CaseMark
CaseMark reads a matter's record and produces the document the matter needs, citing back to source. It is organised as three products around a shared platform. Workspace is a matter workspace where teams chat, research and draft against their own files, with access to more than 880 legal agent skills. Structured Summaries produces deliverables by record type, including page-line, narrative and analysis deposition summaries and cited medical chronologies. Source handles branded file delivery and matter intelligence for court reporting and litigation support businesses, covering transcript bundles in twelve formats from one certification pass, deposition video synchronisation with captioned clips, audio and video transcription, and document translation. Underneath sits case.dev, an API layer exposing eighteen services with public developer documentation for firms building their own legal software. The terms of service state that customer data is not used to train CaseMark's models and set a published retention period of thirty days after which data is permanently deleted, with extensions available to enterprise customers. Data is stored in the United States across AWS and Azure environments, the platform is SOC 2 Type II audited and HIPAA compliant with a BAA available on enterprise plans, and single sign-on and multi-factor authentication are required on all accounts. Workspace Pro is published at 100 US dollars per user per month including 80 dollars of AI credits, with team and enterprise tiers quoted. CaseMark AI, Inc. is based in San Francisco and sells to the United States only.
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.
The models are the mechanism and also the unit of charge. Workspace bills 100 dollars per user per month including 80 dollars of AI credits, with additional usage billed at market rates, so a customer is paying for inference directly. Access to more than 880 legal agent skills is the headline entitlement, the positioning is agent-native legal work, and case.dev exposes the same capability as eighteen API services. Remove the models and what remains is file storage and delivery. Checked 4 September 2026.
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.
Grounding is real and documented as a product property rather than a slogan. The platform is described as reading every page and drafting the document the matter needs while citing back to the source, deposition summaries are offered in page-line format, and medical chronologies are described as cited timelines from the records. Failure is acknowledged in the agreement rather than only in marketing: the content accuracy clause states that use of the Service may result in Output Data that does not accurately reflect people, places or facts and should be checked, and requires review for accuracy, incorrectness, completeness and offensiveness before reliance. What is missing is measurement. No accuracy figure is published anywhere, no test set is described, no evaluation is linked, and the vendor names no specific failure mode of its own beyond the general acknowledgment.
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.
Autonomy is claimed at scale and oversight is asserted without a mechanism. The product promises to go from gigabytes of discovery to a motion for summary judgment in under an hour, offers more than 880 agent skills and 880 workflows, and a published testimonial describes a transcript dropped at 9pm and a finished summary sent to a partner in the morning untouched. Against that the only oversight statement is the agreement's instruction that the customer should review and evaluate Output Data before relying on it. Nothing published describes what runs unattended against what a person approves, no threshold is stated, no review surface inside the product is named, and nothing addresses what happens after an output is wrong. Searched the home page, the pricing page, the security page and the terms of service on 4 September 2026; the workspace, solutions and workflows pages were not opened.
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.
Real deployment evidence with substance, short of measurement. Named customers span law firms and enterprises: Nelson Mullins, Ogletree Deakins, Pathway Law Firm, Planet Depos and Fortz Legal Support on the legal side, and Accenture, PwC, Apple, MLB and Google as enterprise logos, with a stated base of more than 7,000 attorneys and customers. One testimonial is fully attributed with an operational account rather than a platitude: Collin Ritsema, Chief Operating Officer of Fortz Legal Support, describing a 400-page transcript submitted at 9pm and returned by morning cited and formatted, and passed to a partner without editing. What holds this at B is that no figure is attached to any named customer, nothing is dated, no case study is published, and the enterprise logos are presented as customers without any indication of which product or scale of use.
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.
Substantive published commitments across most of what this axis asks, with two clear gaps. Training is prohibited in the agreement itself, which states that customer data is not used to train the company's AI models or sold to third parties, and the security page repeats it without qualification. Retention and deletion are the strongest part and are unusually specific for this market: customer data is retained for thirty days and then permanently deleted from systems, with extended retention available to enterprise customers on request. Access control is documented through least privilege by default, roles and permissions restricting access to sensitive data, and single sign-on with multi-factor authentication required on all accounts, alongside AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit and comprehensive audit logging. Isolation is asserted and, at enterprise tier, offered as dedicated compute with isolated inference pool options. What is absent is privilege and work product treatment, which appears nowhere on a product ingesting depositions and medical records, and any position on what a model provider may retain, since no model provider is identified at all.
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.
A real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of the full treatment. The agreement carries a dedicated No Legal Advice clause stating that the company does not provide legal advice and is not engaged in the practice of law, that content generated through its artificial intelligence tools is for informational purposes only, that no attorney-client relationship is established, that the services do not cover all legal situations, and that the reader should seek advice from a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction. That is more than a boilerplate footer. Jurisdiction limits are addressed twice and unusually plainly, with the service offered for use only by persons located in the United States and a restriction on transferring GDPR personal data without consent. Users must be at least 18. A separate restriction prohibits representing Output Data as human-generated when it is not, which is a professional honesty provision most vendors omit. What is missing is the competence and supervision dimension: nothing addresses the professional duties a lawyer owes when using the tool, and no rule of professional conduct or ethics guidance is named.
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.
No governance position is published for a system that drafts filings from the case record. There is no responsible AI statement, no governance framework, no named owner accountable for model behaviour, no description of pre-release evaluation or testing of output quality, no published results, and nothing whatever on bias or uneven performance across record types, matter types or populations. The nearest published sentence is the agreement's assurance that the service is continuously updated and improved to ensure reliability and accuracy, which is an aspiration rather than a mechanism. The security estate is substantial but answers a different question: penetration testing, vulnerability assessment and audit logging are security controls, not model governance. Searched the home page, the security page, the pricing page, the terms of service and the privacy policy on 4 September 2026.
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.
Substantive published policy covering most of the ground. Retention is a stated period rather than a gesture, at thirty days followed by permanent deletion, with enterprise extensions on request. Access control is specific: least privilege by default, roles and permissions over sensitive data, single sign-on and multi-factor authentication required on all accounts, AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.2 in transit, and comprehensive audit logging of all user activities and system events. Testing cadence is published rather than asserted, with annual external penetration testing, quarterly vulnerability assessments and daily dependency updates, alongside background checks and annual mandatory security training for all employees. Some suppliers are named, being AWS and Azure for hosting and Stripe for payment processing at PCI Level 1. Two elements of the set are missing: no incident or breach notification practice was located anywhere, and no subprocessor list covering the AI layer is published. The privacy policy that would ordinarily carry the first was last updated 23 July 2024.
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.
Liability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates. The cap is the striking feature: cumulative liability for any damages arising from or related to the site, platform or services is limited to a maximum of one hundred US dollars, with the agreement stating expressly that more than one claim does not enlarge the limit. The service is provided as-is and as-available with all warranties disclaimed including accuracy and non-infringement, and no uptime guarantee is offered. The indemnity runs in one direction only, from customer to company, with no intellectual property or any other indemnity given to the customer. No insurance position was located. What keeps this off the floor is that the allocation is published, specific and readable before signing rather than absent; a buyer can establish exactly what recourse exists, and the published answer is one hundred dollars.
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.
Connectivity is published as a platform layer without any named practice system behind it. case.dev is presented as the infrastructure everything CaseMark runs on, available as an API across eighteen services, with public developer documentation at docs.case.dev, and Source is built to deliver files into court reporting and litigation support workflows with branded client portals. That is real integration surface. What is absent is the thing this axis asks for: no document management system, case management platform, e-discovery tool, word processor or e-signature product is named anywhere on the surfaces read, so an implementer cannot see what CaseMark connects to as opposed to what it exposes. The developer documentation was not opened in this pass and the workflows page listing 880 workflows was not opened either; both are named so the limit is visible, and they are the cheapest available upgrade on this record.
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.
The deployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail. Residency is unambiguous and named to the provider: all data is stored in the United States within AWS and Azure environments, with both providers stated to include guarantees on intrusion detection and physical security. Tenancy appears as a published tier difference rather than a claim, with dedicated compute and isolated inference pool options offered on the enterprise plan against the shared default, which answers what changes between tiers better than most records on this axis. What is missing is the distinction the top band turns on: nothing states where processing or model inference happens as against where data is stored, and no region choice is offered, the United States being the only location and also the only market the service is sold into.
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.
Certification is real, stated and scoped, and the route to evidence is better named than most records in this band. SOC 2 Type II is claimed and its coverage described as an independent audit of security controls, availability and confidentiality, and HIPAA compliance is claimed with a BAA available on the enterprise plan. The artifacts available are itemised rather than gestured at: SIG Lite 2024, CAIQ questionnaires, penetration test summaries and attestation letters, all stated to be available on request, which is a request flow rather than a sales gate. Testing cadence is published at annual external penetration testing and quarterly vulnerability assessments. A trust centre operates at trust.casemark.com and was not opened in this pass. It holds at B because no certifying body or auditor is named, no report date, observation period or certificate number is published, and on the third-party verifiability test a buyer cannot check either claim against a register without contacting CaseMark.
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.
Nothing is published about the model supply chain a customer inherits. No model is named, no model provider is identified, no subprocessor list covering the AI layer exists, and no commitment to notify customers of a change to any of it was located. AWS and Azure are named, but as the environments in which data is stored, and infrastructure never answers this axis: naming where a model runs is not naming whose model it is. The enterprise tier offers dedicated compute with isolated inference pool options, which confirms that inference happens somewhere without saying on whose models. This is the largest disclosure gap on an otherwise well-documented record, and it sits against a customer base that includes AmLaw firms and large enterprises. Searched the home page, the security page, the pricing page, the terms of service and the privacy policy on 4 September 2026.
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.
Real pricing is published for part of the range with the upper tiers withheld. Workspace Pro is published at 100 US dollars per user per month, with the entitlement itemised: 80 dollars of AI credits per user each month, document analysis and AI chat, access to more than 880 legal agent skills, one gigabyte of document storage and email support. The charging model is explained rather than left implicit, with included AI usage scaling with the monthly commitment and additional usage billed at then-current market rates. Teams and Enterprise are quoted rather than priced, and what each adds is listed, covering shared matter space, single sign-on, storage, a dedicated success manager, a BAA and dedicated compute. Pricing is organised by product across Workspace, Structured Summaries and Source, and the Summaries and Source tabs were not opened in this pass. The agreement adds that subscription price changes take effect only at the next term with 60 days written notice, and that pay-as-you-go purchases are non-refundable.
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.
Segment coverage is described with substance and the practice edge is left open. Buyer segments are named and tiered explicitly: solo practitioners and individual legal professionals, growing firms at two to ten users, and larger legal teams at ten or more, with a separate published route for court reporting and litigation support businesses through Source. The customer set corroborates the breadth, spanning defence firms, a plaintiff firm and corporate legal functions. Record types supported are stated concretely through the summaries range, covering depositions, medical records, transcripts, recordings and contracts. The jurisdictional boundary is stated plainly and twice, with the service sold within the United States and intended for US-based audiences only. What is missing is the practice dimension: no practice area is named as supported anywhere, in-house and government use are not addressed separately, and nothing says which matter or record types the product does not handle. The solutions and workflows pages were not opened.
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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The prohibition sits in the agreement rather than only on a policy page. The Content section of the terms of service grants CaseMark a licence to copy, distribute and display User Data only for the purpose of providing the Service, and then states that it does not use customer data to train its AI models or sell it to third parties. The security page repeats the position without qualification, stating that CaseMark does not train AI models on customer data and that documents, transcripts and work product remain the customer's. No de-identification, anonymisation or aggregation carve-out appears anywhere, and no opt-in or opt-out mechanism is described because none is needed.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
A specific period is published in the agreement and the customer cannot change it on standard terms. The Data Retention and Deletion clause states that customer data is retained for thirty days, after which all customer data is permanently deleted from CaseMark's systems. The one qualification is that exceptions can be made for enterprise customers requiring extended retention, which lengthens rather than shortens the window and is arranged by contacting the company rather than configured by the customer. Zero retention is not offered as a setting.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
CaseMark maintains its own permission model and describes it at feature level. The security page publishes least privilege by default, user roles and permissions restricting access to sensitive data, and single sign-on with multi-factor authentication required on all accounts, alongside comprehensive audit logging of all user activities and system events. The home page adds that data is encrypted and isolated, and the enterprise tier offers dedicated compute with isolated inference pool options. The model is CaseMark's own rather than one inheriting a document management system's access control at query time, and the customer administers its own roles. Nothing published addresses segregation between individual matters within a customer account.
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 addresses disclosure under legal process directly, stating that CaseMark may share information in response to a request for information where it believes disclosure is required by or in accordance with any applicable law or legal process, including lawful requests by public authorities. So the customer is told data can leave. No commitment to notify the customer of such a request was located anywhere, and no discretion over notice is reserved either. Searched the terms of service, the privacy policy, the security page and the home page on 4 September 2026. Recorded for context: the privacy policy carrying this clause was last updated 23 July 2024 and still describes products, CaseMark Workflow and CaseMark Productivity, that no longer match the current range.
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.
No located public material identifies a corpus behind the product's output, and the product's design makes the question narrow: CaseMark reads the record the customer uploads, depositions, medical records, transcripts, recordings and contracts, and drafts from it rather than retrieving external legal content. No database, publisher, jurisdiction or licence basis is named on any surface. Searched the home page, the summaries and features navigation, the security page, the pricing page and the terms of service on 4 September 2026.
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.
Nothing on any located surface addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history. The product does not retrieve primary law: it works on the customer's own record to produce summaries, chronologies and drafted documents, citing back to the source material supplied. The question therefore does not bite on this product class and the honest value is the absence rather than a penalty. Searched the home page, the product navigation, the security page and the terms of service on 4 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
No located public material describes what the product does when it cannot ground an output. The agreement acknowledges that output may not accurately reflect people, places or facts and instructs the customer to review it for accuracy, incorrectness and completeness before relying on it, which is an acknowledgment of risk and an instruction to the reader rather than a description of system behaviour. No abstention path, no no-answer state and no confidence or grounding score surfaced to the user is described anywhere. Searched the home page, the product navigation, the security page, the pricing page and the terms of service on 4 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on both the product name CaseMark and the corporate name CaseMark AI. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance. The agreement carries a No Legal Advice clause stating that CaseMark does not provide legal advice and is not engaged in the practice of law, that generated content is informational only, that no attorney-client relationship arises, and that the reader should seek advice from a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction. A separate restriction prohibits representing output as human-generated when it is not. Both engage professional responsibility as a subject. No bar association, regulator, rule of professional conduct or ethics opinion is named anywhere, and no mapping of product behaviour to any published guidance exists.
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.
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing. The headline promise is gigabytes of discovery to a motion for summary judgment in under an hour, and the published testimonial describes a 400-page transcript submitted overnight and returned finished, saving the reviewer the work entirely. Nothing addresses what happens to a client bill when that time disappears, and no per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available for fee or disclosure purposes, although the platform does log all user activities and system events for security purposes. CaseMark's own charging model is per user plus AI credits rather than per hour, which is a cost fact rather than an answer to this signal.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The material exists behind a request and does not cover the AI layer. The security page itemises what is available rather than gesturing at it, listing SIG Lite 2024, CAIQ questionnaires, penetration test summaries and attestation letters as available on request, which is a genuine route a firm can use. Some suppliers are named openly, being AWS and Azure for hosting and Stripe for payments. What is missing is the disclosure a client's AI clause actually asks for: no model provider is identified anywhere, no subprocessor register covering the AI layer is published, and no data processing agreement or forwardable client-facing pack was located at any access tier. Naming the cloud environments says where data sits, not whose models see it.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Some elements of a record are available, short of a document-level export covering the AI. Outputs are described as citing back to the source, deposition summaries are offered in page-line format and medical chronologies as cited timelines, which covers sources retrieved. The security page publishes comprehensive audit logging of all user activities and system events, which is a trail of who did what, though it is presented as a security control rather than as a disclosable record and no export is described. What is absent is the model dimension entirely: no model or provider is identified anywhere, so which system produced a given output could not be stated even if a record were exported, and no human verification step is documented. No disclosure guidance or template for a court was located.