C

Caseway

Every product a customer pays for is model work, and the company was built that way. Casey is a generative research assistant that answers legal questions in conversation with answers cited to Canadian and United States case law, plus analysis of uploaded documents linked to citations. CaseForm completes court and regulatory forms by extracting required fields from source documents and prior filings and applying rules specific to each jurisdiction before submission.

Synthium is a retrieval and validation layer for complex regulated work. The agreement rests on the same premise. It defines Output as material the platform generates from Input, acknowledges that the platform uses probabilistic prediction and pattern analysis with inherent limits, and treats third party large language models as a dependency. One surface does not use the models. CaseLite is a free keyword and citation search over the same collection, which the vendor positions as the starting point from which a user upgrades to Casey for AI answers. It is a route into the paid product rather than a separate business.

Grounding is documented and can be checked, and nothing is measured. Answers are cited to real court decisions, and the methodology page states that the product does not generate opinion text or fabricate citations. Opening a result shows structured metadata and documents tied to a real source identifier from the upstream publisher. The same collection is free through CaseLite without an account, and the vendor invites users to run a known citation and see how the record appears, so the grounding claim can be tested independently.

Limits are published. Not every court, tribunal or period is equally represented, absence of a case does not mean it does not exist, older records may lack citations or dockets, and critical citations should be confirmed against the official reporter when filing. The agreement tells users always to confirm that cited sources support the statements made. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set, benchmark or evaluation is published. A user can establish that answers point at real documents, not how often the reasoning over them is right.

Responsibility is allocated to the user in detail, and the system's own behavior is not described. The agreement says the user alone must review and verify any Output before using it in a legal matter, that outputs may be incorrect or incomplete, that Output should not be relied on without advice from a licensed attorney, and that the vendor is not liable for actions taken on it. The methodology page repeats that search is a research aid rather than legal advice.

Nothing published describes what runs without a person, when the system acts on its own, what a review step looks like in the product, or whether any human checkpoint exists. That matters for CaseForm, which applies validation specific to each jurisdiction before submission of court and regulatory forms, placing automated work against a filing deadline. Nothing states who presses submit, what the validation checks, or what happens when it passes something wrong. No confidence signal, escalation path, audit view or reviewer workflow is described for any product.

Institutional association is evidenced, and customer outcomes are not. A research collaboration with the University of British Columbia is reported in the legal trade press, and the vendor describes it as anchoring AI systems in real court decisions. CaseForm has a named integration with MyCase, a practice management product. The free search can be used by anyone without an account, and trade coverage runs across Canadian Lawyer, CBC and regional technology press from 2024 to 2026.

No customer is named on the pages read, no deployment is quantified, and no time saving, cost saving, user count or matter volume is published. The methodology page itself tells users to treat size claims as a point in time and to check availability in the product, which is candid and leaves no number. A Success Stories page and a Testimonials page appear in the site navigation and were not opened; they may say more.

A real contractual confidentiality regime sits beneath an express denial that anything entered is privileged. Clause 7 makes customer data the customer's confidential information and binds each party to use the other's only for the agreement. Disclosure is limited to employees and contractors who need to know under equal obligations, with at least reasonable care. Around it sit a zero retention default, deletion of uploads within twenty four hours, chat history saved only on opt in and deletable at any time, and a bar on training public models on customer input.

Against that, clause 3 states that because the user is not receiving legal advice, nothing entered is protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. It tells users not to enter confidential or sensitive information unless they are entitled to and accept that it will not be privileged. Privilege is therefore addressed by name and answered against the buyer. Nothing addresses separation between matters or between users within one customer.

The boundary is drawn repeatedly and in the agreement, and no governing rule is named. The platform is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, and using it creates no attorney-client relationship. Output is general information generated by AI, not a substitute for professional counsel, and users agree not to rely on it without advice from a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction. The vendor disclaims responsibility for actions taken on it, and the warranty section and the methodology page repeat the point.

A jurisdictional caveat says the platform may not be appropriate or available everywhere and that users where it imposes extra obligations proceed at their own risk. That matters because the product is sold to the public as well as to legal professionals, which is where unauthorized practice becomes a real question, and the vendor answers it with disclaimers. No provincial law society rule, statutory prohibition on unauthorized practice, bar guidance or court rule is named, in a market where the rules are made province by province.

Limitations are acknowledged candidly and no governance stands behind them. The agreement states that the platform's AI involves probabilistic predictions and pattern analysis with inherent limits, and that the vendor does not guarantee that Output will be correct, complete or suitable, or that any legal result will follow. The methodology page publishes five named limitations of the collection, including uneven representation across courts and historical periods and the warning that absence of a case does not mean it does not exist.

The privacy policy commits that legal content is not used for model training, profiling or advertising. No AI governance policy, framework or standard is published, and no certification such as ISO 42001 is claimed. Nobody is named as accountable for the system's behavior, and no evaluation before release, red teaming, benchmark or monitoring is described. No bias, fairness or representativeness disclosure exists, for a product built on judicial decisions about identifiable parties whose own methodology page concedes uneven representation.

Substantive published policy covers the data questions, and the supply chain and incident practice are absent. Clause 7 of the agreement sets a zero retention default: session content, uploads, queries and prompts are stored only temporarily to generate Output unless the user saves them. Uploaded documents and context files are deleted within twenty four hours, chat histories are saved only on opt in and can be deleted at any time, and the form product keeps no case or matter data on the vendor's servers.

The vendor will not train public AI models on customer input, and the privacy policy says legal content is not used for model training at all, with no sale of personal data and no advertising profiles. Security is described generally as encryption in transit and at rest, access controls and monitoring. No subprocessor or service provider is named, and no incident or breach notification practice, timeline or security contact is published.

The agreement states plainly that the vendor is not HIPAA or PCI DSS certified and tells users not to process health or payment card data.

A complete allocation in both directions is published and readable before signing, including an indemnity running to the customer. Clause 12.1 commits the vendor to defend the customer against a third party claim that the platform, used under the terms, infringes a valid copyright, patent or trademark or misappropriates a trade secret. It indemnifies against damages, costs and reasonable fees awarded or settled, with remedies of modifying the platform, obtaining a license, or terminating with a pro rata refund.

Liability is capped mutually at the greater of twelve months of fees paid or CAD 500, with fraud, gross negligence and willful misconduct capped at twice that. Termination for convenience by the vendor carries thirty days notice and a pro rata refund of prepaid fees. The platform and all content are provided as is, and the accuracy or reliability of Output is expressly not warranted. No service level or insurance position is published, and the CAD 500 floor is small against the exposure a wrong fact in a filed document creates. Clause 8 disclaims liability for failures of third party AI models.

One named practice system and an API are stated, with no documentation read. The form product integrates with MyCase, a practice management platform, on its own page in the site navigation. API access is stated for the research assistant for research and document workflows, and API or embedded interface options are offered for the form product. For the enterprise data hub the vendor describes custom pipelines and integrations tailored to a customer's systems, which is a services statement rather than a named connector.

No API or developer documentation is published, and no authentication or scope model is described. No document management system, email client, word processor or electronic signature product is named, and nothing says what moves in which direction across the MyCase connection or how permissions carry over. An Integrations and Partnership page appears in the navigation and was not opened; it may say more.

Neither storage nor processing location is stated for the research assistant, and what is published belongs to another product. For the research assistant, no country or region is named for storage or processing, no residency option is offered, no tenancy model is described and no cloud provider is identified. The privacy policy says what is kept and for how long but never where, and the agreement's only geographic content is a governing law clause and an arbitration seat.

For the enterprise data hub, the vendor describes secure deployments with data residency options and compliance support, on premises or in an isolated cloud. Nothing connects that to the research assistant a lawyer buys at the published seat price. Nothing says the assistant can run on premises, in isolated tenancy or in a chosen region. A buyer can see that the company offers these options to enterprise customers, but not what applies to their own matter data.

No certification is claimed, none is held so far as anything published shows, and no trust center exists. There is no SOC 2, ISO 27001, independent audit, named auditor, penetration test result, compliance page or portal for requesting documents. The site navigation has no security or trust entry; its legal section lists only the privacy policy and the terms, so the absence is established from the vendor's own page list.

The agreement states plainly that the vendor is not HIPAA or PCI DSS certified and tells users not to process health or payment card data, and no unsupported badges appear on the site. Clause 7 refers to a Statement of Confidentiality with more technical and legal detail on how customer data is protected. No location is given for it, it does not appear in the navigation, and it is not published.

The supply chain is acknowledged and not one participant in it is named. Clause 8 of the agreement says the platform may rely on third party services, including third party large language models or data sources, and that some customer input may be processed by third party AI engines under the vendor's contracts with them. Users are told plainly that outside models see their material. No model, model family, provider, inference host or cloud provider is named anywhere, including in the privacy policy, which refers only to contracted service providers acting on instructions.

The same clause reserves the right to replace, update or disable third party services at any time. It says a change to or loss of a third party AI model gives the customer no right to a refund or relief. The vendor commits that third party processing will be under appropriate confidentiality and data protection obligations and disclaims liability for those providers.

Figures are published for the priced products, with a stated unit of charge, a free tier without an account, and the commercial terms in the agreement. The research assistant costs CA$49.00 per month, with a monthly and yearly toggle. The form product costs $49 per seat per month with its own purchase path, and the enterprise data hub has a contact route. Search is offered free with no account, and the vendor describes the upgrade from it to the AI assistant.

Students get fifty percent off and veterans fifteen percent, with eligibility checks. The agreement sets fees in Canadian dollars excluding taxes, billed monthly or annually by card or invoice, with late interest of 1.5 percent a month. Fees are non cancellable and non refundable, with no refund for cancellation mid term, a thirty day window to dispute a charge, and a pro rata refund where the vendor terminates for convenience on thirty days notice.

No usage limits, quotas or overage terms are published. The assistant's feature list refers to uploads for premium users while only one price is shown, so a premium tier exists without a published price.

Coverage is stated by jurisdiction with named collections, and the vendor publishes what it does not cover. Case law covers the United States, federal and state, and Canada, federal, provincial and territorial. Primary law browsing covers California, Florida, New York and Texas, plus Canadian federal, provincial and territorial collections as released. Records carry party names, courts, decision dates, docket or court file identifiers and citations where the source has them.

Ingest is ongoing as sources publish, and the vendor says depth and lag vary by court and recent filings may appear after a delay. The limits are the strongest part: coverage of courts, tribunals and periods is uneven, absence of a case does not mean it does not exist, older records may be incomplete, and primary law outside the listed jurisdictions may be missing. Buyers named are law firms, enterprises and individuals, with legal alongside defense, manufacturing, energy, mining and utilities. No depth by court, date range or historical start point is given for any collection.