C
Caseflood

Caseflood is an AI intake platform, sold with an advisory engagement, for plaintiff and consumer law firms that run their own intake teams. The firm's reps handle every conversation inside Caseflood's workspace, supported by predictive dialing, AI texting and immediate response to new leads, real-time AI call guidance, live case capture against the firm's own qualification rules, one-click retainers and AI-prepared call wrap-ups.

Leaders get call-level evidence, missed-case analysis, coaching tools and a way to ask Caseflood how intake is performing. Caseflood configures the platform with the firm and helps diagnose and improve its intake and marketing operation over the following months. The company is backed by Y Combinator. Pricing is not published.

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.

AI drives much of the work inside an intake workspace people run. Caseflood's AI makes dialing decisions, texts leads, guides reps in real time, captures and qualifies case details and writes call wrap-ups, and answers leaders' questions about performance. The reps hold every conversation, and the dialer, workspace, retainer tools and dashboards would still function without the models. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureNothing published on accuracy or grounding for a product that produces legal assertions, or a bare claim that the system does not hallucinate.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing is published on the accuracy of AI call guidance, captured case details, qualification or call summaries. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

People hold the conversations and the firm sets the rules. The site says the firm's intake reps handle every human conversation while AI supports dialing, texting, preparation, in-call guidance and follow-through; the firm defines which cases it wants and which matters need attorney review; reps can review and lock captured information; and firm judgment stays central to qualification and representation decisions. No limit is stated on what the AI texts to prospects on its own. Verified 22 September 2026.

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.

Named firms with results, on the clients' own account. The site features Schuerger Shunnarah Trial Attorneys, reporting about 300 more cases signed a month and 50 fewer lost after signing, and Lawrence & Associates, reporting a rise from 60 to 140 cases signed a month and speed to lead cut from about ten minutes to two seconds, with video testimonials from partners and reps. The results are labelled client-reported, with individual results varying, and are not dated or measured by a stated method. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureNothing published on how client confidences are handled by a product built to ingest them.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026, and the /terms address returns a missing-page error. No customer agreement or product privacy policy is published; the privacy notice covers marketing-site analytics only, and nothing addresses confidentiality of prospect and client data, model training or retention. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

Firm judgment is asserted without an advice line or caller disclosure. The site says the firm defines its qualification rules and which matters need attorney review, and that firm judgment stays central to qualification and representation decisions. Nothing states that Caseflood gives no legal advice, and nothing addresses telling prospects that texts or guidance are AI-generated or how call recording and consent are handled. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026. No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how qualification guidance treats different callers or case types was located. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on AI Safety and Data StewardshipNothing published on retention, deletion or access for a system that holds client documents.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026. Nothing is published on how prospect and client data is secured, retained, deleted or shared with subprocessors, or on incident handling. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and tried the /terms address on 22 September 2026. No customer agreement is published, so nothing states Caseflood's liability, warranties or recourse. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Practice Systems Integration DepthIntegrations are listed as logos or marked as coming, with no documentation an implementer could use.

Practice Systems Integration Depth

How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.

Integration is described in general terms. The site says Caseflood connects the intake workflow with lead sources, case systems, documents and partner processes, mapped during setup, and opens internal medical-referral tools in the workspace. No system is named and no connection is documented. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyNothing published on where the software runs or where client data sits.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026. No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026, and the /security address returns a missing-page error. No certification, audit or trust centre appears on the current site; compliance claims from a 2025 launch announcement are not repeated there. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on Model Supply Chain DisclosureNothing published about the model supply chain a customer inherits.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026. No model, model provider, inference location or change notification is named; the site says only that the platform is built to improve as AI models advance. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on Commercial TransparencyNo pricing information published at any level, including the unit of charge.

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.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026, and the /pricing address returns a missing-page error. No price, unit or tier is published; every route in is a free intake audit call. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

The buyer is described with substance, short of limits. The site addresses law firms already investing in leads with a dedicated intake team, with tools for reps, intake managers, COOs, CMOs and managing partners, and its clients are plaintiff firms working across many states; its audit form covers personal injury, workers' compensation, mass torts, medical malpractice, disability, employment, consumer, criminal defense and immigration practices. What firms or matters it is not suited to is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

3 public documents

The public pages on file for Caseflood, 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.

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?

No agreement published

No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026, and tried the /terms address. No customer agreement is published, and no page states a position on training models with prospect or client data.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Not addressed

No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026. Nothing states how long call recordings, transcripts, texts or AI summaries are kept.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

Checked the Product page on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses separating matters or users within a firm's intake workspace.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Not addressed

No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026. No term or policy addresses court or government requests for customer data.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026
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?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

Checked the Product page on 22 September 2026. Guidance follows each firm's own qualification rules and playbooks; no legal corpus is identified.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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.

Checked the Product page on 22 September 2026. The product does not cite legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for later treatment.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour

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

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.

The Product page says qualification support gives the rep either a clear answer on whether the firm can take a case or a clear reason to send it for attorney review, under rules the firm defines. No published evaluation shows how reliably this happens.

Source: Vendor PublishedGive the rep a clear answer—or a clear reason to get an attorney reviewAs of Sep 22, 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.

Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Caseflood, and no recorded case was returned. 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.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages on 22 September 2026. No material engages with lawyers' professional obligations around AI-assisted intake, solicitation or client communication, or names any ethics opinion.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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.

The site promises millions to tens of millions in additional attorney fee revenue from better intake and cites cases signed per month. Nothing addresses how the service's cost relates to client fees.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Not addressed

No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.

Checked the home, Product and Company pages and the website privacy notice on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material was located.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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.

Checked the Product page on 22 September 2026. The product supports intake calls rather than court filings, and nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026
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 303 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
September 22, 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