C
Centerbase
Centerbase is a cloud legal operating platform built for midsize law firms, and its centre of gravity is the business of running a firm rather than the practice of law. It unifies matter management, timekeeping, billing and collections, trust and general accounting, document management, client intake, a client portal and secure messaging, CRM and contact management, configurable workflows and automation, and profitability and productivity reporting into one system of record.
Embedded payments, e-billing compliance through a BillSync integration, and online banking reconciliation extend it into a financial operating layer for the firm. The AI is called Centerbase IQ and it was launched in April 2026 at the Association of Legal Administrators annual conference. It is a natural language decision support layer sitting on the firm's own data: a managing partner or firm administrator asks a question in plain language, about collection rates by practice group, attorneys with work in progress ageing beyond sixty days, realisation, matter economics, origination, accounts receivable ageing or approaching deadlines, and receives a visual answer.
Every answer carries the source records behind it, so a figure can be traced back to the underlying billing entry or matter, and the vendor states that the analysis is isolated to the firm's own data. Firms can build an internal knowledge base of their own best practices and performance standards for answers to be benchmarked against. Alongside its own AI, Centerbase publishes a native integration with NetDocuments that connects matter data to ndMAX document intelligence, and a partnership with Billables AI for automated time capture. Centerbase, LLC is based in Dallas, Texas.
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 a core capability layered on a product that would function without them, which is B. Centerbase has sold a practice management, billing and accounting platform to midsize firms for more than a decade, and Centerbase IQ arrived in April 2026 as an intelligence layer on top of it. The vendor's own account of its history makes the sequence explicit: the chief product officer's colleague described the company's first act as building the core system of record, billing, accounting and practice management, and IQ as the layer that reads it.
Remove IQ and matter management, timekeeping, billing, collections, trust and general accounting, document management, intake, client portal, workflows and reporting all remain. Recorded on the other side because the positioning is moving quickly: by August 2026 the vendor describes itself as an AI-powered performance platform with AI-driven financial intelligence through its Centerbase IQ layer, and states a strategy to expand proactive insights and deepen agentic AI. **That last is future tense and does not evidence a shipped capability under the ground rules**; it is recorded, not graded. Verified 12 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 verifiable by the reader, short of any published measurement, which is B, and the design is better than the grade alone conveys. The vendor commits that **every Centerbase IQ answer includes the source records behind it**, that users see exactly where the answer came from, and that a firm administrator can trace a figure back to the underlying data. Its chief product officer puts the design intent in terms: they are not asking firm leaders to trust a black box, they are showing both the answer and the source.
The corpus is bounded to match, the insights being described as isolated to only the firm's own data, so there is no external material an answer could drift into. One feature of this product class is worth naming because it cuts in the vendor's favour: the cited sources are the firm's own billing entries and matter records, which the reader can open directly, so verification is more available here than on a product citing external authority.
What holds it off A is measurement. No accuracy figure, error rate, evaluation or test is published, and nothing describes how a natural language question is translated into a query over the firm's data. R15: the authority and citator limbs do not bite on a product that answers questions about a firm's finances rather than about law. Verified 12 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.
Oversight is implied by the design and not described as a structure, which is C. The autonomy actually shipped is modest and the vendor does not overstate it: Centerbase IQ answers questions put to it and returns visual, sourced answers. It does not act, file, draft or decide, and nothing published claims it does. The traceability design gives a user something to check against, and that is graded on the Citation Accuracy row rather than counted twice here.
What is absent is any published structure. Nothing states whether an answer should be verified before it is relied on in a partner meeting, nothing describes what the system does when a question cannot be answered from the data, no confidence indicator is described, and no threshold or escalation route appears. The gap is worth flagging forward rather than only recording, because the vendor has published its intention to **deepen agentic AI to power workflows**, and an intelligence layer that begins to act on billing, collections or matter data is a materially different oversight question from one that answers questions about them. Nothing published yet addresses what would govern that. Verified 12 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.
Third-party coverage and partner endorsements stand in for customer evidence, and no result is quoted with a basis, which is C. No named customer firm was located on any surface read, and no case study, named reference or attributed testimonial appears in the material examined. What the vendor does publish in that space is of a different kind: trade press coverage of the Centerbase IQ launch, a conference debut at the 2026 Association of Legal Administrators Annual Conference with a booth number, a listing in the ALA's own supplier directory, and a run of partnership announcements with NetDocuments, Billables AI and Scan Logic. **Partners are not customers and are recorded rather than credited**, and analyst or directory placement is not deployment evidence.
The claims that are made about outcomes are made in the abstract, that firms get greater delivery capacity without added headcount and stronger realisation, with no firm, figure, period or method attached. Named as unopened under the sufficiency discipline and as the route by which this row would move: the vendor's own customer and resource surfaces, and the Centerbase IQ product page at centerbase.com/IQ. Verified 12 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.
Confidentiality is addressed through infrastructure security and one real AI scoping statement, short of the data commitments this axis asks for, which is C. The security side is specific and is graded principally on the stewardship row: SHA256 4096-bit RSA encryption in transit, 256-bit AES encryption on backups, enterprise-class firewalls, and a SOC 2 Type II claim. The one statement that speaks directly to the AI is genuinely useful and is credited here: the vendor states that Centerbase IQ's insights are **isolated to only the firm's own data**, which addresses the question a managing partner would ask first about a tool reading the firm's financials.
Three of the five limbs are unaddressed on the surfaces read. Nothing states whether customer content is used to train models. No model provider is named, so nothing states what any third party may retain. And privilege and work product are not addressed at all, on a platform holding matter records, document management and the firm's complete billing narrative, where time entries routinely describe privileged work. No customer agreement was located; the legal path publishes a website privacy and security policy for payments. Verified 12 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.
Nothing published on professional responsibility was located, which is the D band, and R15 requires saying which limbs bite before the grade is read as heavier than it is. The advice-line limb barely applies. Centerbase IQ answers questions about the firm's own billing, collections, realisation, productivity and deadlines; it does not produce legal work product, advise on a client matter or generate anything that goes to a client or a court, so the question of whether output could be mistaken for legal advice does not arise in its usual form.
The audience limb is answered: the product is sold to law firms and the AI is addressed to managing partners and firm administrators. What is genuinely absent, and is what the grade records, is any statement connecting the tool to the professional obligations of the people using it. Nothing addresses the judgement a managing partner exercises when acting on a machine-generated read of realisation or attorney productivity, nothing addresses supervision, and no disclaimer of any kind was located.
No customer agreement was located either, and the security page that might have carried adjacent language is machine-refused to this index. Verified 12 September 2026.
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.
A principle is published without a mechanism, a testing regime or anything a buyer could audit, which is C. The principle is stated and is more than boilerplate: the chief product officer's position that AI in legal software has to earn trust before it earns adoption, that the company is not asking firm leaders to trust a black box, and that it shows both the answer and the source. Two design commitments sit behind it, source records on every answer and analysis isolated to the firm's own data, and the vendor uses the language of a governed system repeatedly across its platform and integration announcements.
That is a coherent stance. None of what the higher bands require appears. No governance framework is named, nobody is identified as accountable for AI decisions, nothing describes what is evaluated before a capability ships, and no testing regime is published. Bias is addressed nowhere, and the shape it would take here is worth naming: a tool that reports attorney productivity, realisation and origination is producing numbers that feed compensation and staffing decisions, and nothing published considers whether those readings are even across practice groups, seniority or working patterns. Verified 12 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.
Protection is documented and the data lifecycle is not, which is C. The protection half is specific and unusual in one respect worth recording: Centerbase runs its own infrastructure rather than a hyperscaler, describing the Centerbase Cloud as built on enterprise-class Dell server hardware and firewalls with 24/7 high-availability VMware clusters. Encryption is stated at a level of detail few records match, SHA256 4096-bit RSA from the browser to the data centre and 256-bit AES on all backups of customer data.
A SOC 2 Type II position is claimed and is graded on the certifications row. The other half of the axis is absent from every surface read. No retention period is stated for firm data, prompts or generated answers; no deletion right or export-on-termination commitment is published; no subprocessor list exists anywhere and no processor is named; and no breach or incident notification commitment was located. Two retrieval facts belong on the record: the current security page is **machine-refused** to this index by the site's robots file, so its content was recovered only through the search index, and that is a refusal rather than an absence. Verified 12 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.
Nothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong was located, which is the D band. No warranty, indemnity, liability cap, exclusion, service credit or insurance position appears on any surface read, and no customer agreement or master subscription agreement was located anywhere on the estate; the legal path publishes a privacy and security policy addressed to website and payments use rather than a contract governing the platform.
Nothing addresses what happens if Centerbase IQ misreports a collection rate, misstates work in progress ageing or misses a deadline it was asked about, on outputs the vendor itself positions as giving managing partners confidence in the boardroom. The absence is worth stating plainly against what the vendor does commit to: it promises that every answer carries its source records, which is a transparency mechanism that lets a user catch an error, and it makes no commitment at all about the consequences if the user does not.
Recorded as a retrieval position rather than a settled one: no agreement was located, the security page is robots-refused to this index, and this row would move on a customer agreement being found and read. Verified 12 September 2026.
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.
Real integrations, named, dated and described at the level of what they do, short of the depth an implementer could work from. Three are published as announcements within six months of each other and each is specific. **NetDocuments**, March 2026, described as the first native connection between a practice management platform's matter data and ndMAX document intelligence, so that AI is applied from the moment a matter opens, automating matter workflows and removing manual re-entry. **Billables AI**, April 2026, for automated time capture feeding practice intelligence. **Scan Logic BillSync**, August 2026, bringing e-billing and compliance into the platform.
Alongside those sit Outlook, Microsoft Calendar and Microsoft Word synchronisation and online banking reconciliation for trust accounts. That is a coherent integration story aimed squarely at the midsize firm stack. What holds it off A is documentation: no API or developer surface was located, nothing describes which objects synchronise or in which direction, and no configuration or authentication detail is published.
One published limit is recorded: a third-party review notes no direct Google Workspace integration. Verified 12 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.
The delivery model is described in real architectural detail and neither the region nor the tenancy model is stated, which is C. The deployment description is more concrete than most in this corpus and is distinctive because the vendor is not on a hyperscaler: it describes the Centerbase Cloud as built on industry-standard platforms with server hardware and firewalls that are enterprise-class systems from Dell, running 24/7 high-availability VMware clusters to keep services continuously available, with backups encrypted at 256-bit AES.
A firm evaluating this can picture how the service runs. What it cannot learn is where. No data centre location, country or region is named, no residency option is offered or refused, no tenancy model is described and nothing states whether one firm's data is logically or physically separated from another's beyond the AI-scoping statement graded on the privilege row. Nothing distinguishes where firm data is stored from where Centerbase IQ processes it, which matters because the vendor hosts its own infrastructure while the AI layer's own hosting is unstated.
The current security page is machine-refused to this index and its content was recovered through the search index. Verified 12 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.
A certification is claimed with no scope statement a reader can rely on, no date and no report available, which is C, and the reason is a discrepancy on the vendor's own estate rather than mere thinness. **Two live pages disagree.** The current security page states that the Centerbase platform is fully SOC 2 Type II and that the controls protecting firm data are independently tested every year. An older security page, still published, states that the platform is SOC 2 Type 2 compliant **regarding the Security trust services criterion only**, with the remaining four, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy, to be completed in 2025.
Those are materially different claims about the same attestation, and nothing on either page resolves which is current. No auditor is named on either, no report period or observation window is given, no certificate or report is published, and no trust centre exists. Two retrieval facts belong on the record under the ground rules' distinction between absent and machine-refused: the current security page is **robots-refused** to this index, so its text was recovered through the search index rather than by fetch, and that is a refusal about this reader rather than a fault of the site. Verified 12 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 vendor refers to its AI without identifying anything underneath it, which is C. Centerbase IQ is described as an AI-powered natural language decision support capability, an AI intelligence layer, and in the vendor's marketing as the only AI intelligence layer built on a native legal system of record. None of that names a model, a version or a provider, and nothing states where inference happens or commits to notifying a customer when any of it changes.
No subprocessor list exists on any surface read. What is disclosed, and credited on other rows rather than here, is the data side: the analysis is isolated to the firm's own data, every answer carries its source records, and firms may add an internal knowledge base of their own standards. Those describe what the model reads, not what the model is. One adjacent disclosure is recorded and expressly not credited to this vendor's own supply chain: the native NetDocuments integration brings **ndMAX** document intelligence into Centerbase workflows, which is a named third-party AI, but it is the partner's product rather than a component of Centerbase IQ. Verified 12 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.
No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, which is the D band. No pricing page was located on the vendor's estate, no rate, band, tier name or minimum appears anywhere on the surfaces read, and nothing states whether the platform is licensed per user, per firm or by module. The published routes are a demonstration request and a contact form, repeated as the call to action across the estate, and the Centerbase IQ announcement itself directs readers to a product page rather than to a price.
Under R10's closing discipline a page that only invites a sales conversation is an absence and belongs in this note alone, so no VendorPricing row is written for this record. Two things are recorded rather than credited. A third-party review states plainly that the vendor does not list pricing on its website and advises readers to contact the company for a quote, which corroborates the finding without being the basis for it.
And software directories publish estimates in the range of roughly $40 to $110 per user per month; those are directory extrapolations rather than vendor disclosure and are excluded under the ground rules. The vendor does note that a full accounting package carries an additional fee. Verified 12 September 2026.
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.
The segment is described with real substance and the boundaries around it are left open, which is B. Who this is for is stated with unusual consistency and is the vendor's whole positioning: **midsize law firms**, repeated across every announcement and product page as purpose-built rather than adapted. The vendor articulates why the segment is distinct rather than merely naming it, describing midsize firms as expected to operate with the strategic visibility of larger firms while running leaner administrative teams, and builds the AI around that gap.
Roles are named specifically: managing partners and firm administrators for Centerbase IQ, with attorneys, timekeepers, accounting teams and operations leaders as platform users. Functional coverage is enumerated across matter management, timekeeping, billing, collections, trust and general accounting, document management, intake, CRM, workflows and reporting. What is left open holds it off A. No practice area is named as supported or unsupported, the platform being practice-agnostic without saying so; no firm size is given in numbers, so midsize is left to the reader; no jurisdictional statement appears despite trust accounting rules varying by state; and nothing states what the product is not for. Verified 12 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Centerbase, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Primary Law Corpus Provenance and 5 more
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 12, 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 published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
A published policy exists, it does not address training, and the nearest statement is about scope rather than use, which is this value. The statement worth weighing is the chief product officer's, that Centerbase IQ's insights are derived in a very precise approach isolated to only the firm's own data. **That is a boundary on what the model reads, not a commitment about what the vendor does with what it reads**, and the distinction is exactly the one this signal turns on: a tool can answer only from one firm's records and still contribute those records to a training set.
Nothing published resolves it either way. The published privacy and security policy on the legal path addresses information collected through the website and payments rather than platform data, and **no customer agreement or master subscription agreement was located anywhere on the estate**, so R43(1) could not be discharged. The current security page is machine-refused to this index by the site's robots file and its content was recovered through the search index; nothing in what was recovered addresses training. On a reading of a customer agreement the three-way choice under R122(1) is live.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
No located public material states how long firm data, Centerbase IQ questions or generated answers are retained. The published material addresses protection rather than duration: encryption in transit and on backups, enterprise-class firewalls and high-availability clusters, all of which describe how data is held rather than for how long. Backups are mentioned as encrypted with no retention window stated for the backups themselves.
Nothing addresses deletion, export on termination, or what happens to a firm's records when a subscription ends. The AI layer is not addressed separately at all: nothing states whether the questions a managing partner asks, or the answers and visualisations returned, are retained beyond the session, which matters because those questions can themselves be sensitive, a query about a particular attorney's realisation or write-offs being a record of management scrutiny.
The published privacy and security policy on the legal path is scoped to the website and payments. No customer agreement was located, and the current security page is machine-refused to this index.
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.
No located public material describes a permission model or matter-level segregation. The vendor refers to comprehensive controls for administrators and to a single governed system, and neither is a description of who can see what. Nothing published sets out user roles, access groups, matter-level restrictions, conflict screening, or how a firm would wall one team off from another's files. The question is sharper than usual on this record and the note records why.
Centerbase IQ answers questions across the firm's billing, matter, productivity and origination data, which is precisely the material a firm would ordinarily restrict: origination credit, individual attorney realisation and write-offs, and matter economics are not normally visible to everyone. Nothing published states whether IQ answers within the permission scope of the person asking or across the whole firm regardless, and for a tool addressed to managing partners and administrators that is the first configuration question a firm would raise.
Recorded as an absence on the surfaces read, with the product page at centerbase.com/IQ and the machine-refused security page named as where it might be answered.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No located public material addresses what happens when a third party demands customer data. Nothing on the surfaces read refers to subpoenas, warrants, court orders, regulator notices or law enforcement, and no commitment or reservation about notifying the customer appears. No transparency report exists. The published privacy and security policy on the legal path is scoped to information collected through the website and payments rather than to the platform's contents, and no customer agreement was located anywhere on the estate.
The material held makes the question a real one rather than a formality: this platform holds a midsize firm's complete billing narrative, and time entries and matter records describe what lawyers did for which clients and when, which is discoverable-adjacent material that opposing parties, regulators and taxing authorities have reason to seek. A demand served on the platform rather than on the firm would reach the firm's clients' affairs without the firm necessarily knowing.
Nothing published addresses it. The current security page is machine-refused to this index and its recovered content does not reach the question.
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 exactly and nothing behind it is, which is this value. The identification is as precise as this corpus gets: Centerbase IQ reads the billing, financial, matter and productivity data already housed in Centerbase, enumerated as billing, collections, matter economics, realisation, work in progress and accounts receivable ageing, attorney productivity, origination and docket activity, and the vendor states that the analysis is isolated to only the firm's own data.
A second, firm-authored corpus is described alongside: an internal knowledge base the firm builds within IQ from its own best practices and performance standards, against which answers are benchmarked. So a buyer knows exactly what the model reads, and there is no external legal corpus whose licensing this signal would otherwise test. The rights position on the firm's side is not stated anywhere, no published document addressing what the vendor may do with platform data, and no customer agreement was located.
Nothing states what the underlying models were trained on, and no model or provider is named, which is graded on the Model Supply Chain row.
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.
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and on this product the question does not arise. Centerbase IQ answers questions about the firm's own finances and operations, not about law. It cites no cases, statutes or regulations, and the sources it does cite are the firm's own billing entries and matter records. Nothing it produces is a proposition about the state of the law whose treatment a lawyer would check.
The nearest adjacency worth recording is docket activity, which the vendor lists among the data IQ reads and which includes approaching deadlines: currency there is a matter of whether the firm's own calendar data is up to date rather than whether an authority remains good law, and no staleness or freshness statement is published about it. Recorded so the row states the position plainly rather than leaving a reader to infer it from the product category.
The surfaces read were the Centerbase IQ announcement in full, the partnership announcements, and security content recovered through the search index from a machine-refused page.
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 addresses what Centerbase IQ does when it cannot answer. The published description is confident throughout: users ask in natural language and instantly receive visual, citation-backed answers, and the examples given are all cases where the data supports a clean answer, collection rates by practice group, attorneys with work in progress ageing beyond sixty days, matters with approaching deadlines.
Nothing describes the other case. No statement says that a question outside the data is declined, that an incomplete answer is flagged, that a confidence indicator accompanies a figure, or that ambiguity in a natural language question is surfaced back to the user rather than resolved silently. What the vendor does publish is adjacent and genuinely useful, that every answer carries its source records so a user can check the basis, and that is graded on the Citation Accuracy row; being able to audit an answer is not the same as being told the system was unsure.
The distinction matters on a tool whose output is quoted in partner meetings, where a confidently wrong realisation figure is harder to catch than a refusal.
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 on 12 September 2026, on the product name with a legal-software qualifier and on the corporate name, against published trackers of decisions on AI-generated fabricated citations including coverage of the Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database and two independent sanctions trackers. None located. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject as of the date shown, and under R119 this signal records fabricated citations and nothing else, so it is not a litigation history.
Recorded because it bears on how this signal should be read on this record: the product generates no citations to legal authority at all, its AI having launched in April 2026 and answering questions about a firm's own billing and operational data. The exposure this signal tracks is not the exposure this product presents, and its analogous failure would be a misstated financial or productivity figure relied on in a management decision, which no tracker records and which would surface, if at all, as a commercial dispute rather than a sanctions order.
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.
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance. No bar opinion is named, ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not appear, no state guidance on generative AI in legal practice is referenced, and nothing maps the product to a rule of professional conduct. Nor is professional responsibility referred to in general terms on the surfaces read. The vendor's trust argument is made in commercial and technical language rather than professional language: AI has to earn trust before it earns adoption, firm leaders are not asked to trust a black box, they are shown both the answer and the source.
Recorded and expressly not credited, because it is adjacent enough to be mistaken for engagement: the product debuted at the Association of Legal Administrators Annual Conference and is listed in the ALA's supplier directory, which is a trade-body marketing channel rather than any statement of alignment with ethics guidance. The one area where a professional rule plainly touches this product, trust accounting compliance under state rules, is presented as a feature rather than tied to any published authority.
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, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Capacity and realisation claims are published and nothing addresses billing disclosure, on a product that is itself the firm's billing system. The claims are explicit in the NetDocuments announcement: greater delivery capacity without added headcount, workflows that make alternative fee arrangements more predictable, and stronger realisation and client service. The fee relationship is engaged more directly here than on most records, because Centerbase is where the time is captured, the invoice is built, collections are chased and realisation is measured, and the Billables AI partnership adds automated time capture on top.
Nothing published states whether AI-assisted work is identified on a bill, whether a client is told, or how a firm should price work that AI has compressed. One distinction is recorded rather than glossed: Centerbase IQ's own saving is administrative, sparing a managing partner a report request rather than reducing billable work, so the compression claim attaches to the partner integrations rather than to the vendor's own AI. Either way the platform sits inside the fee relationship and the disclosure question is unaddressed.
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.
No located public material supports a client-side disclosure obligation, and none of the three artifacts this signal looks for exists on the surfaces read. There is no subprocessor list anywhere. No model provider is named, so a firm asked which third party processes its data through Centerbase IQ could not answer from anything published. No data processing addendum, security exhibit or forwardable client-facing pack was located, and no trust centre exists.
The value is not on-request, because nothing indicates such material sits behind a request process: no security contact, documentation request route or portal is published, and the security page that might have offered one is machine-refused to this index. The gap has a specific edge on this record, because the product's own subject matter is the firm's relationship with its clients: Centerbase handles e-billing and compliance through its Scan Logic integration, and the corporate clients that impose outside counsel guidelines are the same ones now writing AI clauses into them, so a firm running its e-billing here may be asked exactly this question by the client whose invoices flow through it.
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.
No located public material addresses disclosure of AI involvement in legal work, and the record the product does produce is a different artifact worth distinguishing. What Centerbase IQ produces is a traceable answer: every answer includes the source records behind it, users see where it came from, and an administrator can trace a figure back to the underlying billing entry or matter. That is a real provenance trail and it is graded on the Citation Accuracy row.
It is a record of how a management figure was derived, not a record of AI involvement in anything that reaches a client, an opponent or a court. Nothing identifies the model, no model is named anywhere, nothing distinguishes machine-generated from human-authored content in any output, and no disclosure template, certification or court-facing guidance was located. The distinction is worth stating rather than forcing the signal: this product does not touch legal work product, so the disclosure exposure it carries is indirect, reaching a court only if a firm's internal analytics became relevant to a fee dispute or a sanctions inquiry into billing.