C

CaseGlide

Three named products carry the AI work: Case Clerk AI turns defense counsel status reports into structured case facts, Chronicle AI assembles chronologies from the litigation record, and Chambers AI answers questions from the customer's own case history. Underneath them the published agreement describes matter management services for exchanging, monitoring, auditing and reporting on litigation with law firms, and ebilling services for invoice data, which are substantial products in their own right and would still run without a model.

Every fact Case Clerk AI extracts stays traceable to the report it came from, with the vendor's stated rule that nothing enters the file without a source; every Chronicle AI entry links back to its source document by page and line; Chambers AI answers cite the case files they draw on. The vendor argues the point publicly, telling buyers to test traceability by clicking any output and asking to see the document, and saying that explanations and benchmark scores are not sources. No accuracy rate, error rate or evaluation is published; the vendor says reliable legal AI shows sources, not scores.

Case Clerk AI may not put a fact in the file without a traceable source; Chronicle AI entries must link to a source document, page and line; and Chambers AI answers only from the customer's own case history and never benchmarks the customer against another portfolio. The platform as a whole does not predict verdicts or score outcome risk, which the vendor states repeatedly and explains as a design choice, on the basis that unverifiable inference is where fabricated output hides.

Each product does one narrow job that can be checked, the source trail is the review surface, and the vendor's own formulation is that the AI reads and the customer's team decides.

Ten carrier and enterprise marks appear on CaseGlide's home page, including American Integrity, Pure Insurance, Tower Hill, Velocity Risk and Schindler, under a claim of P&C carriers and Fortune 500 legal departments. No deployment is described and no customer is quoted. The numbers presented are explicitly aspirational, labeled as targeted reductions of 10 percent in defense spend, 5 percent in settlements and 15 percent in litigation volume.

The industry figure that frames them, 135 nuclear verdicts totaling 31.3 billion dollars in 2024, is market data. Every product screen on the site is labeled as a fictional matter or fictional firm.

The published terms, dated 12 August 2020, bind both parties to hold confidential information, including third party confidential information such as material from law firms, to use it only for the purposes of the agreement, to restrict access to personnel with a need to know, and to return or destroy it on termination. Compelled disclosure requires written notice to the other party first and a reasonable effort to obtain a protective order.

The security article adds safeguards for nonpublic personal information, encryption, access clearances and background checks. The live definition of Confidential Information still carries a drafter's parenthetical asking whether third parties, especially law firms, are covered. The vendor tells buyers to demand of any AI litigation vendor an explicit bar on customer data training models and a commitment to zero retention.

The published agreement contains neither, and reserves the right to use customer data in aggregated and anonymized form.

The published line is that CaseGlide makes the record legible and checkable and leaves the judgment with the customer's team. The refusal to predict verdicts or score outcome risk reinforces it, so the product informs a settlement decision without claiming to make it. The site also engages the professional duties around it at length, publishing guidance on the verification duty, on keeping client data out of consumer tools, and on how AI use bears on privilege.

Nothing published says who inside a claims or legal department may rely on an extracted fact without checking it, or how claims staff who are not lawyers and use the same file should be supervised.

Each product carries a stated constraint, the platform refuses outcome prediction as a design choice, and the vendor publishes a framework for the data handling terms to require of any AI vendor. Nobody is named as accountable for model behavior inside CaseGlide, nothing describes what is tested before a change ships, no evaluation results are published, and nothing addresses whether extraction quality varies by report style, firm or matter type.

In the agreement, dated 12 August 2020, CaseGlide commits to administrative, physical and technical safeguards and an information security program for nonpublic personal information under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, security clearances assigning specific access privileges, encryption of data collected, transmitted and stored, business continuity and backup, and background checks on personnel with access to customer data.

On a security breach it commits to notify the customer promptly, estimate the effect, specify corrective action, investigate and report. Alongside that, SOC 2 audit coverage is claimed with documentation available on request. No retention window is stated for case data during the term, no subprocessor list is published, and no model provider is named.

The terms, dated 12 August 2020, give a services warranty of professional quality with re-performance as the exclusive remedy, an intellectual property indemnity running from CaseGlide to the customer with defined remedies, a mutual liability cap at the fees paid in the preceding twelve months, a one year limitation period, and an insurance schedule including five million dollars of errors and omissions cover, five million of umbrella liability and commercial crime cover.

The general disclaimer expressly excludes any warranty of data accuracy, so nothing published covers a wrong extraction or a missed deadline in a synced file.

Syncing the case file back to the customer's claims system is presented as a defining feature on every page, and CaseGlide's site says elsewhere that it connects to accounts payable and ERP systems through APIs. No claims system, policy administration system or ERP is named anywhere, and no API documentation, connector list or implementation detail is published. The Council engagement is offered specifically as a way to get value without credentials or API connections.

Nothing published states where the platform runs or where litigation data is held. No hosting provider, region, tenancy model or residency option appears on any page or in the agreement; the only related commitments are business continuity, disaster recovery and backup capabilities in accordance with industry standard practices. The platform holds privileged defense counsel work product for carriers and Fortune 500 legal departments.

CaseGlide says it is SOC 2 audited, that security documentation is available to the buyer's team on request, and that it walks through it as part of every evaluation, under a heading that treats litigation data as privileged. The agreement backs it with substantive security obligations. No auditor is named, no report period or scope is published, and there is no trust portal. No Type 2 report or dates are stated.

CaseGlide's published guidance describes the two part answer any AI vendor owes: which foundation models it uses and under what enterprise terms, and separately how customer data is treated. CaseGlide describes its own AI only by what each product reads and produces: no model, version or provider is identified, nothing states where inference runs, and no commitment to notify customers when the models change is published.

No price and no unit of charge is published. The agreement sets out how commercial terms work: fees in an ordering document, net 30 payment, one year terms with automatic renewal and 180 days' notice not to renew, and late charges at one and a half percent a month. It never says what anything costs or what it is charged per. The site publishes a page on how to price matter management and ebilling software, including costs, without pricing its own. The Council engagement is described only as ten weeks and four to five hours of the customer's time.

Two buyers have their own pages: corporate legal departments, aimed at general counsel, VPs of litigation and legal operations running a litigation portfolio, and property and casualty claims organizations, aimed at claims and litigation leaders working litigated claims alongside a claims system. The subject matter is defended litigation of the kind that produces nuclear verdicts, and the published answer library maps the territory in detail, from venue and jurisdiction risk to counsel selection, billing guideline enforcement and settlement timing.

Nothing states which lines of business, matter types or jurisdictions the platform does not serve, or how it behaves where defense counsel do not report in prose.