C

Casefleet

The AI layer is substantial and prominently positioned, and the vendor's own pricing table proves it is severable. The homepage runs under the label AI case management software and the features navigation opens with an AI-Powered group of seven entries, each with its own page: Casey AI Assistant, Agentic Workflows, Document Intelligence, Summarization, Entity Extraction, Document Organization and Proposed Facts. Against that, the published plan comparison shows the Starter plan at 30 dollars carrying none of it: document summarisation, semantic indexing, named entity recognition, fact extraction, natural language search, AI issue generation and AI credits are all marked unavailable on Starter and appear only on Advanced AI at 140 dollars.

A buyer can therefore purchase a fully working version of this product with no machine learning in it, which is the clearest severability evidence any record in this pull has produced. What remains on Starter is the 2016-era platform that the company built its name on: chronologies, timelines, outlines, document review, transcripts and reporting. The AI is a real and heavily marketed layer on a product that stands without it. Checked 7 September 2026.

Grounding is architectural here rather than asserted, and it is documented, but nothing measures it. Every fact in the chronology is linked to the source it came from, evidence citations are included on every plan including the non-AI tier, the assistant is described as returning answers with clickable citations linking directly to the user's source documents, and Proposed Facts arrive with a citation back to the source for each drafted fact.

That is linked source material the reader can open and check, which is what the middle band asks for, and the retrieval target is the case record rather than published legal authority. The agreement is unusually candid about the limits: the AI Features section states that the features may not be 100 per cent accurate and may contain errors, omissions or misinterpretations, that Casefleet makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any AI-generated output, and that beta or preview features should be used with heightened caution regarding accuracy and reliability.

What is absent is measurement of any kind: no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation, no error taxonomy and no described retrieval method beyond the citation link itself. Grounding to primary legal authority and citation status checking do not bite on a fact management product and are counted neither way. Checked 7 September 2026.

A written commitment to supervision plus a real review surface, short of the full control structure. The review surface is a hard gate rather than a policy statement: Proposed Facts are drafted by Casey and staged for the user, who reviews, edits and approves every one before it joins the chronology, and the product page for the assistant describes Casey setting up cases, proposing facts and organising files while the user approves every step.

The agreement reinforces it contractually, stating that AI-generated content and analyses are tools to supplement, not replace, professional legal work and human oversight, and that the user is solely responsible for reviewing, validating and verifying any output before relying on it. An activity feed records every change across a case and the platform applies audit logging. What holds this below the top band is the boundary around the autonomous mode.

Agentic Workflows are marketed as handing Casey multi-step case tasks, and nothing published states what an agent may do unattended, at what point it stops, what a user sees while it runs, or what happens after it acts wrongly. No confidence signal is described as surfaced to the reviewer. The agentic workflows feature page was not opened in this pass and is named as the artifact that could move this row; it is amendable on that evidence. Checked 7 September 2026.

Testimonials stand in for deployment evidence and no figures accompany them. Six customer quotations are published. Three carry a person's name and role but no organisation: Jason Shinn and Paul Fleming, both described only as Attorney, and Risa Beck, Paralegal Manager. The other three are attributed by state and role alone, being a South Carolina consumer protection lawyer, an Arkansas investigative paralegal and an Illinois criminal law attorney.

No firm or legal department is named anywhere on the surfaces read, no customer logos appear, no case study is published, and no operational figure of any kind is offered: no customer count, no adoption number, no time saved, no outcome measured. The one durable claim is longevity, that the company has been helping to win cases since 2016, which is a statement about the vendor rather than about a deployment. The quotations themselves are substantive and read as genuine practitioner comment, including one describing the chat feature as becoming a go-to legal AI, but a reader cannot assess any of it because no basis is stated. This grade records the shape of the evidence rather than doubt about the customers. Checked 7 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments, several of them AI-specific, short of vendor-side privilege treatment. The agreement grants Casefleet rights over customer data only for the purpose of providing the service and states expressly that it is for no other purpose. A confidentiality section binds both parties, and it carries an AI-specific clause: Casefleet states it implements technical and organisational measures to protect confidentiality when data is processed through AI Features, that its AI systems are designed to respect the confidential nature of legal work, and that it implements safeguards to prevent commingling of confidential data between different users and organisations.

Segregation is supported in the product by granular administrator control over which data is visible to which users, described on the security page as ensuring privileged and confidential information stays that way. Data is anonymised by UUID between infrastructure components, files are virus scanned, and on account deletion Casefleet undertakes to delete or destroy all copies of customer data in its possession unless legally prohibited.

Privilege and work product are named in the agreement, but as the user's compliance obligation rather than as a statement of how Casefleet handles privileged material, so the top limb is not met. One provision cuts the other way and belongs on the record: the warranty section states that the user bears sole responsibility for adequate security, protection and backup of their data, that Casefleet does not guarantee transmissions to third-party vendors will be encrypted, and that Casefleet has no liability for unauthorised access to or loss of customer data. Checked 7 September 2026.

A real published position on advice versus tooling, developed further than most records carry, held below the top band on two limbs. The agreement devotes a dedicated section to the question, headed No Legal Advice and No Attorney-Client Relationship, stating that Casefleet is not a law firm, that no attorney-client relationship arises from use of the platform including its AI Features, and that the platform and its AI are software tools rather than a substitute for the advice of an attorney.

Five numbered acknowledgements follow, and two of them address non-lawyer users directly: a user who is not a licensed attorney should consult one before making decisions based on information obtained through the platform, and a user operating in a capacity other than as a licensed attorney bears sole responsibility for obtaining appropriate legal counsel. The competence and supervision dimension is present too, with the AI Features section requiring the user to ensure their use complies with professional ethical obligations, naming attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and confidentiality requirements.

That treatment is deliberate and it matches a real exposure, because the vendor publishes use-case pages aimed at people handling their own matters, including VA disability claims, disability appeals, small claims preparation, custody documentation, insurance claim disputes and estate settlement. Two limbs are not established. Jurisdiction limits are addressed only obliquely, through an acknowledgement that AI output may be inapplicable to the user's jurisdiction, rather than by naming where the product is intended to be used.

And whether those consumer-facing pages themselves carry a clear disclosure could not be established: none was opened in this pass, and they are named as the artifact that would settle the top band. Checked 7 September 2026.

No governance disclosure was located, and the grade should be read against what the vendor does publish so the absence is not mistaken for general silence. The agreement does substantial AI work: it defines AI Features as a contractual term, devotes a section to their limitations, allocates ownership of AI output, and commits on training. All of that is disclosure about the product and about data handling, and it is credited on the axes where it belongs.

None of it is governance. Nothing published describes an AI policy, a responsible AI or ethics position, a bias or fairness assessment, model evaluation or testing of any kind, a named internal owner for AI decisions, or alignment to any governance framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. Nothing addresses how models are selected, assessed before release, or monitored in use, on a product whose agentic features act on litigation case files.

Surfaces read on 7 September 2026: the homepage and full features and use-case navigation, the Terms of Service in full, the pricing page and its FAQ, and the security page.

Stewardship is contractual and AI-specific, which is rare, and two gaps hold it below the top band. The agreement commits that Casefleet will not use customer data to train its AI systems without the customer's explicit consent, and separately states that Casefleet maintains a closed-loop system in which customer data is not used to train AI models. The data licence is purpose-limited in express terms, granted only to provide the service and for no other purpose.

Ownership of AI output is allocated to the customer to the extent it derives from their data, with Casefleet making no claim to it while retaining rights in the underlying technology. The confidentiality section adds AI-specific technical and organisational measures and a stated safeguard against commingling data between users and organisations. Security controls are described in unusual operational detail, covering encryption in transit and at rest, a virtual private cloud, virus and malware scanning of all uploads, daily backups, least-privilege employee access with revocation on termination, code review before release, and a published vulnerability disclosure route.

Two things hold it at B. The agreement discloses that AI Features process data through third-party AI services without naming any of them, so the buyer cannot see who is in the loop. And the warranty section undercuts part of the security position by stating that Casefleet does not guarantee that transmissions to its third-party vendors and hosting partners will be encrypted, and disclaims liability for unauthorised access to customer data. Checked 7 September 2026.

A published agreement with a stated cap and a real vendor-side indemnity, and no recourse at all for AI output. On the credit side, the liability cap is quantified rather than formulaic, limited to fees actually paid in the six months preceding the claim or five hundred dollars where no fees apply, with indirect and consequential damages excluded. Casefleet gives an intellectual property indemnity running in the customer's favour, undertaking at its own expense to defend infringement actions arising from use of the software within scope, with a right to procure, replace or modify, and a pro-rata refund if it cannot.

Price changes carry 30 days' notice, charges may be disputed within 60 days, and data is available for download for 30 days after termination. Against that, the AI-specific position is a complete disclaimer: the agreement states that Casefleet makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any AI-generated output, that the user is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying it, and that no output constitutes legal advice.

The service is provided as is and as available with all warranties disclaimed, there is no uptime commitment, no service credit and no cure period, and Casefleet disclaims liability for corruption, deletion or loss of customer data. A firm whose chronology is built on a wrongly extracted fact has a contractual remedy of nothing, capped at six months of fees in any event. Checked 7 September 2026.

No integration with any legal practice system was located on any surface read. The site has no integrations page, no partner listing and no developer or API documentation anywhere in its navigation, which covers features, use cases, pricing, resources and support. No document management system, practice management system, case management system, billing system, e-discovery platform or court filing system is named anywhere.

The agreement acknowledges the category in the abstract, defining Non-Casefleet Products as third-party applications a customer may use in connection with the platform whether or not Casefleet designates them official integrations, which establishes that the concept exists while naming nothing that occupies it. The agreement runs the other way on programmatic access, prohibiting users from using any non-public Casefleet APIs.

Single sign-on via SAML2 is offered on Enterprise plans, but that is authentication rather than practice-system integration and it is credited on security. The product is designed as a self-contained workspace, which is a coherent choice for a chronology tool, and this grade records the disclosure position rather than a defect: a buyer evaluating how Casefleet would sit alongside their existing stack has nothing published to work from. Checked 7 September 2026.

Neither limb is stated, which is what the band requires. The hosting provider is named plainly and repeatedly: all Casefleet infrastructure is hosted on Amazon Web Services and all customer data is stored there, with the security page linking to AWS's own security and data centre control documentation. Architecture is described at a level most vendors do not attempt, with infrastructure handling end-user data living entirely within a virtual private network engineered to expose only required components to the public internet, all other components reachable only over the private network, encryption required for internal as well as external communication, and daily backups retained for an extended period.

None of that answers either question this axis asks. No region or data centre location is stated anywhere, no residency option or commitment is offered, and nothing addresses where data sits for a customer outside the United States. Tenancy is equally absent: no statement describes whether the service is single-tenant, pooled or configurable, and the anonymisation of data by UUID between components is an internal design detail rather than a tenancy model.

No self-hosted or private deployment option was located. Naming the hosting provider identifies who runs the infrastructure, not where the data rests. Checked 7 September 2026.

Controls are described in detail and no certification of any kind exists. The security page is substantive and specific across five headings, covering application security with XSS and CSRF protection, signed cookie session management, rate limiting, audit logging, password hashing and malware scanning; network and storage security with TLS required internally and externally and encryption at rest; operations with automated security testing, mandatory peer code review, staging before release, daily backups and disk-encrypted company laptops with firewalls and network monitoring for engineers holding production access; account security with two-factor authentication, SAML2 single sign-on on Enterprise, granular permission levels and session tracking that alerts on concurrent logins; and physical security through AWS and key card office access.

A vulnerability disclosure route is published with a stated address, a request for reproduction detail and an ask for reasonable time before public disclosure, which is a responsible disclosure posture rather than a certification. What does not exist anywhere is third-party attestation. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no certification of any kind, no auditor or certification body named, no penetration test disclosed, and no trust centre or document portal.

The claim that every piece of code, infrastructure and operations is continually audited for security impact is an internal practice statement, not an external audit. HIPAA is addressed commercially rather than by certification, with the vendor stating it is HIPAA compatible and will sign a business associate agreement on annual accounts for an additional fee. Nothing unsupported is claimed, which is why this does not sit lower. Checked 7 September 2026.

The shape of the supply chain is disclosed and nothing in it is identified, which is an unusual combination worth stating precisely. The agreement tells a buyer more than silence would: it states that AI Features utilise multiple AI models and technologies from various providers to deliver functionality and that specific features may be powered by different underlying systems, and separately that when AI Features are used, data may be processed through various artificial intelligence systems including third-party AI services.

A reader therefore learns that this is a multi-provider architecture, that providers are external, and that the model behind one feature may differ from the model behind another. That is an honest description of the structure. What follows none of it is a name. No model, no version, no family, no provider and no infrastructure route for inference is identified on any surface read, and there is no subprocessor list, DPA or trust centre where such a list might otherwise sit.

Amazon Web Services is named as the hosting provider for all Casefleet infrastructure, which says where the application runs rather than whose model reads a client's case file, and it has been credited on deployment rather than counted a second time here. The result is that a firm can tell its client that several unnamed third parties process case material through AI, which is a disclosure that raises the question it does not answer. Checked 7 September 2026.

This is the most granular pricing disclosure located in the corpus, and it lands in the middle band because the top of the range is withheld. What is published without any sales contact: Starter at 30 dollars per user per month, Advanced AI at 140 dollars per user per month, a 22 per cent discount for annual payment, and a full plan comparison table setting out what each tier includes down to document limits of 20 per case on Starter against no limit above it.

The unit of charge is stated for every metered component, and so are the overage rates: optical character recognition at one dollar per hundred pages after 3,000 free pages per billed user per month, media transcription at six cents per minute after three free hours, document intelligence at one cent per page after 12,000 free pages, storage at ten dollars per gigabyte per month after five gigabytes included, and AI credits at one tenth of a cent per credit after 100,000 free credits per billed user per month.

Publishing an AI metering rate to that precision is rare enough to note. The agreement adds the billing mechanics: credits are allocated monthly, do not roll over, vary in consumption by feature, are non-refundable, and can be capped by the customer in settings, and AI Features are available only on usage-based billing. The trial is 14 days with no credit card and a stated 10-document-per-case limit. Two things sit against the top band.

Enterprise, for twenty or more users, is a custom quote. And the additions a buyer would meet on implementation are named as categories without figures: the HIPAA business associate agreement carries an unstated additional fee, bulk uploads above 1,000 files a day are quoted upfront, and Enterprise data migration is unpriced. Checked 7 September 2026.

Practice coverage is genuinely broad and set out page by page rather than asserted. Dedicated practice-area pages cover employment law, criminal law, personal injury, workers' compensation, family law, complex litigation and medical chronologies. Workflow pages cover case management, litigation management, investigations, cross-examination preparation, summary judgment and early case assessment, which is coverage by litigation stage rather than by subject matter alone and is the more useful cut for this product.

The vendor states it serves both plaintiff and defence firms, and two free tools support practice work directly: a litigation deadline calculator and a statute of limitations lookup organised by state and claim type. A further set of pages addresses individuals handling their own matters, covering VA disability claims, disability appeals, small claims, custody documentation, insurance disputes and estate settlement, which widens the audience beyond law firms.

What holds this at B is that the jurisdiction is single and the firm dimension is thin. Everything is United States practice, with the agreement governed by Georgia law and Fulton County courts holding exclusive jurisdiction, and no international coverage is claimed. On firm size, the only published signal is that Enterprise begins at twenty users; no segment statement, firm-size breakdown or named practice is published. Checked 7 September 2026.