CaseMine
CaseMine is an AI legal research platform covering case law in three jurisdictions: India, the United States and the United Kingdom. It runs four tools over a case law repository the company has built since 2013. AMICUS is a conversational assistant, built on GPT technology and grounded through a retrieval-augmented generation framework that pulls case law, statutes and legal principles from CaseMine's own database before generating a response, and it handles research, summarisation, argument generation, drafting and contract review. CaseIQ takes a whole document as the query, so a user uploads a brief, pleading or judgment and receives matching precedents, missing arguments and suggested reasoning rather than having to reduce the facts to search terms. Parallel Search interprets the intent behind a natural-language question and returns conceptually relevant authority even where the words do not match, and Citation Search retrieves a case directly from its citation. The platform also publishes its own citator, which flags whether a judgment has been negatively treated or overruled and shows where and how often it has been cited. Coverage is set out by court: the Supreme Court of India, all High Courts and tribunals; the US Supreme Court, federal circuit and district courts, bankruptcy and immigration courts and all fifty states; and the UK Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and major tribunals. Keyword search is free without an account, with the AI tools sold on tiered subscriptions. CaseMine is operated by Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd., based in India.
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 engine of everything sold, and a real content product sits beneath them. CaseMine's own account is that keyword and citation search are free and usable without an account, while AMICUS, CaseIQ, summarisation, argument generation, drafting and contract analysis all sit behind a subscription. That split is the axis in miniature: strip the AI away and what remains is a searchable case law repository across three jurisdictions, which is a product this market has bought for decades and which CaseMine has been building since 2013. The AI layer is substantial and is what the buyer pays for, with retrieval-augmented generation over that repository, an extractive engine taking whole documents as queries, and intent-based search. Verified 2 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, documented and described mechanically rather than asserted. CaseMine states that AMICUS runs on a retrieval-augmented generation framework that actively pulls relevant case laws, statutes and legal principles from its database before generating any response, and it draws the contrast with general tools explicitly, saying this ensures the assistant does not just sound convincing. Responses are stated to be linked to source authorities, with the home page putting it as cited authority out and source stays visible. CaseIQ is separately described as extractive rather than generative, which is a meaningful distinction to publish. What is absent is measurement. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation or benchmark result appears on any surface read. One thing exists nearby and is recorded rather than credited: trade press reporting the launch of an advanced AMICUS model in March 2026 states that the company maintains an internal benchmarking framework evaluating AI systems across legal research, document analysis, drafting, issue spotting and complex legal reasoning. That is a vendor claim relayed by a third party, no results are published, and it was not located on any first-party page. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Verification is offered as the control and nothing describes an oversight model around it. The published position is that answers carry linked source authority and that the source stays visible, so a user can open what the system relied on, and the vendor frames this as what makes responses verifiable and dependable. That is a real review affordance for a research product. Beyond it, nothing. No published material states what any tool does without a human, where a review point sits, what happens when the system is uncertain, or what a user is expected to check before relying on a draft. This matters more than usual here because AMICUS does not stop at research: CaseMine states it drafts contracts, memos, motions, petitions and transactional documents, and can include judgment-based citations in those drafts. A product that writes filings with citations in them and publishes no oversight model is asserting verifiability without describing where verification happens. Checked the FAQ, the CaseIQ page, the pricing page and the privacy policy on 2 September 2026. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Basis rewritten 2 September 2026. The original note rested this grade partly on the absence of a customer logo strip, inferred from six first-party pages plus a search extract of a home page that could not be rendered. That reasoning is withdrawn: an active bot block defeats retrieval for any agent, the operator confirmed the same result independently, and a retrieval failure is not evidence of absence. The grade stands on affirmative evidence instead. CaseMine's own competitor comparison page carries an unquantified, unattributed volume claim, that the platform is used by thousands of US lawyers every day, with no named customer, no figure, no date and no case study attached to it anywhere. An unattributed volume claim standing in place of a reference is the finding, and it meets this band's words directly rather than by inference. Nothing located across the FAQ, pricing page, CaseIQ page, privacy policy, about page, bespoke AI solutions page or comparison page names a single customer, quotes a single identified user, or attaches a measured outcome to a named firm. The one institutional relationship the company does publicise is a legal technology certificate programme with an Indian law school, which is a teaching partnership rather than a deployment. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
One pathway is addressed with real precision and the rest is general. The precise part is CaseIQ: the privacy policy states that nothing uploaded there is stored on CaseMine's server and that any uploaded content is immediately removed after processing, protected by 256-bit end-to-end encryption. That is the strongest single confidentiality commitment on the record. Against it sits the treatment of everything else, in the same document: files, documents and data uploaded to a CaseMine account may be retained on its servers even after deletion or termination of the account, for backup and legal compliance purposes. Those two positions are both published and they point in opposite directions depending on which door a lawyer's document came through. Three limbs are unaddressed entirely. Nothing describes segregation between customers, users or matters. Nothing addresses privilege or work product treatment. And nothing states what the underlying model provider may retain, which matters because the assistant is described as powered by GPT. The no-training commitment is a policy statement and is qualified, as set out on the training signal. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Row completed 2 September 2026 under R26. A real advice-line position is published, and the vendor's own marketing contradicts it. The AMICUS product page states that information provided by AMICUS should not be considered legal advice; that AMICUS may occasionally include inaccuracies relating to cases, titles or citation codes; that users are advised to consult qualified legal professionals and refer to original records; and that CaseMine is not liable for damages resulting from decisions or actions taken on the information AMICUS provides. That is more than a footer. Naming citation codes as a specific failure mode is unusually candid for a research product, and directing users back to original records is a verification instruction rather than a disclaimer. Against it, the home page markets AMICUS as engineered to always provide dependable advice backed by credible sources and as a trustworthy legal assistant delivering accurate, precise and strategic responses. Both halves belong on the record: the same product is sold as dependable advice and disclaimed as not legal advice that may be inaccurate. Under the rule for a vendor's own marketing statements conflicting with each other, the conflict is graded by asking which limb it shows to be missing, and what it shows is that the position is stated in one place and undercut in another rather than held consistently. Two limbs fail outright: no jurisdiction limits are stated for advice purposes, which matters for a platform sold into India, the United States and the United Kingdom at once, and no bar, Bar Council or law society guidance is engaged anywhere. Provenance limit, recorded rather than hidden: casemine.com serves an active bot block to automated retrieval on every path, for the operator as well as for this reader, so this clause text was recovered through the search index of the first-party URL rather than from a rendered page. No evidence quote is recorded for that reason.
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.
Nothing published addresses governance over model behaviour. No responsible AI page exists, no governance framework, no individual or function named as accountable, no account of what is tested before a model change ships, and nothing whatsoever about uneven output across jurisdictions, court levels, party types or populations. The certifications the vendor does hold are adjacent subjects this axis treats separately: ISO 9001:2015 is quality management and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is information security. The one governance-adjacent fact located is reported by trade press rather than published by the vendor, namely an internal benchmarking framework used to evaluate AI systems before deployment; no first-party page describes it and no results are published, so it is recorded on the citation accuracy note rather than credited here. Checked the FAQ, pricing page, CaseIQ page, privacy policy, about page and bespoke AI solutions page on 2 September 2026. Verified 2 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.
Two of the five elements are published, two are absent and one is generic. Retention is genuinely specific on one pathway, with CaseIQ uploads immediately removed after processing and never stored, and genuinely open-ended on the other, with account content retained on servers even after account deletion or termination for backup and legal compliance. Deletion and data subject rights are set out properly, with access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability and objection, a thirty day response commitment and appointed EU and UK Article 27 representatives named as Euverify Ltd. Encryption is stated in transit and at rest, with 256-bit AES and SSL or TLS named on the pricing page, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification is claimed. What is missing is what a security reviewer asks for next. No subprocessor list of any kind exists: third parties are given only as categories, being data storage and infrastructure hosting, database and account management, web analytics and payment processing, with not one entity named. And no incident or breach notification practice was located on any surface, which is a notable gap alongside an ISO 27001 certification. Access control is described only as authorised personnel bound by confidentiality. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Row completed 2 September 2026 under R26, and decided rather than held on the reasoning below. Liability is addressed, once, and only by disclaiming the exposure the product creates. The AMICUS product page states that CaseMine is not liable for damages resulting from decisions or actions taken on the information AMICUS provides, alongside an acknowledgement that output may contain inaccuracies relating to cases, titles or citation codes. That is a published position on who bears the loss when the output is wrong, and the answer is the user, which is why the bottom band no longer fits: something is published. Nothing else is. No liability cap, no indemnity in either direction, no warranty, no service level and no insurance is published on any reachable surface. The Terms of Use referenced by the privacy policy could not be located by either this reader or the operator, so the contractual allocation a signed customer actually receives is unknown, and under the rule that credit follows scope a disclaimer on a product page is not the agreement. What is graded here is the state of the published record, not an inference about the contract. Two things would move this row: the Terms of Use surfacing, or a cap or indemnity appearing anywhere. Provenance limit: casemine.com serves an active bot block on every path, so this text was recovered through the search index of the first-party URL rather than a rendered page, and no evidence quote is recorded for that reason.
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.
No integration into the systems legal work already lives in was located, and none is claimed. Checked the FAQ, the pricing page and its full feature list, the CaseIQ page, the privacy policy, the about page and the bespoke AI solutions page on 2 September 2026. There is no integrations page, no named connector, no API or developer documentation, and no mention of document management, practice management, Microsoft Word, Outlook or e-filing anywhere. The vendor addresses the question directly and answers it the other way: asked whether anything needs to be installed, it states that CaseMine is fully cloud-based and accessed through a browser on desktop and mobile with no downloads or setup, which is a statement that the product is self-contained rather than connected. The nearest thing to integration is document upload, which is a file transfer rather than a connection, and the bespoke solutions page offers to build tooling around a firm's documents and workflows on a consulting basis rather than as a published integration. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Cloud delivery is stated plainly and neither limb this axis asks for follows. The vendor confirms the platform is fully cloud-based and browser-accessed with no installation, so the delivery model is not in doubt. But no region is published anywhere: the privacy policy says data is held on secure servers without saying where those servers are, and the only geography stated is corporate rather than technical, namely that operations are based in India with services provided across India, the United States and the United Kingdom. No residency option is offered, no processing location is distinguished from storage location, and nothing addresses where data of a UK or US customer physically sits. Nor is any tenancy model stated: nothing describes the platform as multi-tenant, single-tenant or otherwise isolated. The appointment of Euverify Ltd as Article 27 representative for the EU and UK indicates cross-border processing is contemplated without describing it. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 named to the version, which is more precise than most records manage: CaseMine states it is certified under ISO 9001:2015 for quality management and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 for information security. Encryption specifics are published alongside, with 256-bit AES and SSL or TLS listed as a feature of every subscription tier and end-to-end encryption stated for CaseIQ uploads. Everything the top band asks for beyond the standard name is absent. No certification body or auditor is named, no certificate number, issue date or expiry is published, no scope statement is given for either standard, and no route to obtain evidence is offered, whether self-serve, on request or under a non-disclosure agreement. There is no trust centre or portal of any kind, no penetration testing or vulnerability assessment programme is described, and no SOC 2 report is claimed. A buyer is asked to take two certifications on the strength of a sentence. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 architecture is described well and the supply chain behind it is not. On architecture the disclosure is better than most: retrieval-augmented generation is named as the framework, the sequence is described, with relevant case law, statutes and principles pulled from CaseMine's database before any response is generated, and CaseIQ is separately identified as extractive rather than generative. The model layer is named only at the level of a family, with AMICUS described repeatedly as powered by GPT and the premium tier promising the latest and most advanced AI models. That tells a reader roughly whose technology is underneath and nothing more. No provider entity is named, no model or version is identified, nothing states where inference runs or what the provider may retain, and no change notification commitment exists despite the premium tier being sold partly on receiving newer models. The privacy policy lists third parties by category only, so the supply chain cannot be reconstructed from there either. Verified 2 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.
Amended 2 September 2026: the figures were recovered and the grade moves from B to A. A buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process. Three price points are published against named tiers with full inclusions: 99 US dollars per month for AMICUS AI with 250 credits, CaseIQ, CiteText, 50MB document upload, up to 20 cases and 2GB storage; 149.99 US dollars per month for 500 credits plus 100MB uploads, web search, the latest models, a dedicated account manager and unlimited cases; and an annual rate of 1,499.99 US dollars shown against a struck-through 1,799.99. The unit being charged is explicit and unusually granular, running to AI credits per month, upload size, storage and a cap on matters. A genuine free tier sits beneath all of it, with keyword, citation and statute search plus full judgment texts usable without any account, and a separate free student registration. The vendor states no commitment and no fees. Two limitations are recorded as limits on this reading rather than as findings against the vendor, because casemine.com serves an active bot block to automated retrieval on every path and these figures were recovered through the search index rather than a rendered page. The price of the entry Essential tier was not among the figures recovered, so whether it is free or paid is unestablished. And two readings of the same page disagree on the top tier's storage, one giving 5GB and the other unlimited. Neither is a gap in what the vendor publishes. A third-party software directory claims paid plans start at 149.99 and that a free-forever plan exists; first-party evidence beats it, the 99 dollar rate stands, and the conflict is noted rather than relied on.
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.
Coverage is documented jurisdiction by jurisdiction and court by court, which is the most precise treatment of this axis in the lane. India is stated as the Supreme Court, all High Courts, tribunals and commissions. The United States is stated as all fifty states and federal jurisdictions, naming the Supreme Court, federal circuit courts, district courts and the specialised bankruptcy and immigration courts, and distinguishing complete appellate and supreme court coverage from trial court rulings in select states, which is an honest limitation rather than a blanket claim. The United Kingdom is stated as the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and major tribunals. The buyer is named per market too, running to advocates, attorneys, solo practitioners, solicitors, barristers, law firms, legal researchers and students. Two limbs are missing. Nothing addresses in-house legal departments or government use, both absent from every buyer list. And practice areas are not enumerated at all, which is defensible for a case law platform that is practice-agnostic by design but leaves a buyer without a statement of where the product stops. Verified 2 September 2026.
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?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The commitment sits in the security answer of the public FAQ and the qualifier in it is the finding. The promise is that data is never used to train external models, which addresses the third-party layer and leaves CaseMine's own models unaddressed. Given the assistant is described throughout as powered by GPT, the natural reading is that customer content does not flow into the base model provider's training, which is a real and useful commitment; what no published material states is whether customer content informs CaseMine's own retrieval, embedding or fine-tuning layers. No agreement could be tested against it. The privacy policy is silent on model training in either direction, and the Terms of Use it references could not be located or retrieved on 2 September 2026. Two adjacent statements are recorded because a reader will meet them and neither concerns customer content: AMICUS is described as trained entirely on authoritative legal sources and exhaustively trained on comprehensive legal archives, which describes the corpus rather than user data. Under the naming test the value rests on the published policy statement, qualified as it is.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Two pathways are published and they point in opposite directions, which is why the overall position is acknowledged rather than settled. The quoted commitment continues that any content uploaded in CaseIQ is immediately removed after processing, protected by 256-bit end-to-end encryption, and that is as tight a retention position as anything in this pull. The other pathway is open-ended: the same privacy policy states that files, documents and data uploaded to a CaseMine account may be retained on secure servers even after deletion or termination of the account, for backup and legal compliance purposes, with no period attached. Nothing states how long prompts, chats or generated drafts persist in the ordinary course, and no retention setting is offered to the customer. Deletion is available on request with a thirty day response commitment, and data subject erasure rights are set out. A buyer needs both halves: the same document a lawyer drops into CaseIQ is discarded at once, while the same document saved into their account may outlive the account itself.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Checked the FAQ, the pricing page and its full feature list, the CaseIQ page, the privacy policy, the about page and the bespoke AI solutions page on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes segregation between customers, between users inside a firm, or between matters. No tenancy or isolation statement appears anywhere. What exists is adjacent and concerns the vendor's own staff rather than the customer's structure: access to personal information is stated to be limited to authorised CaseMine personnel who require it and who are bound by confidentiality obligations, and a separate clause reserves access to account contents by employees or service providers when investigating suspected illegal activity or terms violations. The product does have matter-shaped features, with case management capped by tier at five, twenty or unlimited cases and personalised folders for storing documents, but nothing describes those as a security boundary.
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 compelled disclosure squarely and never reaches notice. It states that personal information may be disclosed when required by law or in response to the legal processes quoted, to comply with legal obligations in the jurisdictions where CaseMine operates, and to law enforcement or government authorities where the company determines disclosure is necessary to protect the safety, rights or property of users, employees, the public or CaseMine itself. That last limb is a unilateral determination rather than a legal compulsion. Nothing anywhere commits to telling the customer a demand has arrived, and nothing reserves discretion over notice either, so the question is not reached rather than answered adversely. Checked the privacy policy in full, the FAQ, the CaseIQ page and the pricing page on 2 September 2026. The Terms of Use referenced by the privacy policy could not be located or retrieved and might address it.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The corpus is identified court by court rather than by publisher, which for primary case law is identification of the sources themselves. India is given as the Supreme Court, all High Courts, tribunals and commissions. The United States is given as the Supreme Court, federal circuit courts, district courts, bankruptcy and immigration courts, and all fifty states, with a stated distinction between complete appellate and supreme court coverage and trial court rulings in select states only. The United Kingdom is given as the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and major tribunals. Update cadence is described rather than claimed, as continuous integration of newly published rulings through an automated data pipeline, stated separately for each jurisdiction. What is absent is the rights position. No licence, contract or permission basis is stated for any jurisdiction's material, no publisher or data supplier is named, and nothing addresses the secondary material the platform also carries in commentaries and columns. The company describes a long-term focus on legal data infrastructure without describing how the data is obtained.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.
CaseMine publishes its own citator rather than licensing one, and this is the first record in this pull to reach that value. The FAQ describes a built-in citation analysis feature called the CaseMine Citator which tracks how a case has been treated in subsequent decisions, flags negative treatment and overruling as quoted, and reports where a judgment has been cited and how many times, with the stated purpose of letting a user assess whether a precedent is still good law. It is not an add-on: the pricing page lists checking for negatively treated and overruled judgments with an advanced citator as a feature of the entry tier, so every paying user has it, and an importance matrix and citation search sit alongside. What is not published is anything about how the treatment signal is produced, whether editorially or automatically, what its categories are beyond negative treatment and overruling, or how completely it covers each of the three jurisdictions. A vendor-built signal with an undescribed method is what separates this value from the licensed tier above it.
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.
Checked the FAQ, the CaseIQ page, the pricing page and the privacy policy on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes what the platform does when it cannot ground an answer, and no confidence, relevance or grounding indicator is described as shown to the user. The architectural answer offered instead is that retrieval happens before generation, so that responses are grounded in real legal sources rather than sounding convincing, and that citations link back to source authority the user can open. That is a design claim about how hallucination is reduced rather than an account of what the system does at the point where retrieval returns nothing useful. Given the product drafts motions and petitions with judgment-based citations included, what happens when authority is thin is a live question the published material does not reach.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting drawing on it, on 2 September 2026 on the product name CaseMine, the assistant name AMICUS and the corporate name Gauge Data Solutions. 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. Two things bound it. The database is heavily weighted to United States filings and its Indian coverage is thin, while India is CaseMine's home market and the market where fabricated-citation incidents have recently reached the High Courts and the Supreme Court. And Indian legal commentary published in July 2026 discusses AMICUS alongside other Indian retrieval-grounded tools as reducing rather than eliminating hallucination, which is analysis rather than a court finding and is recorded here only because a reader searching this ground will meet it.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Checked the FAQ, the pricing page, the CaseIQ page, the privacy policy, the about page and the bespoke AI solutions page on 2 September 2026. No public material engages with professional or ethics guidance from any of the three markets served. Neither ABA Formal Opinion 512 nor any state bar opinion is named for the United States, no Bar Council of India or Solicitors Regulation Authority material is named, and no equivalent guidance appears for barristers or solicitors in the United Kingdom. The gap is more pointed than usual because the platform is sold into three regulatory systems at once and drafts filings in all of them, and because the vendor also runs a legal technology certificate programme with an Indian law school, so it engages the profession's institutions in a training capacity without engaging their guidance in the product.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
No located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment.
Checked the FAQ, the pricing page, the CaseIQ page and the privacy policy on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed to a client, and no per matter record of AI-assisted work was located. Unusually for this corpus there is also no quantified savings claim to record: the vendor's language is qualitative throughout, describing speed, clarity and working smarter without publishing a time or cost figure anywhere, so the weakest value is not made out either. The product does count AI credits per user per month and does organise work into cases, so the raw material for a per matter record of AI use exists in the platform, but nothing describes it as reportable or exportable, and credits are presented as a consumption allowance rather than a record.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
Checked the FAQ, the pricing page, the CaseIQ page, the privacy policy in full, the about page and the bespoke AI solutions page on 2 September 2026. No subprocessor list exists in any form. The privacy policy names categories only, listing data storage and infrastructure hosting, database and account management, web analytics and payment processing, without identifying a single entity behind any of them. No model provider is named as a legal entity, the assistant being described only as powered by GPT. No data processing agreement is published, no forwardable client-facing disclosure material was located, and there is no trust centre or review pack. A firm asked by a client which entities may see its matter documents could not answer from anything CaseMine publishes. The two ISO certifications are claimed without any accompanying scope or report, so they do not fill the gap either.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Checked the FAQ, the pricing page and its full feature list, the CaseIQ page and the privacy policy on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses judicial standing orders, disclosure of AI use, or certification that citations were verified by a person. The platform does produce artifacts a professional could keep, with citations linked to source authority, an unlimited search history at every tier, task management and case folders, but none is described as a record of model use, and nothing captures which model produced which passage or who reviewed it. The gap is worth naming on this record in particular: the product drafts motions and petitions with judgment-based citations embedded, in three jurisdictions where courts have begun asking exactly this question, and the citator it publishes is the closest thing it offers to a verification trail.