C
CaseMine
CaseMine is an AI legal research platform covering case law in India, the United States and the United Kingdom, built on a case law repository the company has developed since 2013. It has four tools. AMICUS is a conversational assistant built on GPT technology and grounded by retrieval augmented generation, pulling case law, statutes and principles from CaseMine's database before answering; it handles research, summaries, argument generation, drafting and contract review.
CaseIQ takes a whole document as the query, so a user uploads a brief, pleading or judgment and gets matching precedents, missing arguments and suggested reasoning. Parallel Search reads the intent behind a plain language question and returns relevant authority even when the words differ, and Citation Search finds a case from its citation. The platform also has its own citator, which flags negative treatment and overruling and shows where and how often a judgment is cited.
Coverage is listed 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, and the AI tools are sold on tiered subscriptions. CaseMine is run by Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in India.
CaseMine, 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.
Alternatives to CaseMine
Vendors in the same categories as CaseMine 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.
- GGaius-LexGaius-Lex is an AI research and drafting agent for lawyers and tax advisers covering Polish, Czech, Austrian and German law.
- AAlign ResearchAlign Research is an AI case law retrieval tool from Align, a Washington, DC litigation technology company founded by Sam Davidoff while he was a litigation partner at Williams & Connolly.
- AAnnlexAnnlex is a case law research platform for United States court opinions, operated by Annlex Systems LLC and created by founder Doug Hall.
- OOtto Schmidt AnswersOtto Schmidt Answers is the AI research assistant of Verlag Dr.
- JJus MundiJus Mundi is a research platform for international law and arbitration.
- LLegitQuestLegitQuest combines an Indian legal research database with tools that retrieve authorities, break down judgments and display later case treatment. iSearch finds relevant material, iDRAF…
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.
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 drive everything that is sold, and a real content product sits beneath them. CaseMine says keyword and citation search are free without an account, while AMICUS, CaseIQ, summaries, argument generation, drafting and contract analysis need a subscription. Without the AI, a searchable case law repository across three jurisdictions remains, a product this market has bought for decades and CaseMine has built since 2013.
The AI layer is substantial and is what the buyer pays for: retrieval augmented generation over that repository, an extraction engine that takes whole documents as queries, and search by intent.
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 described as a mechanism. CaseMine says AMICUS uses retrieval augmented generation to pull case law, statutes and principles from its database before answering, and contrasts this with general tools, saying it ensures the assistant does not just sound convincing. Answers are linked to source authorities, put on the home page as cited authority out with the source kept visible. CaseIQ is described as extractive rather than generative.
No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation or benchmark result appears. Trade press covering a new AMICUS model in March 2026 reports an internal benchmarking framework covering research, document analysis, drafting, issue spotting and complex reasoning, but that is a vendor claim relayed by a third party, with no results and no vendor page describing it.
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 because AMICUS does not stop at research: CaseMine states it drafts contracts, memos, motions, petitions and transactional documents, and can include citations to judgments 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.
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.
An unattributed volume claim stands in for evidence. CaseMine's own competitor comparison page says the platform is used by thousands of US lawyers every day, with no named customer, figure, date or case study attached. The FAQ, pricing page, CaseIQ page, privacy policy, about page, bespoke AI solutions page and comparison page name no customer, quote no identified user, and tie no measured outcome to a named firm. The one institutional relationship publicized is a legal technology certificate program with an Indian law school, which is a teaching partnership, not a deployment. The site blocks automated readers, so the home page could not be read directly and may say more.
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 questions 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.
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 real advice line is published, and the vendor's marketing contradicts it. The AMICUS product page says its information should not be considered legal advice, that it may include errors in cases, titles or citation codes, that users should consult qualified legal professionals and check original records, and that CaseMine is not liable for decisions or actions based on it. Naming citation codes as a known failure and pointing users back to original records goes beyond a footer.
But the home page markets AMICUS as built to always give dependable advice backed by credible sources and as a trustworthy assistant giving accurate, precise and strategic answers, so the same product is sold as dependable advice and disclaimed as possibly inaccurate non advice. No jurisdiction limits are stated, though the platform is sold in India, the United States and the United Kingdom at once, and no bar, Bar Council or law society guidance is engaged.
The site blocks automated readers on every path, so this text was read through search results rather than the page itself, and no quote is recorded.
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.
Nothing published addresses governance of model behavior: no responsible AI page, framework, accountable owner, account of testing before model changes, or anything on uneven output across jurisdictions, court levels, party types or populations. The vendor's certifications cover other subjects: ISO 9001:2015 for quality and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 for information security. Trade press reports an internal benchmarking framework used to evaluate AI before release, but no vendor page describes it and no results are published, so it is noted under citation accuracy.
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 is published on any surface, which is a notable gap alongside an ISO 27001 certification. Access control is described only as authorized personnel bound by confidentiality.
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 once, only to disclaim it. The AMICUS product page says CaseMine is not liable for damages from decisions or actions based on AMICUS information, and acknowledges output may contain errors in cases, titles or citation codes. That places the loss on the user. No liability cap, indemnity, warranty, service level or insurance is published anywhere reachable. The Terms of Use referred to by the privacy policy could not be found, so what a signed customer actually receives is unknown, and a product page disclaimer is not the agreement.
The Terms of Use, or any published cap or indemnity, could change this. The site blocks automated readers on every path, so this text was read through search results rather than the page itself, and no quote is recorded.
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 with the systems legal work lives in was found, and none is claimed. Checked the FAQ, pricing page and feature list, CaseIQ page, privacy policy, about page and bespoke AI solutions page: no integrations page, connector, API or developer documentation, and no mention of document management, practice management, Word, Outlook or electronic filing. Asked whether anything needs installing, the vendor says CaseMine is fully cloud based and used in a browser on desktop and mobile with no setup, which describes a self contained product.
Document upload is a file transfer, not a connection, and the bespoke solutions page offers to build tools around a firm's documents and workflows as consulting rather than a published integration.
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 region nor tenancy follows. The vendor says the platform is fully cloud based and used in a browser with no installation. No region is published: the privacy policy says data is on secure servers without saying where, and the only geography given is corporate, with operations in India serving India, the United States and the United Kingdom. No residency option is offered, processing is not distinguished from storage, and nothing says where a UK or US customer's data sits.
No tenancy model is stated. Euverify Ltd is appointed as Article 27 representative for the EU and UK, which suggests cross border processing without describing it.
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 and named to the version. CaseMine says it is certified to ISO 9001:2015 for quality management and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 for information security, and lists 256 bit AES and SSL or TLS encryption on every tier, with end to end encryption for CaseIQ uploads. No certification body, auditor, certificate number, issue or expiry date, or scope is published, and there is no route to obtain evidence, whether self serve, on request or under an NDA.
There is no trust center, no penetration testing or vulnerability program is described, and no SOC 2 report is claimed. A buyer is asked to accept two certifications on the strength of a sentence.
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. Retrieval augmented generation is named, with case law, statutes and principles pulled from CaseMine's database before any answer, and CaseIQ is identified as extractive rather than generative. The model is named only by family: AMICUS is repeatedly described as powered by GPT, and the premium tier promises the latest and most advanced models. No provider entity, model or version is named, nothing says where inference runs or what the provider may keep, and there is no change notification commitment, though the premium tier is partly sold on newer models. The privacy policy lists third parties only by category.
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.
A buyer can learn the cost without a sales process. Three prices are published against named tiers with full inclusions: 99 US dollars a month for AMICUS AI with 250 credits, CaseIQ, CiteText, 50MB uploads, up to 20 cases and 2GB storage; 149.99 US dollars a 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 is explicit: AI credits per month, upload size, storage and a cap on matters. A free tier below that offers keyword, citation and statute search and full judgments without an account, plus a free student registration. The vendor states no commitment and no fees. The site blocks automated readers, so these figures were read through search results; the Essential tier's price was not among them, so whether it is free or paid is unknown, and two readings of the page differ on top tier storage, 5GB or unlimited.
A third party directory says paid plans start at 149.99 with a free forever plan; the vendor's own figure of 99 dollars is used.
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 by jurisdiction and court. India covers the Supreme Court, all High Courts, tribunals and commissions. The United States covers all fifty states and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, circuit and district courts and the bankruptcy and immigration courts, with complete appellate and supreme court coverage but trial court rulings in only some states, an honest limit. The United Kingdom covers the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and major tribunals.
Buyers are named per market: advocates, attorneys, solo practitioners, solicitors, barristers, law firms, legal researchers and students. In house legal teams and government are absent from every buyer list. Practice areas are not listed, which suits a case law platform built to serve any practice but leaves no statement of where the product stops.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for CaseMine, 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.
-
casemine.com/home/faq2 signals
Client Data in Training, Good Law Verification
Read Sep 2, 2026
-
casemine.com/home/privacy2 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 2, 2026
From $99 per month
- CaseMine has a free level you can use without even making an account, for searching cases by keyword or citation.
- The AI tools cost money and come in three levels: Essential, AI Pro and AI Premium.
- The lowest confirmed paid price is 99 US dollars a month, and the level above it is 149.99 a month or 1,499.99 for a year.
- Each level spells out how many AI credits you get each month, how much you can store, and how many cases you can manage.
- CaseMine's website blocks automated readers, so these prices were read from search results showing CaseMine's own page rather than from the page itself.
Three prices are published against named tiers with full inclusions. 99 US dollars a month buys AMICUS AI with 250 AI credits a month, CaseIQ, CiteText, uploads to 50MB, up to 20 cases and 2GB storage. 149.99 US dollars a month buys 500 credits and everything below, plus 100MB uploads, web search, the latest models, a dedicated account manager and unlimited cases. An annual rate of 1,499.99 US dollars is shown against a struck through 1,799.99.
Prices are in US dollars as published. A free tier offers keyword, citation and statute search with full judgments without an account, plus free student registration. The entry Essential tier includes the citator, visual search, importance matrix, topic alerts, encryption, 5 cases, 100MB storage and unlimited search history; its price was not found, so whether it is free or paid is unknown, and the entry price is the lowest confirmed paid rate.
The site blocks automated readers, so all figures were read through search results, and two readings differ on top tier storage, 5GB or unlimited. A third party directory says paid plans start at 149.99 with a free forever plan; the vendor's figure of 99 is used. 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 its qualifier matters. The promise is that data is never used to train external models, which covers the third party layer and leaves CaseMine's own models unaddressed. Since the assistant is described as powered by GPT, the natural reading is that customer content does not reach the base model provider's training, a real commitment; nothing says whether customer content informs CaseMine's own retrieval, embedding or fine tuning.
The privacy policy is silent on training, and the Terms of Use it mentions could not be found on 2 September 2026. AMICUS is described as trained entirely on authoritative legal sources and comprehensive legal archives, which concerns its source material, not user data. The position rests on the published policy statement, with its qualifier.
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 published routes point in opposite directions, so the position is acknowledged rather than settled. The quoted commitment goes on to say that any content uploaded to CaseIQ is removed immediately after processing, protected by 256 bit end to end encryption. But the same privacy policy says files, documents and data uploaded to a CaseMine account may be kept on secure servers even after deletion or account closure, for backup and legal compliance, with no period.
Nothing says how long prompts, chats or generated drafts persist normally, and no retention setting is offered. Deletion is available on request with a thirty day response commitment, and erasure rights are set out. A document dropped into CaseIQ is discarded at once, while the same document saved to an account may outlive the account.
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.
Matter folders and case limits exist, but no isolation boundary between customers, users or matters is described. 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 authorized 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 personalized 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 license or rights basis.
Sources are identified court by court, which for primary case law identifies the sources themselves. India covers the Supreme Court, all High Courts, tribunals and commissions. The United States covers the Supreme Court, federal circuit, district, bankruptcy and immigration courts, and all fifty states, with complete appellate and supreme court coverage but trial court rulings in only some states. The United Kingdom covers the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and major tribunals.
Updates are described as continuous, through an automated pipeline for each jurisdiction. No license, contract or permission basis is stated for any jurisdiction, no publisher or data supplier is named, and nothing covers the commentaries and columns the platform also carries. The company describes a long term focus on legal data infrastructure without saying 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. The FAQ describes the CaseMine Citator, which tracks how a case has been treated in later decisions, flags negative treatment and overruling, and shows where and how often a judgment is cited, so a user can judge whether a precedent is still good law. It is included, not an add-on: the pricing page lists checking for negatively treated and overruled judgments with an advanced citator in the entry tier, alongside an importance matrix and citation search.
Nothing says how treatment is decided, whether by editors or automatically, what categories exist beyond negative treatment and overruling, or how fully each of the three jurisdictions is covered.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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.
Retrieval before generation is the stated defense, with nothing on what happens when retrieval comes back empty. 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 addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, 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.
Sold into the United States, India and the United Kingdom, the product engages no professional guidance from any of them. No published material engages professional or ethics guidance in any of the three markets served: no ABA Formal Opinion 512 or state bar opinion for the United States, no Bar Council of India or Solicitors Regulation Authority material, and no guidance for UK barristers or solicitors. This matters because the platform is sold into three regulatory systems and drafts filings in all of them, and because the vendor runs a legal technology certificate program with an Indian law school, engaging the profession's institutions for training but not 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?
The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.
AI credits are counted per user, but no record of AI assisted work feeds a client bill. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed to a client, and no per matter record of it was found. There is also no quantified savings claim: the vendor's language about speed, clarity and working smarter gives no time or cost figure. The product counts AI credits per user per month and organizes work into cases, so the raw material for a per matter record exists, but nothing describes it as reportable or exportable, and credits are presented as an allowance, not 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.
A client asking which entities see its matter documents would get no named subprocessor, model provider or processing agreement. 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 center 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.
Linked citations, search history and case folders are kept, but none is a record of model use. Nothing addresses court standing orders, disclosure of AI use, or certification that a person checked the citations. The platform does produce records a professional could keep: citations linked to sources, unlimited search history on every tier, task management and case folders. None is described as a record of model use, and nothing shows which model produced which passage or who reviewed it.
The product drafts motions and petitions with citations in three jurisdictions where courts have begun asking this question, and its citator is the nearest thing it offers to a verification trail.