C
CiteRight
CiteRight is a litigation drafting and citation platform from Jurisage Group Inc of Ontario, used through a Microsoft Word add in and a browser extension for Chrome and Edge. Litigators save cases and legislation while researching, including legislation from CanLII, then insert citations and generate books and tables of authorities in Word. CiteSense, added in June 2025, recognizes plain text citations and matches them to cases in the user's library or Jurisage's database.
AI Insights, included for subscribers since June 2024, generates case summaries in ten categories from a proprietary set of Canadian case law, through preset prompts rather than a chat interface. Law firms shown on the site include Gowlings, Torys, Aird and Berlis, Bennett Jones and Lenczner Slaght. CiteRight and Jurisage combined in September 2023, and the same company offers a TOA Builder for United States courts on jurisage.com.
Clio announced its acquisition of Jurisage on 10 June 2026, and CiteRight's site continues under its own name with a banner saying it is joining Clio. The Teams plan is listed at $99 per user per month, billed annually, with the currency not named.
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.
Artificial intelligence is a feature layer on a citation and drafting product. CiteRight's core work, saving research, inserting citations and building books and tables of authorities in Word, does not depend on a model. AI Insights adds generated case summaries in ten preset categories, which the June 2024 announcement called CiteRight's first generative AI feature and made free to subscribers, and CiteSense, added in June 2025, recognizes plain text citations and matches them to cases. Both sit inside a product whose value stands without them.
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.
Accuracy is asserted without measurement. The AI Insights page describes accurate, reliable and rigorously validated summaries powered by Jurisage AI using court data, and says its summaries are trusted across Canada and by ICLR, the case law reporter for England and Wales. No accuracy figure, test set or failure mode is published, and no grounding or verification step is described for the summaries. The citation tools format and match citations; they are not described as checking what a generated summary says.
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.
The design limits what the model is asked to do, and no oversight commitment is published. AI Insights runs only preset summary prompts chosen from a menu, with no chat interface, and the lawyer drafts and cites in Word. No page says a summary must be reviewed before use, states what summaries may not be relied on for, or describes a review surface for the generated text. The subscription agreement and the end user license do not mention artificial intelligence.
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.
Named customers are published without figures, and figures without attribution. The home and AI Insights pages show law firms using CiteRight, among them Gowlings, Torys, Aird and Berlis, Bennett Jones and Lenczner Slaght, and a June 2024 post says Jurisage's summaries were built into the case law platform of ICLR, the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales, with the technology partner 67 Bricks.
The CiteRight Next page claims 90% faster citation management, 5x faster document drafting and 30% reduced search time, with no customer or method behind the figures.
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.
The subscription agreement makes customer data the customer's confidential information and limits its use, short of the full picture. The Software Subscription Agreement, last updated June 2025 and issued by CiteRight Inc, says the customer owns its data, permits use only to the extent necessary to perform the services, requires prompt written notice before any disclosure compelled by law, and requires erasure at termination.
It also assigns to CiteRight derived data that cannot be reverse engineered back to customer data. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, separation between users or matters, or what the model behind AI Insights retains.
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.
Nothing published addresses the line between the tool and legal advice. The Software Subscription Agreement and the end user license agreement contain no statement that the product does not give legal advice, and no surface read says who may use the summaries or how they fit a lawyer's duties of competence and supervision. The marketing addresses litigators and law firms, so the intended audience is clear.
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.
No governance position is published. The AI Insights pages say summaries are rigorously validated and that the prompts were designed by legal experts and refined by the team, which describes product quality work rather than governance, testing or accountability. The legal page links to a Generative AI Privacy Program, and that page carries the text of the subscription agreement, which does not mention artificial intelligence. No owner, testing regime or finding about uneven output is published.
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.
A security policy covers most of the ground, short of a named subprocessor list. The Security Policy, issued by Jurisage Group Inc for CiteRight, states daily backups to a secondary site kept 90 days in each data center, 256 bit AES encryption at rest, logical separation of each customer's data, least privilege access, annual independent penetration testing and breach notice within 72 hours. The subscription agreement requires erasure of customer data at termination, with backups deleted in the ordinary course, and commits to give customers a list of subcontractors. The page labeled Subprocessor List opens the agreement text instead.
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.
An IP indemnity and a cap are published, without anything specific to wrong output. Section 13.1 of the Software Subscription Agreement has CiteRight defend and indemnify the customer against third party claims that use of the services infringes an IP right protected in Canada, and section 14.2 caps CiteRight's total liability at the amounts the customer has already paid. The services are provided as is, and nothing addresses loss from a wrong summary or a misformatted citation.
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.
The product lives inside Word and the browser, documented in help articles, short of depth. CiteRight works through a Microsoft Word add in and a browser extension for Chrome and Edge that saves cases and legislation while researching, and the help center has articles on saving legislation from CanLII and on converting manual citations with CiteSense. The pricing FAQ says CiteRight requires 64 bit Windows 10 and Office 2016 at a minimum, and asks buyers interested in a macOS version to get in touch. No document management, practice management or single sign on integration is published.
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.
Residency is committed in the agreement and tenancy is described in a line, with no options. Section 2.3 of the Software Subscription Agreement says all CiteRight services are provided solely from computers, systems and networks located in Canada, and the Security Policy says each customer's data is logically separated from other customers' data in tier 3 or better data centers. No cloud provider, choice of region, private deployment or location for the model behind AI Insights is named.
The privacy policy, effective October 2019, says personal information may be transferred outside the user's jurisdiction.
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 badge is shown with no scope, date or report. The site footer carries a badge reading "SOC 2 Non-CPA certified", and the TOA Builder page says Jurisage is SOC2 compliant. The Security Policy says CiteRight's practices are designed to leverage best practices identified in ISO 27001 and ISO 27017 or standards such as SSAE 16 and SOC2, which names standards without claiming certification, and commits to annual independent penetration testing. No auditor, report period or route to a report is published.
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 models are referred to without identifying what sits underneath. AI Insights is described as powered by Jurisage AI, and a June 2024 post on the ICLR work says the summaries come from a highly customized large language model. The June 2024 AI Insights announcement says summaries are generated from a proprietary data set of Canadian case law the company owns. No base model, provider, hosting location for the model or change notice is published.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Real pricing is published for one plan and the enterprise tier is withheld. The pricing page lists the Teams plan at $99 per user per month, paid annually, without naming the currency, and an Enterprise plan on contact with analytics, enterprise security and service levels, personalized training and enhanced support. The page says CiteRight typically asks for a one year commitment up front and that pilots are available for Teams and firmwide plans. No implementation fee is stated, and AI Insights is included rather than priced separately.
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.
Who CiteRight serves is clear and the limits are partly stated. The site addresses litigators, the named users are Canadian law firms, and the pricing comparison is organized for solo, boutique and national firms. The research and summary content is Canadian case law, the help center explains how to create a custom reference for case law that is not Canadian, and the TOA Builder from the same company covers United States courts. The product requires Windows and Word. Which practice areas beyond litigation are supported is not stated.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for CiteRight, 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.
-
Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
citeright.net/ai-insights2 signals
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior, Court Disclosure Support
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
citeright.net/citeright-next2 signals
Good Law Verification, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 2, 2026
No published figure
- CiteRight's Teams plan is $99 per user each month, paid yearly.
- The page does not say which currency.
- Larger firms ask sales for Enterprise pricing.
- CiteRight usually asks for a one year commitment.
- AI case summaries come with a subscription.
Teams plan at $99 per user per month, paid annually, with no currency named; Enterprise on contact. CiteRight typically asks for a one year commitment up front, and pilots are available for Teams and firmwide plans. AI Insights is included for subscribers.
Implementation: Not stated.
Confidentiality and data terms: Not applicable.
Note: An Individual plan is referred to on the page with no price shown. No implementation fee, taxes or currency are stated. Minimum requirements are Windows 10 and Office 2016.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The customer agreement or data processing addendum contractually limits use of Customer Data to providing the contracted service, and no surface names training either way. The limit is bound, which a policy page is not, but it is not an express training prohibition. If any surface names training in either direction, one of the other values is true and this one is not.
The Software Subscription Agreement, last updated June 2025, says the customer owns its data and permits CiteRight, its subcontractors and personnel to use it only to the extent necessary to perform the services and enforce the agreement. Training is not named in the agreement or in the end user license. Section 8.1 assigns to CiteRight resultant data, derived from processing and not traceable back to customer data, a right that does not name training or models. The June 2024 AI Insights post says users send no data and summaries come from the company's own case law.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
The subscription agreement requires CiteRight to erase customer data when the agreement ends, while allowing copies in backups and disaster recovery systems until deleted in the ordinary course, and the Security Policy keeps backups for 90 days in each data center. No period is stated for data kept while the subscription runs, or for generated summaries specifically. The June 2024 AI Insights post says summaries are generated from the company's own case law rather than from data users send.
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.
The Security Policy says each customer's data is logically separated from other customers' data, but nothing located addresses walls, permissions or separation between matters or users within a firm's account, though the Teams plan is sold for sharing research across a firm. Checked the Security Policy, the subscription agreement and the pricing page on 2 October 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
Section 9.3(c) of the Software Subscription Agreement, last updated June 2025, requires a party compelled by law to disclose confidential information to give the other party prompt written notice so it may seek a protective order, and the agreement counts customer data as the customer's confidential information. The privacy policy, effective October 2019, separately says personal information may be disclosed in response to lawful requests by public authorities, without a notice commitment.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
CiteRight describes its summary corpus by jurisdiction and ownership, without naming sources. The June 2024 AI Insights post says summaries are generated from a proprietary data set of Canadian case law the company owns, the AI Insights page says summaries use court data, and the CiteSense post refers to Jurisage's database. Which courts, how far back, and where the decisions are obtained are not stated. Users also save cases and legislation from research sites themselves, including legislation from CanLII.
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 material describes checking whether a cited case remains good law or surfacing later treatment. CiteSense matches plain text citations to cases in a user's library or Jurisage's database, which identifies a case rather than its status. Checked the CiteRight Next, AI Insights and updates pages on 2 October 2026.
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.
No located material describes what AI Insights does when a judgment does not support a summary category, or how uncertainty is shown. The summaries run from preset prompts. Checked the AI Insights page and the two June 2024 AI Insights posts on 2 October 2026.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming CiteRight or Jurisage as the source of fabricated authority was located as of 2 October 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin returned no cases for CiteRight or for Jurisage.
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 material references law society or bar guidance on lawyers' use of AI, and neither the subscription agreement nor the end user license says the product does not provide legal advice. Checked the legal pages, the AI Insights page and the updates posts on 2 October 2026.
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.
CiteRight is used by law firm litigators inside the fee relationship with their clients. The CiteRight Next page claims 90% faster citation management, 5x faster document drafting and 30% reduced search time without addressing billing or disclosure to clients. The Teams plan lists disbursement reporting without describing it, and nothing says whether AI assisted work is recorded or identified.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
A Security Policy is published, covering backups, encryption, separation, penetration testing and breach notice, and section 2.6 of the subscription agreement commits CiteRight to give the customer a list of subcontractors with access to customer data or hosting it. The page labeled Subprocessor List opens the agreement text rather than a list, no model provider is named, and no security report is offered. Checked the legal pages on 2 October 2026.
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 material describes a record of which summaries or citations were generated with AI, or the model used, for disclosure to a court or opposing party. Checked the AI Insights, CiteRight Next and pricing pages on 2 October 2026.