedTrack the activity of your contractsAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

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

Index Status
Last index update
October 16, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746