C
CaseCreate
CaseCreate is a browser service for preparing litigation work, combining structured document assembly with optional AI drafting. A lawyer selects the required work product, supplies facts and researched law where needed, then exports and edits the result. Its menu includes pleadings, discovery requests and responses, motions, demand letters, subpoenas, jury instructions and appellate briefs.
The discovery suite adds a question database and objection responder. Practice checklists support preparation, while a file labeler converts and organizes material. ChatGPT and Claude power the generative functions. The service does not describe a linked legal research collection or a citation validation process accompanying every draft.
Founded in Dallas in 2021, the company previously used the CaseCrafter name. Its founders identify solo and small firms as the main audience, alongside independent paralegals, medium firms and insurance legal departments. Earlier expansion plans emphasized Texas before additional states. The current offer is one monthly subscription covering unlimited documents and matters. Registration terms still identify the operator as Case Crafter Inc. and provide general privacy and liability provisions, without specific rules for model training on client matter content.
CaseCreate, 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.
Alternatives to CaseCreate
Vendors in the same categories as CaseCreate whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- JJurisage TOA BuilderJurisage TOA Builder is a web tool that builds tables of authorities for briefs filed in United States courts.
- SSkribeSkribe is a deposition platform from Skribe, Inc. of Austin, Texas that records legal testimony without a stenographer and turns it into searchable material.
- SSmartDepoSmartDepo turns deposition transcripts into page and line summaries with hyperlinked citations back to the testimony, meant to be copied straight into motions and briefs.
- DDepositions by FilevineDepositions by Filevine is a remote deposition service and platform for attorneys, insurance carriers and court reporting firms, formerly sold as Parrot and now part of Filevine.
- AAI.LawAI.Law is a litigation platform for solo and mid size firms that combines drafting tools with a full practice management system, with roughly sixty named tools.
- CCasefleetCasefleet is case chronology and fact management software for litigators, operated by LAWPRCT, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, and sold to plaintiff and defense firms since 2016.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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.
CaseCreate uses ChatGPT and Claude to draft litigation work from selected options and facts supplied by the user. Its generated outputs include motions, demand letters, discovery requests and appellate briefs. Alongside that AI layer, the platform has a selection based drafting system, a question database, practice checklists and a file labeler. The founder describes AI as optional, with automated pleading creation remaining available through structured choices.
That combination makes generation central to several drafting tasks without making every function dependent on a model. The product is a litigation workspace with both automated assembly and generative drafting, rather than a standalone conversational assistant.
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.
CaseCreate describes its drafts as accurate and suitable for refinement, and asks users to provide the facts and law they have researched. That input can constrain a draft, but the public workflow does not show linked primary authorities, pinpoint support or a retrieval method that verifies generated assertions. No measured error rate, evaluation set or account of citation failures accompanies the accuracy claim. Its registration agreement also disclaims accuracy and reliability of results.
The discovery question bank and objection responder provide drafting assistance without explaining how each proposed objection is connected to current authority or a verifiable passage in the case file.
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 drafting sequence begins with a user's selection of a work product and, where needed, supplied facts and legal research. After generation, the lawyer exports and edits the result before using it. This creates a review step and leaves the final text under professional control. Practice checklists also guide preparation, while optional AI permits use of the selection based drafting functions. The public workflow does not describe a mandatory approval gate, a confidence threshold that stops generation or an escalation route following an incorrect draft. Nor does it identify an automatic filing process that would act on behalf of the lawyer.
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.
In its January 2026 founder submission for ABA TECHSHOW, CaseCreate reported approximately ten customers paying monthly subscriptions. That statement identifies paid use at a particular stage of the business, although it supplies no customer names, matter examples or retention figures. The current homepage promises faster drafting but gives no measured comparison against manual preparation. A visible disclaimer identifies some displayed metrics as illustrative placeholders, so those figures do not establish performance.
Its association partnership describes a market relationship rather than a measured customer result. The available account therefore supports a small paying customer base without a quantified improvement in litigation work.
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 privacy policy promises reasonable precautions against misuse or unauthorized access to personal information. It covers account details, transaction information and sharing with service providers. It does not separately define confidential matter content, attorney client privilege or work product, and it makes no explicit commitment against using client material for model training. The terms give broad reuse rights over comments and feedback, a category that is not clearly aligned with uploaded case material.
No matter segregation or model provider handling arrangement is described. General personal information protection therefore leaves the treatment of legal confidences and drafting inputs largely unspecified.
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.
CaseCreate presents itself as software for litigators and asks users to supply their own researched law for generated work. Its founder identifies solo and small firms, independent paralegals and legal departments as intended customers. The registration terms classify site material as general information and direct users toward primary sources, but do not expressly define the boundary between software assistance and legal advice.
They also do not require attorney supervision for independent paralegals or identify a professional license check. The Texas governing law provision governs the agreement rather than defining every jurisdiction in which the resulting work may be used.
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 public product description focuses on faster litigation drafting, structured selections and a final editing step. It does not set out principles for responsible model development, an accountable AI governance role or a release approval process. Named founders and a practicing lawyer on the leadership team establish company roles without assigning responsibility for evaluating generated legal work. No published testing program addresses differences across jurisdictions, document types or affected groups.
The general prohibited use provisions govern user behavior, including discrimination, rather than reporting how the models themselves are evaluated for uneven or inappropriate output in legal matters.
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 published privacy terms cover account data, browser information, consent, service providers and basic security precautions. Payment processing through Stripe receives specific treatment, including a statement about transaction data after completion. Those provisions do not give a retention period for legal prompts, generated drafts or uploaded case records. There is also no named incident notification timetable, legal content deletion procedure or inventory of infrastructure processors.
A user may withdraw consent for continued collection or disclosure, but the policy does not explain the effect on existing matter files or backups. The operational rules for the AI data lifecycle remain separate from the payment handling description.
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 service agreement broadly excludes warranties and disclaims liability for inaccurate results, service interruption and losses arising from use. The customer undertakes to indemnify Case Crafter Inc. and related parties for specified breaches and third party claims. No reciprocal provider indemnity, output accuracy warranty or insurance commitment addresses an erroneous pleading or missed legal issue. The agreement selects Texas law and Dallas jurisdiction, and permits termination in stated circumstances.
These standard terms allocate most use risk to the customer without publishing a specific remedy for defective AI work. They do not promise reimbursement for lawyer verification or correction of a generated filing.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
The platform operates as its own browser workspace, with users selecting a task, supplying information and exporting the generated draft for editing. No named connection to a practice management, document management, email or docketing system accompanies that workflow. The discovery labeler converts and organizes files, but that internal file function does not establish synchronization with a firm's existing repository.
Its partnerships concern legal practice and staffing rather than data connectors. An API, integration configuration guide and description of permission inheritance are not supplied. Moving work between CaseCreate and the firm's other systems is therefore described through user input and export.
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.
CaseCreate runs in a web browser without an installed desktop application. The customer creates an account and works in the hosted service, but the public material does not identify its cloud host, tenant arrangement or storage region. The privacy policy warns generally that external providers may operate in another jurisdiction, without naming the locations relevant to legal drafting. It does not distinguish where files are stored from where ChatGPT or Claude processing occurs.
No private cloud, customer hosted installation or regional selection is described. The Texas contractual forum does not establish the physical location of client material or model inference.
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.
The privacy policy states that reasonable precautions and industry practices protect personal information. Its specific standards discussion concerns Stripe and payment card handling under PCI DSS. That payment processing assurance does not establish an independent assessment of CaseCreate's legal drafting application or storage of case files. The public product and registration materials do not identify a SOC 2 report, ISO security certificate, assessor or application trust center.
There is no accessible scope or assessment period for an audit of the product itself. The distinction is between a named payment standard and assurance covering the legal content processed by the service.
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 current drafting workflow identifies ChatGPT and Claude as the AI technologies used to produce work. The founder's earlier product account also describes ChatGPT based generation alongside structured document assembly. These names disclose part of the model supply chain, while leaving the deployed versions, hosting arrangements and routing between providers unspecified. No published term commits to notifying customers before a model replacement or provider change.
Provider specific retention and training settings are also unstated. The workflow explains what the models do, but does not give a technical account of how client facts move between the application and those external services.
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 current offer is a single subscription at $199 per month, billed monthly and cancellable at any time. It includes unlimited drafting, documents and matters, along with the discovery suite, checklists, subpoenas, jury instructions and file labeling tools. The price is described as independent of seat count, with no additional tiers or fees. Browser access requires no local installation. A free trial is available without a public duration in the plan description.
The earlier founder submission quoted $150 per month; the current product page gives the applicable advertised figure. No separate implementation charge is presented within the inclusive offer.
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 founder identifies solo and small firms as the main audience, with independent paralegals, medium firms and insurance legal departments also targeted. CaseCreate supports civil litigation drafting through pleadings, discovery, motions, demand letters and appellate work, with a real estate attorney association partnership. Its January 2026 plan emphasized Texas first and described additional state specific features as future expansion.
The current product menu does not supply a jurisdiction by jurisdiction availability table. Nor does it distinguish every supported practice specialty or exclude consumer use through a clear eligibility rule. The work types are concrete, while geographic and professional boundaries remain incomplete.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for CaseCreate, 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.
-
case-create.com8 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Good Law Verification and 5 more
Read Oct 16, 2026
-
case-create.com/auth/register3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Oct 16, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 16, 2026
$199 per month
- The full platform costs $199 per month.
- Billing is monthly and cancellation is available at any time.
- Documents and matters are unlimited.
- The advertised offer has no additional tiers or seat charges.
One monthly subscription covers unlimited drafting, documents and matters, without a charge per seat.
Implementation: The inclusive offer states no fees and presents no separate implementation charge.
Note: A free trial is offered without a stated duration. The current $199 monthly figure supersedes the $150 monthly amount in the January 2026 founder submission.
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?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The registration terms and privacy policy do not specify whether legal inputs or generated drafts may train models. The agreement permits unrestricted reuse of comments, ideas and feedback, but does not clearly define that category as client matter content or establish a training right. The privacy policy's consent language concerns purchase information and secondary uses such as marketing. It does not create a comprehensive service only restriction on legal content.
No dedicated training prohibition, permission or customer control is stated for the ChatGPT and Claude drafting workflow.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
The policy describes payment information being used to complete a transaction and then no longer saved, but does not extend that statement to legal drafts or prompts. Case files, generated work, account history and backups have no published storage duration. Withdrawal of consent is possible for continued collection or disclosure, without a described deletion schedule for existing litigation material. Unlimited documents and matters in the subscription describe product access, not a promise that those records are either preserved indefinitely or erased immediately.
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.
Individual and organization account types are available at registration, and the product organizes litigation work by matter. The public workflow does not explain which users can view each matter, whether separate teams have isolated content or whether model retrieval is limited by those permissions. A common case workspace does not establish an ethical wall. There is no described inheritance of restrictions from a firm's external repository or procedure for revoking a team member's access to material already processed by the drafting service.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
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 privacy policy permits disclosure of personal information when required by law or following a violation of the service terms. It does not promise advance or subsequent notice to the customer, reserve a specific notice decision or describe a process for challenging an excessive demand. No transparency report accompanies the provision. The clause explains a circumstance in which information can leave the service, while the customer's opportunity to object and the handling of legal matter content under such a request remain unstated.
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.
Users can provide their own researched law and facts for drafting. CaseCreate also supplies a discovery question database, checklists and document assembly options, but does not identify the underlying legal authorities or rights supporting that material. No external primary law collection, licensing agreement or update schedule is named. The founder's Texas focus describes an intended market rather than a complete source inventory.
The public workflow therefore does not establish what legal material, beyond the user's own inputs and model knowledge, supports a generated argument.
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.
CaseCreate drafts from selected options and user supplied facts and law, without describing a service that evaluates the later treatment of cited cases. No commercial citator or proprietary subsequent history feature is named. The instruction to bring researched law assigns an input task to the user, but does not specifically require a good law check or show one inside the product. Discovery objections and appellate drafting may contain legal assertions; the public workflow does not explain how the continuing validity of their authorities is established.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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.
The generation workflow moves from selecting a document to producing and editing a draft. It does not describe an abstention response when the supplied facts are incomplete or the legal authority is unsupported. No confidence display, unsupported assertion warning or demonstration of a refused legal request accompanies the product material. The terms disclaim accuracy and reliability, which allocates risk without specifying model behavior. A final opportunity to edit the work leaves correction with the user rather than defining when generation itself stops.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
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.
Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database contains no matching entry for CaseCreate or its former CaseCrafter name as of October 16, 2026. The product generates litigation work with external AI systems, and its agreement disclaims the reliability of results. Absence of a matching judicial or disciplinary incident does not establish that all drafts or citations are accurate. The database records reported legal incidents, rather than providing a comprehensive evaluation of every pleading, objection or appellate argument generated through this particular service.
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.
The product is built around lawyers' drafting work and asks them to contribute their own researched law. Its public materials do not apply a named ethics opinion to competence, confidentiality, supervision or client consent. The general information disclaimer and final editing step describe use conditions without explaining professional responsibility requirements. Independent paralegals are among the founder's intended users, yet no separate supervision arrangement is described for them.
The real estate association partnership establishes a professional relationship, not a published mapping to bar guidance.
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, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
CaseCreate promotes shorter drafting time and a shift toward charging clients for completed work through flat fees. This addresses the business model of a law practice, but does not provide a per matter account of AI activity or a method for separating actual lawyer time from automated preparation. There is no concrete client disclosure template or guidance on treating the software expense in a bill. The stated monthly subscription is the firm's purchase price; the product's general flat fee message does not determine an appropriate fee for an individual engagement.
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.
ChatGPT and Claude power generation, giving a firm two relevant names for an initial account of its AI use. It does not provide a complete subprocessor register, model versions, processing locations or provider specific handling terms. The registration policy separately names Stripe for payments. No client consent wording or standard disclosure package connects these services to confidential legal work. The public names therefore expose part of the external AI arrangement without supplying a complete response to a client's information requirements.
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.
A user can export and edit the generated litigation draft, but the public material does not describe an accompanying record of the model, inputs, authorities or human verification. No court disclosure template or certification workflow is supplied. The practice checklists organize preparation without expressly recording AI provenance. Export of the final work product alone would not establish which passages were generated or which citations a lawyer independently validated. Any explanation of that process for a court would require information beyond the described drafting output.