C
Cloud Court
Cloud Court makes Gibson, testimony intelligence software that turns deposition and trial transcripts into searchable, analyzable data for litigation teams. Gibson takes transcripts from one case or many, extracts topics and the question and answer pairs on each one, and indexes testimony by witness, witness type, alignment and deposition. It also measures the record itself, such as who objected and how often, how long answers ran and what adverse counsel asked in earlier depositions.
Gibson ships with standard reports and visualizations, which Cloud Court's team can customize. Litigators use it to prepare witnesses, anticipate opposing counsel, find contradictions with past testimony, draft motions and share findings with aligned parties. Buyers include law firms in mass tort, antitrust and multidistrict litigation, corporate legal departments facing serial plaintiffs, government agencies and insurers reviewing examinations under oath.
Gibson is hosted software on Microsoft's United States data centers, covered by a SOC 2 Type II report, and pricing is set in a consultation. Founded in 2017 by litigators and in house counsel, Cloud Court, Inc. is based in Minneapolis and led by CEO Michael Okerlund, a former litigator and general counsel. Elevate has partnered with it since 2024.
Cloud Court, 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 Cloud Court
Vendors in the same categories as Cloud Court 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.
- CConsilioConsilio is a global eDiscovery and legal data business that sells software and managed services together, built around two platforms.
- KKLDiscovery NebulaNebula is KLDiscovery's ediscovery platform, covering discovery from ingestion and processing through early case assessment, review, analysis and production in one environment.
- OOpus 2Opus 2 is a platform for running commercial disputes from client instruction to the hearing room, built around case preparation, collaboration and live proceedings rather than document review.
- SSylloSyllo is a litigation platform developed and sold by TLATech Inc., a New York company founded in 2019 by two litigators and two Carnegie Mellon engineers.
- WWexler AIWexler is a fact intelligence platform for disputes and investigations teams.
- MMateyMatey is an AI discovery analysis platform from MateyAI, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for criminal defense.
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.
Gibson ingests deposition and trial transcripts in common formats and extracts topics and keywords from them. It pulls every question and answer pair on a topic across any number of depositions, and can narrow the set to adverse witnesses, aligned witnesses or a witness type such as fact, expert or corporate. Reports and dashboards then drill down to the specific passages behind each result. A single run can cover one current hearing or more than 100 past transcripts.
Typical questions are how witnesses testified on a topic, which answers conflict with their past testimony, which questions taking counsel asked before and how often defending counsel objected.
The same pass collects objective measures of each deposition, such as objections by type, answer length and the questions each attorney asked. Depositions can be compared against benchmarks, and recurring witnesses, experts and opposing counsel are profiled across matters. Users tag testimony and build their own taxonomies, and reports can filter on those tags. Gibson also helps pick the most effective expert, damages or 30(b)(6) witness and flags what a witness should expect under questioning.
According to the privacy notice, the AI products handle natural language processing, text analysis, document generation and insights. Cloud Court's CEO writes that the company holds both generative and non generative AI and has favored non generative methods for testimony.
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.
Gibson's output is drawn from the transcripts themselves. Topic results are the question and answer pairs found in the record, and every report drills down to the content instances behind it, so a lawyer reads the testimony rather than a paraphrase. Testimony on a topic can be exported across witnesses. Views run from a global picture to a single passage, and testimony can be compared across witnesses, files and other indices.
In a February 2024 post, CEO Michael Okerlund explains the preference for non generative AI with an example of ChatGPT placing quotation marks around words the Federal Rules of Evidence do not contain. The post concludes that lawyers should prefer ignorance to error.
No accuracy measure for topic extraction or for generated reports is published.
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.
Gibson produces reports, dashboards and drill downs that litigators read and act on. It does not file, draft for filing or act in a matter by itself. Its pages frame the product as artificial intelligence working with human intelligence, with Gibson taking on tedious work while lawyers handle higher level thinking. During a deposition, the team can work in the platform with remote colleagues and look up its witness kit as testimony unfolds.
Customers can use the standard reports and visualizations or have Cloud Court's team customize their views. That team of ten includes a litigation project manager and a data migration analyst. The privacy notice lists AI document generation among the functions of its AI products.
No review step is described for the documents Gibson generates.
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.
Five deployments are described without naming the customer. A firm in multidistrict litigation analyzed more than 300 historical deposition transcripts, and an insurer reviewed hundreds of examinations under oath after a disaster and recovered millions on fraudulent claims. A federal agency used Gibson against repeat plaintiffs and reports smaller settlements and more dismissals. Antitrust litigators analyzed more than 140 depositions taken by aligned counsel, and one organization built a knowledge base of depositions and trials spanning decades.
Quotes come from a litigation associate and a partner at unnamed large firms. The associate says Gibson spares days of reading through hundreds of files and 20,000 pages of testimony. The EDRM added Cloud Court to its Trusted Partner Network in July 2023. Elevate named it in June 2024 among the companies it partners with to serve its customers, and Hire Counsel appears among its partners. At Cloud Court's January 2025 conference, which drew 100 registrants, Bill Childs, formerly of 3M and Solventum, described how tools like Cloud Court's had helped his team with testimony.
None of these customers is named, and no result carries a figure beyond these counts.
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.
Safeguarding customer data is the stated focus of Cloud Court's security program, with controls for confidentiality, availability and security mapped to the SOC 2 criteria.
The privacy notice says personal information handled by its AI products follows that notice and Cloud Court's agreements with third parties. The terms of service, which cover the website and purchases made through it, treat contributions posted to the site as non confidential and license them to Cloud Court for any purpose.
No customer agreement for Gibson is published.
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.
Gibson is sold to litigators, in house legal teams, government agencies and insurers. Its pages pose strategic questions it helps answer, from which expert to put up to whether to settle or fight. The company was founded by litigators and in house counsel, and its CEO is a former litigator and general counsel.
Neither the terms nor the product pages say anything about legal advice.
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.
The stated position is a design choice. For testimony, Cloud Court favors non generative AI over generative tools, because a wrong answer stated with confidence costs a lawyer more than a gap. Its pages describe AI as having advantages and limitations and set Gibson up to work alongside lawyers rather than replace them.
The security program includes a documented risk management policy, continual risk assessments and a formal risk register, with the detail held in the SOC 2 report. Since January 2025 it has run three CLE events on legal AI, the latest in May 2026, and its blog announced in April 2024 that the EDRM had formed a Testimony Evidence Reference Model project.
No testing method or result for Gibson's extraction or reports 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.
Product systems and data run in Microsoft's United States data centers, never in Cloud Court's offices. Employees reach production only through Microsoft Entra with device validation and multifactor authentication, day to day access is limited to engineering, and standing administrative access is restricted.
Code is reviewed, tested and scanned before release, and new code passes through a separate QA environment segmented from production. Staff in the United States pass background checks, acknowledge the information security policy and take security and phishing training each year. A vendor management program reviews third party providers, and company laptops run full disk encryption and endpoint detection.
The privacy notice keeps personal information no longer than 12 months after an account ends, and the terms describe routine backups. Security incidents are reviewed by the security team and handled with affected customers as each case requires. No subprocessor list or notice deadline is published.
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.
Terms of service last updated 27 March 2025 govern the website and purchases made through it. They provide the site as is, disclaim all warranties, and exclude direct, indirect and consequential damages. Liability is capped at the lesser of fees paid in the six months before a claim or $10,000.
Users indemnify Cloud Court against third party claims arising from contributions, use of the site or breach of the terms, and the terms disclaim liability for lost or corrupted user data. Minnesota law governs, and most disputes go through at least 30 days of informal negotiation before binding arbitration.
Nothing in them addresses liability for wrong output.
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.
Gibson takes deposition and trial transcripts in common formats, uploaded by the customer. Its dashboards and reports are configurable, and aligned parties can work in the same interface.
Court reporting agencies are invited to partner on a direct pipeline from their transcripts into the platform, which Cloud Court says its clients have asked for. Its patent portfolio covers automated deposition transcription, remote proceeding capture, speaker identification and evidence linkage.
No connection to another system is described.
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.
Gibson is offered as software as a service through purpose built web applications. Its product infrastructure resides in Microsoft's data centers in the United States. Cloud Court relies on Microsoft's audited controls for physical and infrastructure security and points customers to Microsoft's Service Trust portal for those reports. Code moves through a separate QA environment before production, and the hosted service is updated continuously, with major changes announced in the app.
Gibson runs only as this hosted service.
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 SOC 2 Type I examination was completed as of 16 October 2023, and a SOC 2 Type II report followed in April 2024. Cloud Court commits to a SOC 2 Type II audit every year covering security, availability and confidentiality, and offers the report on request from its security page.
The report, with its auditor and period, is released on request.
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.
Both generative and non generative AI are in use, with non generative methods favored for testimony. Patent filings with an earliest priority date of 28 April 2017 describe probabilistic language modeling, matter specific language models and machine learning that ranks legal documents. The privacy notice says AI processing runs under agreements with third parties.
No model or third party provider is named.
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.
Each product page ends in a consultation request. The terms of service accept card payment, describe recurring subscription charges billed through an online account, make purchases non refundable and let a customer cancel at the end of the paid term. Payments are in United States currency, and prices may change at any time.
Resellers, referral partners, software alliances and legal service providers are invited to sell alongside the company. No price is published for Gibson.
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.
Four buyer groups are named. Law firms use Gibson in large volume and business critical cases, class and mass tort matters, antitrust, serial litigation against the same parties and deposition training. Corporate legal departments use it for pattern litigation, serial plaintiffs and oversight of outside counsel. Government agencies build testimony knowledge bases on repeat plaintiffs and experts, and insurers analyze examinations under oath and track attorney, firm and witness performance.
Gibson handles depositions, trial transcripts and other hearings, and court reporting agencies are invited to partner. The work is aimed at matters with many depositions or a long history of testimony. Cloud Court places it in new attorney onboarding, motion and brief drafting, settlement and mediation, witness preparation and trial outlines. By its own definition, testimony intelligence work follows or overlaps eDiscovery and comes before deposition designations.
No jurisdiction is named and no limit on matter type or size is stated.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for Cloud Court, 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.
-
Billing and Fee Posture, Court Disclosure Support
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
cloudcourtinc.com/privacy-policy2 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
cloudcourtinc.com/security2 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 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.
Under the privacy notice of 26 March 2025, personal information is processed to provide, improve and administer its services. Data handled by its AI products follows the notice and Cloud Court's agreements with third parties. The terms of service give Cloud Court a perpetual, unrestricted license to use contributions posted to the site for any purpose, including derivative works, and treat them as non confidential. Questions, comments and feedback about the site become Cloud Court's property.
Neither document names model training, and neither says whether uploaded transcripts count as contributions. No customer agreement for Gibson is published.
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.
Personal information is kept, under the privacy notice, for as long as its purposes require, and no longer than 12 months after a user's account ends. Data held in backups is isolated from further processing until it can be deleted. The terms of service mention routine backups and disclaim liability for lost or corrupted data. They also make the user responsible for all data sent to the site. No retention period is stated for uploaded transcripts or the reports built from them. Gibson is sold for knowledge bases of testimony collected across matters, some spanning decades.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
The security page says customers and employees reach data through role based access control, and that employee access to production needs Microsoft Entra, device validation and multifactor authentication. Its chief technology officer oversees those safeguards. Gibson is built for sharing findings across a case team and with aligned parties at other firms through one interface, and its dashboards can be configured per user.
A taking attorney's remote colleagues can use the platform during a live deposition. How access is set per matter, and how aligned parties are kept apart from the rest of a customer's testimony, is not described.
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.
Neither the terms of service nor the privacy notice addresses requests from courts, law enforcement or other third parties for customer data. The privacy notice lists vendors, consultants and service providers among those who may receive personal information. Those providers receive data only for work they do on Cloud Court's behalf. The notice states that Cloud Court processes no sensitive personal information and collects none from third parties.
The notice also allows transfers in a merger or sale of the business. The security page says incidents are handled with affected customers as each case requires. Customer requests and privacy events feed its incident response process.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Gibson works on the deposition and trial transcripts a customer supplies, from current matters and from its own archive of past testimony. Cloud Court's own definition of testimony intelligence covers past depositions, trial and current deposition transcripts and other hearings. Insurers load examinations under oath taken after a single event, and agencies build collections of testimony from repeat plaintiffs and their experts.
Reports draw only on that record, and the profiles of witnesses, experts and opposing counsel are built from the same transcripts. No source beyond the customer's transcripts is named.
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.
Gibson cites testimony, not case law. Its reports point to question and answer pairs and passages in the customer's transcripts, and its exports collect testimony by topic across witnesses. No check of legal authority is described. A quoted associate uses the exported testimony for motion practice and trial examination outlines. Profiles of opposing counsel and experts draw on how they behaved in past testimony, not on rulings about them.
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.
The CEO writes that the company favors non generative AI for testimony because confident errors cost lawyers more than gaps, and that lawyers should prefer ignorance to error. Gibson's reports return the testimony found on a topic rather than a composed answer, with drill downs to each passage. Its metrics are counts taken from the record, such as objections by type and answer length. No behavior is described for a query the transcripts cannot support, or for the AI document generation listed in the privacy notice.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Cloud Court or its Gibson product. Gibson analyzes deposition and trial transcripts for litigation teams, returning the testimony itself rather than drafting filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.
A January 2025 recap of Cloud Court's Brewing the Future CLE conference reports a session on assessing agentic AI against legal ethics rules, naming Rule 5.3 on nonlawyer assistance. Panelists compared oversight of AI to the supervision of junior associates and urged attendees to be proactive, critical and ethical in adopting it. The 2026 symposium, accredited by the Minnesota Board of CLE, again took up counsel's role in guiding ethical AI use.
Its speakers included Bridget McCormack of the American Arbitration Association and Damien Riehl of Clio. No ethics opinion is tied to a Gibson feature.
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.
Cloud Court pitches Gibson as lowering litigation costs and cutting time spent on rote reading. Law firms are told Gibson helps them delight clients, and corporate teams that it extracts a return from sunk deposition costs and helps them validate outside counsel's recommendations. A 2023 post criticizes charging clients the transcription page rate for a computer generated deposition index. Its January 2025 conference recap reports a panel on how AI changes legal fees, with in house counsel pressing for more value without proportional cost. No guidance on how saved hours reach a client's bill, or on disclosure to clients, is published.
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.
The SOC 2 Type II report is available on request, and the security page describes controls, hosting and the vendor management program in detail. Microsoft's own audit reports for the hosting layer are available through Microsoft's Service Trust portal. Employees acknowledge an information security policy reviewed at least once a year and complete security training within 14 days of starting. Background checks for United States hires cover employment, education and criminal history.
The privacy notice names only the website's third parties, LinkedIn, Google Ads, Google Analytics and Wix. No subprocessor list for Gibson is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Gibson's reports drill down to the specific testimony instances behind each finding, and testimony can be exported across witnesses by topic. Dashboards index topics and metrics by witness or by deposition. Views run from a global summary of testimony down to a single passage. Users tag testimony and build their own taxonomies, and findings can be shared with aligned parties in the same interface. No record of how a report was produced is exported.