AI Legal Index
Vendors · Litigation & eDiscovery

C
CaseMark

CaseMark turns a litigation record into the work product a matter needs, with each statement cited back to the page it came from. Structured Summaries sells deposition summaries, medical chronologies and trial and hearing summaries one at a time, from $25 and with no subscription. Workspace is a matter workspace for litigation teams, with chat across a matter's files, deep research, custom agents, tabular review and more than 880 legal skills, from $100 per user a month.

Insight Pass lets a user set the audience, side and purpose of a summary before it drafts. Source is a production and delivery platform for court reporting and litigation support firms. It packages certified transcripts, drafts exhibit indexes, cuts captioned video clips and runs a branded portal where clients order summaries. All three run on case.dev, CaseMark's platform of 18 services, which developers also buy directly.

About two thirds of inference runs on open weight models hosted in the United States, and the terms rule out training on customer data. Named users include Nelson Mullins, Ogletree Deakins and Fortz Legal Support. CaseMark AI, Inc. is based in Portland, Oregon, is backed by Gradient, Lerer Hippeau and Cambrian, and sells only in the United States.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

CaseMark, 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

Alternatives

Alternatives to CaseMark

Vendors in the same categories as CaseMark 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.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Deposition summaries come in analysis, index, page and line, and narrative formats, and CaseMark says a 200 page transcript comes back in under two minutes. Medical chronologies list each provider by date with diagnoses, ICD codes, medications and vitals. A firm can send examples of its own chronology format and get it back as a one click template.

Workspace adds chat across a matter's files, Deep Research, custom agents, persistent memory across conversations and matters, and Overtime Mode, which keeps researching and drafting after the first prompt. Tabular Analysis turns hundreds of documents into one table with a CSV or Excel export. In Source, models draft exhibit indexes, propose clip ranges from a plain language description of the testimony and answer questions across up to 50 transcripts.

Insight Pass sits in front of every summary. It reads the selected sources, asks three or four questions about audience, side, purpose and detail, and hands a plan to the drafting models. Quick Actions run one click summarize, research, timeline, organize and find tasks, and Organize proposes a file structure and naming for a matter. Workspace usage is metered in money against a monthly allowance, and larger tasks consume more of it.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Deposition summaries cite page and line and come as Word files or hyperlinked PDFs that open at the testimony. Every medical chronology entry cites its source page. Answers in Workspace's Explore view carry Bates citations, and Deep Research returns a synthesis with linked citations and a source list the user can review.

After any summary, Interrogate lets a user ask follow up questions across the whole deposition or record set, with each answer linked to the supporting page. For research beyond the customer's files, case.dev's citation service matches each cited case against CourtListener's database of about 10 million opinions. It returns verified, not found or multiple matches, with the case name, court and decision date.

No accuracy figure is published for any output. The terms warn that output may not reflect people, places or facts accurately and must be reviewed before anyone relies on it.

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.

In Source, the exhibit index starts as a draft that the court reporter edits, matches to matter files and approves. Clip ranges proposed from a plain language request come back with the matched testimony, a confidence value and warnings, and a clip is cut only once approved. The reporter keeps sole authority over the certified transcript, and Source prepares what surrounds it.

Summaries can be aimed before drafting through Insight Pass, and every output links back to its sources. CaseMark describes a chronology as an organized starting point whose dates, statements and conclusions still need confirming against the underlying records.

At the platform layer, case.dev tracks each unit of agent work as a work item that a person approves or blocks with a stated reason. Its privilege detection service returns a review recommendation, calling for attorney review, on ambiguous documents.

Two modes run with no person in the loop. Overtime Mode keeps researching, drafting and revising after the first prompt, and the Operator handles recurring tasks it has learned through email, Microsoft Teams and text messages. Neither has a stated limit on what it may do unattended.

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.

Ogletree Deakins, Nelson Mullins and Pathway are named as users of CaseMark's platform, and CaseMark counts more than 7,000 attorneys among its users. Fortz Legal Support, a Michigan court reporting and litigation support firm, ran one deposition through several summary vendors alongside peer agencies before choosing CaseMark. After one summary for a client, that client's partner asked for summaries of every remaining deposition in the case, and Fortz now sells summaries as a service.

A September 2026 post reproduces one month's usage report from an unnamed mid sized insurance defense firm, for 12 August to 11 September. It shows 38 practitioners working 98 litigation matters, 155 deliverables, 1.25 million pages loaded and 841 attorney hours saved, for a flat $3,500 a month. CaseMark values those hours at about $106,000 on the firm's blended rates and calls that an assumed value. A medical malpractice insurer is described as saving $5 for each $1 spent across 300 panel firms in 36 states.

The solutions pages quote results such as 90 percent less document review time for small firms and $11,500 in average savings per case for insurers, without a basis.

In the Chock Barhoum LLP story, two weeks of document review shrank to minutes. The partner it features, Sarah Tuthill-Kveton, is also CaseMark's Chief Legal Officer.

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.

Training on customer data is ruled out in the terms, and the security page says documents, transcripts and work product remain the customer's. Under the terms, the customer keeps ownership of uploaded data and any interest in the output.

Inside a firm, each matter is shared with read or write permission, and a Document Manager seat covers file work without chat or billing access. Custom agents are scoped to the organization, a matter or one person. CaseMark describes the platform as tenant isolated with no commingling of customer data, and Enterprise adds dedicated compute and isolated inference pools.

Model providers sign BAAs with CaseMark, and the case.dev gateway serves Anthropic's models from a zero data retention workspace. CaseMark says the architecture itself protects privilege, through tenant isolation, encryption and audit trails. No published policy covers privilege or work product in what the models see or produce.

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.

A No Legal Advice clause in the terms says CaseMark does not practice law, that text from its AI tools is for information only, and that no attorney client relationship forms. Users must be 18 or older and may not present output as written by a person. The service is offered only to people in the United States, and personal data covered by the GDPR may not be uploaded without CaseMark's consent.

The products are sold to lawyers, paralegals and litigation support staff rather than to the public. Medical chronologies are described as built for legal team review and not as a substitute for medical or legal judgment.

No published material sets out how the product supports a lawyer's supervision of the work it produces.

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.

A September 2026 post by CEO Scott Kveton sets out what CaseMark weighs when it chooses a model provider. The factors are retention, the reach of a BAA, training terms a provider can change, and dependence on one vendor. In July 2026 CaseMark signed the Open Weights and American AI Leadership letter. Its CEO argued that a model a vendor hosts itself cannot be withdrawn, repriced or quietly retuned under a customer.

The agent layer is open to inspection. Linc, CaseMark's terminal agent, is MIT licensed and built on the open source pi agent framework. Its legal skills follow an open standard published through agentskills.legal, and custom skills a firm commissions are portable to other platforms.

No results from testing its summaries or models are published.

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.

Customer data is kept for 30 days or for the length of the agreement, then destroyed through a process CaseMark says follows ISO standards. Users can delete a file and its chat themselves, and deletion on request is also offered. Access follows least privilege, with user roles, SAML single sign on and multifactor authentication required on every account. Every user action and system event is logged.

Data is encrypted with 256 bit AES at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. External penetration tests run every year, vulnerability assessments every quarter and dependency updates daily. Staff pass background checks and annual security training. CaseMark publishes more than 130 security controls with their status, among them disaster recovery plans tested each year and cybersecurity insurance. A public status page reports uptime and outages, and payments run through Stripe.

No commitment on breach notice to customers is published.

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.

The terms of service, last updated 1 October 2026, cap CaseMark's total liability at $100, and more than one claim does not raise the cap. Lost profits, lost data and indirect damages are excluded. The service is provided as is, with warranties of accuracy and noninfringement disclaimed, and any warranty the law requires lasts 90 days. CaseMark's suppliers carry no liability under the same clause.

The indemnity runs from the customer to CaseMark, covering use of the service, uploaded data and breaches of law or of the terms. No indemnity runs the other way, and wrong output carries no remedy. Enterprise customers sign a separate agreement on top of these terms, and that agreement is not published.

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.

Inside Workspace, files arrive by upload and leave by download or by saving back to the matter. CaseMark's own comparison with Harvey lists practice management connectors as coming soon in the product.

The case.dev platform underneath publishes connectors in depth. Clio Manage is generally available. It imports matter documents, communications and tasks into a vault and exports work product to a CaseMark Output folder in Clio. Two way sync keeps documents from each side separate and halts on conflicting edits instead of overwriting either. Google Drive needs enablement and Box is in preview, and change detection, rate budgets and reconnection are set out for each provider.

Developers reach the platform through an API with SDKs for TypeScript, Python and Go, a command line tool, signed webhooks and an MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot. Source exports the litigation support formats that trial software reads, including MDB, PTX, LEF and SBF.

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.

Customer data sits in AWS and Azure in the United States. The trust center adds that it can be stored in other countries when a customer needs that. CaseMark hosts its open weight models in the United States.

Isolation rises by tier. The standard service isolates each tenant, and Enterprise adds dedicated compute and isolated inference pools. Sovereign Legal AI on case.dev offers CaseMark Core on a dedicated GPU cluster, dedicated instances of frontier models, or a managed deployment inside the customer's own AWS, Azure or Google Cloud account.

The processing location for closed models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google is not stated. When OpenAI is down, the gateway routes requests to Azure or Bedrock.

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.

A SOC 2 Type II report and HIPAA compliance are stated. The trust center, built on Vanta, lists the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a statement of HIPAA compliance as documents released through a request form. The same center shows more than 130 controls across infrastructure, organizational, product and internal security, each with its status.

The report itself, with its auditor and period, sits behind that request form.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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 case.dev gateway offers CaseMark's own Core Large, Core Titanium, Core Mini and Embed V1 models. It also offers OpenAI's GPT-6.1 Sol, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna, Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5, and Google's Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.8 Flash. Workspace lets a user pick from more than 100 models, with a cost multiplier shown for each.

By its CEO's account, about two thirds of CaseMark's inference runs on open weight models, and its embedding service runs a self hosted open weight model. Anthropic's models are off by default in Workspace and are switched on for firms that ask. Insight Pass uses a reasoning model to plan each report and lighter models to draft it.

No commitment covers telling customers when a model or provider changes.

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.

Summaries are sold one at a time with no subscription, at $25 for a legal summary. A medical chronology costs $25 plus $0.01 a page, capped at $100 for one record set of up to 25,000 pages. Transcription costs $5 an hour with a $5 minimum.

Workspace starts with a free trial for one user with $5 of usage and no card. Pro is $100 per user a month with $100 of included usage, billed monthly with no annual term. Work beyond the allowance draws on prepaid on demand usage at a 30 percent premium, capped by a team spend limit. Document Manager seats are $20 a month, and a BAA plan starts at $200 per user a month with two custom workflows per firm.

Teams, for two to ten users, and Enterprise are quoted. So is Source, which is priced on the certified packages, workflow runs and clips a firm produces. The case.dev developer platform passes model costs through at provider rates and opens with $10 of free usage.

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.

Workspace is sold to solo and small firms, mid sized firms and Am Law scale teams, with in house teams named among its intended buyers. Source serves court reporting and litigation support firms. The solutions pages cover litigation, personal injury, corporate, regulatory and compliance, real estate and family law, plus insurance carriers on the defense side.

The workflow library follows that spread, with 663 litigation, 279 transactional, 182 regulatory, 139 corporate and one family law workflow. Record types include depositions, medical records, pleadings, contracts, recordings, and trial, hearing, arbitration and mediation transcripts.

Service is limited to the United States, and the Clio connector supports only Clio's United States region. CaseMark's own comparison names bulk review at Vault scale and the breadth of research sources as areas where Harvey is stronger. CaseMark runs monthly Workspace training, with a recorded session aimed at insurance defense. Government buyers are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

9 public documents

The public pages on file for CaseMark, 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

From $100 per user/month

USD, as published, never converted
  • You can buy one summary at a time, from $25, with no subscription.
  • A medical chronology costs $25 plus $0.01 a page, and never more than $100 for up to 25,000 pages.
  • Workspace costs $100 a month for one person, with $100 of AI use included.
  • You can try Workspace free with $5 of AI use and no card.
  • Team, enterprise and Source prices are only given if you ask.
Source: Vendor PublishedWhich legal AI vendors publish their pricing →

CaseMark sells three ways. Structured Summaries are pay as you go with no subscription, at $25 per legal summary. Medical chronologies cost $25 plus $0.01 a page, capped at $100 for one record set of up to 25,000 pages, with larger sets quoted. Transcription is $5 an hour with a $5 minimum, and Insight Pass guidance comes with every summary.

Workspace is priced per user per month. The free trial covers one user with $5 of one time usage and needs no card. Pro is $100 with $100 of monthly included usage, billed monthly with no annual commitment. Teams, for two to ten users, and Enterprise are quoted and share one usage pool. Usage beyond the allowance draws on optional prepaid on demand usage at a 30 percent premium, capped by a team spend limit. Document Manager seats are $20 a month.

Source is quoted and priced on certified packages, workflow runs and clips rather than seats. Developers on case.dev pay provider cost, with $10 of free usage to start.

Under the terms, subscription prices change only at the next term, with 60 days written notice. Pay as you go purchases are non refundable, late balances carry a 1.5 percent monthly charge, and no uptime guarantee is offered.

Implementation: Not stated. Enterprise includes concierge support, onboarding and a dedicated success manager, and enterprise engagements include custom skill development, with no separate fee published.

Confidentiality and data terms: A business associate agreement is available on Workspace from $200 per user a month, including two custom workflows per firm. No data processing agreement is published.

What changed

Tracked changes at CaseMark

Oct 19, 2026Privilege / confidentialityVerified

CaseMark relaunched its Operator agent as Para and split confidentiality protection by plan. The $20 per seat Standard plan runs on a low cost model whose provider may use what it is sent to train its models, and CaseMark tells firms to choose Pro for confidential client work. The $100 per seat Pro plan offers a choice of models, including frontier models, all with zero data retention, and a BAA is available on annual Pro.

Bears on: Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSource
Every tracked change for CaseMark →

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?

Never, in the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

The content section of the terms of service, updated 1 October 2026, licenses uploaded data to CaseMark only to provide the service. It states that CaseMark does not use customer data to train its AI models or sell it to third parties. The security page repeats that CaseMark never trains models on customer data, and the trust center adds that summaries and conversations are not shared with AI providers for training. Conversation threads are kept only to give context to follow up questions in a session. The terms make any feedback a user sends CaseMark's property and name no carve out for aggregated or deidentified data.

Source: Vendor PublishedWe do not use your data to train our AI modelsAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

The terms set retention at 30 days, after which customer data is deleted, and enterprise customers can arrange longer retention. CaseMark also keeps data for the length of an agreement and destroys it at the end of that period or on request. Users can delete any file with a trash icon, which also removes its chat, and conversation threads can be deleted at any time. Workspace also keeps a persistent memory of facts across conversations, users and matters.

At the model layer, the case.dev gateway describes zero retention agreements with major providers, while CaseMark notes that Anthropic now keeps data from its newest models for 30 days.

Source: Vendor Publisheddelete data by clicking on the trash icon next to each fileAs of Oct 12, 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.

Workspace keeps its own permission model. Owners and admins assign roles, share each matter with read or write permission, and give support staff Document Manager seats limited to files. Custom agents are scoped to the organization, a matter or one person, and every user action is logged. On case.dev, a matter owner can grant another organization scoped access to a single matter and revoke it later. Vaults on case.dev can be grouped, with API keys scoped to one group.

In Source, a firm targets each delivery to an organization, group or individual and manages its clients' users and groups. Where a firm allows it, clients add their own files to a matter and share selected ones back.

Source: Vendor PublishedUser roles and permissions restrict access to sensitive dataAs of Oct 12, 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 privacy policy, updated 1 October 2026, says CaseMark may share information in response to legal process, including lawful requests by public authorities. The information it covers includes personal information inside the files customers upload. Personal information may also go to subsidiaries, affiliates and service providers bound by confidentiality terms. Neither the policy nor the terms of service say whether the customer is told about such a request.

The same policy says a sale of the business would never disclose the private customer data uploaded to the platform, and that an account assigned to an authorized reseller comes with notice to the customer.

Source: Vendor Publishedincluding lawful requests by public authoritiesAs of Oct 12, 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.

Summaries and Workspace answers draw on the files a customer uploads. For legal research, case.dev draws case law from CourtListener's database of about 10 million opinions. It adds federal court dockets, SEC EDGAR filings, and United States patent and trademark records from the USPTO. Patent lookups cover applications and granted patents, and trademark lookups run against the USPTO's status system. Deep Research in Workspace runs research in several phases and returns memos with linked sources. CaseMark does not say on what terms it uses these sources.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 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.

case.dev's citation service confirms that a cited case exists in CourtListener and returns verified, not found or multiple matches, with the case name, court, decision date and parallel citations. The result carries no record of how later courts treated the case, such as reversal or overruling. Other endpoints parse Bluebook components from text and pull every citation from a document at a web address. The documentation tells builders to verify a source before citing it.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

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.

Workspace answers and summaries cite their sources, so each statement can be followed back to the record, and deposition summaries embed the full transcript beside the summary. Source drafts exhibit indexes only from exhibits introduced, marked or admitted in the transcript, and it attaches warnings to the clip ranges it proposes. The case.dev privilege service returns a review recommendation for ambiguous documents. No behavior is described for a question that the uploaded record cannot answer.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming CaseMark or case.dev. CaseMark's products summarize depositions, medical records and other case files for litigation teams and court reporters.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Named guidance addressed

Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.

An October 2025 customer story on Chock Barhoum LLP cites American Bar Association Rule 1.1 on competence in relevant technology. It quotes partner Sarah Tuthill-Kveton's view that refusing to use AI could itself be an ethics violation. The same story presents SOC 2 Type II audits and HIPAA compliance as the answer to confidentiality concerns about AI. No ethics opinion is tied to a CaseMark feature.

Source: Vendor PublishedUnder American Bar Association Rule 1.1, attorneys must maintain competence in relevant technologiesAs of Oct 12, 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.

Each customer gets a monthly one page report of hours saved and deliverables produced. A September 2026 post built on one such report says much of the saved time at an insurance defense firm would otherwise have been billed to a carrier. It adds that a firm getting hours back must choose whether to bill them elsewhere, take on more matters or hire fewer people. The same post says a major insurance carrier will require AI on matters across its defense panel of about 300 firms from January 2027, and that CaseMark is on that carrier's list.

Workspace bills a flat fee per user or per firm. Source lets a court reporting firm set its own client price for each summary or clip it sells. No guidance on fee treatment or client disclosure is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

On request only

The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.

SIG Lite 2024 and CAIQ questionnaires, penetration test summaries and attestation letters are available on request. The trust center releases the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a HIPAA statement through a request form. CaseMark states it acts as a processor of the customer data it handles. Its trust center FAQ answers common questionnaire items on hosting, retention, deletion, single sign on and the API. Employees and contractors sign confidentiality agreements, and new hires pass background checks. No subprocessor list is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

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

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Every summary cites page and line or source page, Workspace answers carry Bates citations, and users choose the model that runs a task. The platform logs every user action and system event. On case.dev, a matter's history of work items, decisions and notes exports as JSON, CSV, TSV or JSONL, up to 10,000 entries a request. Logs take manual notes as well, and exports are offered for audits and evaluation pipelines. Source records whether each delivered file has been viewed, downloaded or discussed by the client. No single export brings these together for one document.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 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 19, 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