AI Legal Index
Vendors · Legal Ops & Spend

C
Coheso

Coheso is an AI legal front door and work management platform from Coheso, Inc. of New York, sold to in house legal and compliance teams. Requests from the business arrive through Slack, Microsoft Teams, Gmail, Outlook or intake forms. The platform captures their context, uses AI to triage and route them, and tracks each one on shared boards through to resolution, with dashboards on volume, turnaround and the share resolved by AI.

Its AI Assist answers business users' questions from a knowledge base the legal team curates, citing the source passages. Sensitive topics go through legal validation under response rules the legal team sets. Agents built on the team's own playbooks take on recurring reviews, first drafts and follow ups, and standard agreements are generated from the team's templates. Language model features run on OpenAI GPT models through the Azure OpenAI Service, customer documents are stored on Amazon Web Services, and data residency is offered in the US, EU and UAE. Named customers include Taskrabbit, M42 and Narvar.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

Coheso, 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.

Build your own comparison

Alternatives

Alternatives to Coheso

Vendors in the same categories as Coheso 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.

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

Coheso's AI triages each incoming request and decides whether it can be answered from source documents or needs a lawyer, answers business users' questions from the legal team's approved content, generates first drafts from the team's templates, and runs agents that apply the team's playbooks to recurring reviews. Intake forms, routing rules, shared boards, status tracking and dashboards are conventional work management that functions without the models.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

The AI Assist page says answers for business users draw from the contracts, policies and guidance documents the legal team curates, with citations linking to the source passages, and the ROI page says each response from the assistant for the legal team cites every individual assertion with footnotes hyperlinked to the passage relied on. Coheso's home page adds a report of which documents the AI leans on most and which questions it cannot yet answer. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Legal teams write response rules defining what Coheso's AI can and cannot answer directly, and validation workflows route sensitive answers through legal before they reach business users. The AI escalates questions that need a lawyer, and every AI interaction is logged and reviewable by legal. Agents handle repeat requests from the team's playbooks and leave judgment calls and exceptions with the lawyers. Coheso states no limit of its own on what the AI may answer unreviewed, no threshold at which it stops, and nothing on what happens after a wrong answer reaches a business user.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Operational and Outcome EvidenceNamed firms or legal departments, dated, with figures for what changed and a method a reader can assess.

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.

At Taskrabbit, the legal team logged 297 interactions through Slack within about three and a half months of launch, 211 escalated to legal and 86 resolved by AI, according to Coheso's case study of 30 April 2026. The deployment ran on eight intake forms, and the study quotes the company's Principal Counsel on adoption. The Narvar study of 26 November 2025 describes a migration of more than 10,000 contracts with the data extracted for legal, finance and the deal desk.

The M42 study of September 2025 describes CLM templates completed automatically from intake forms. The headline figures on the home page, up to 75 percent faster responses and more than eight hours saved per attorney each week, carry no customer or method.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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.

No data is stored with any language model provider used for processing, where it is processed and immediately discarded, Coheso's security page says, alongside residency options in the US, EU and UAE, SAML SSO, IP allow lists and audit logs. The AI Assist page describes permissions at document level separating content for business users from internal legal content. No customer agreement is published, so none of this is a contract term, and nothing addresses whether Coheso itself trains on customer content, how privileged material is treated, or how long Coheso keeps documents.

The Privacy Notice, last modified 8 December 2025, reserves use of information to improve the Service and to analyze its accuracy.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureNothing published on the advice line for a product that produces legal work, including where it is sold to people who are not lawyers.

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 states that answers given to business users are not legal advice, who may rely on them, or how the product supports the legal team's professional supervision duties. No customer terms are published where such a statement would usually sit. The product gives employees who are not lawyers answers to legal and compliance questions. The legal team's controls over those answers are product settings rather than a position on the advice line.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Response rules, validation workflows, audit trails for every AI interaction and usage analytics give the customer's legal team the means to watch and correct the AI, and a report shows which questions it cannot yet answer. No governance framework, accountable owner, testing regime before release or bias finding of Coheso's own is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Amazon Web Services S3 and RDS hold customer documents and logs, according to Coheso's Privacy Notice, which also names the other processors, including the Azure OpenAI Service for language model features and Adobe's PDF viewer. The security page adds zero retention at the model provider, SAML SSO, IP allow lists, audit logs and residency options in the US, EU and UAE, and the trust center carries a subprocessors section and offers a SOC 2 report and a penetration test report on request.

No retention period is stated, since the notice keeps information for as long as the Service is used and a reasonable time after, and no incident or breach notification practice is stated.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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.

No customer agreement, terms of service or subscription terms are published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an AI answer or draft is wrong: no indemnity, cap, warranty or remedy is published. The Privacy Notice disclaims liability for disclosure of information through transmission errors, third party access or causes beyond the company's control, which concerns data security rather than the product's output.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Requests come in from Slack, Microsoft Teams, Gmail and Outlook with their context, and legal's responses sync back to the original thread. Documents connect through Google Drive and SharePoint, Docusign and CLM connectors are listed, and the M42 case study describes intake form fields passing to the customer's CLM to generate standard agreements automatically. No integration documentation is published describing what each connector moves, in which direction, or what a team must configure.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail 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 options cover the US, EU and UAE on Coheso's security page, and its trust center lists an architecture diagram for each region, available on request. The Privacy Notice says customer documents and logs are stored on Amazon Web Services and that language model features run on the Azure OpenAI Service, without stating which region processes a customer's prompts. It separately says information collected through the Service is stored and processed in the United States, which the regional options qualify without resolving. The tenancy model is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Coheso's security page states SOC 2 Type II, with annual independent audits over a full year observation period, and independent penetration testing of the web application and infrastructure. Coheso's trust center lists a SOC 2 Type II report, a penetration test report and regional architecture diagrams behind an access request, with the privacy policy open to view. The auditor, the report period and the scope are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

Coheso's Privacy Notice says language model features use OpenAI's GPT models hosted on the Azure OpenAI Service, and the security page says no data is stored with any model provider used. The specific models and versions are not named, where the Azure processing runs is not stated, and no commitment to notify customers of a model change is published.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Commercial TransparencyNo pricing information published at any level, including the unit of charge.

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 price, tier, unit of charge or package structure is published; the ROI calculator estimates the value of time saved without stating what the product costs, and every route to a figure is a demo request.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Buyers are in house legal and compliance teams, across industries Coheso names, including healthcare, technology, finance, chemicals, cybersecurity, beauty and wellness, and manufacturing. The work covered is clear from the product and case study pages: intake and triage of business requests, NDAs, MSAs, DPAs, vendor and marketing reviews, employment questions, contract generation and contract data migration. What the product does not cover is not stated, and nothing addresses team size or use outside in house legal.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for Coheso, 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.

Change log

Product updates

Oct 8, 2026Product / capabilityPartially Verified

Coheso launched Memory, which reviews matters as they are resolved, picks out decisions worth repeating and proposes them as positions with the reasoning, conditions, exceptions and prior matters behind each one. When a comparable request comes in, Coheso shows that precedent to the attorney handling it, and each position records when and why it was updated or departed from. Coheso states that nothing Memory proposes takes effect until an attorney approves it.

Bears on: Autonomy and Oversight ModelSource
All Coheso updates →

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

No agreement published

No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.

No agreement that governs the product is published: no customer agreement, terms of service or subscription terms. The home page, security page, AI Assist page, ROI page, Privacy Notice and trust center listing state no position on whether Coheso trains on customer content. The security page says no data is stored with any language model provider, which concerns retention at the provider rather than training, and the Privacy Notice reserves use of information to improve the Service and analyze its accuracy without naming training.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

The security page says nothing is stored with any language model provider and that data is processed and immediately discarded there. Coheso itself keeps customer documents and logs on Amazon Web Services and logs every AI interaction for audit, and the Privacy Notice keeps information for as long as the Service is used and a reasonable time after. No retention period is stated for what a user submits to Coheso, and no customer setting to shorten it is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedNo data is stored with any LLM provider used for processing.As of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

The AI Assist page describes Coheso's own permission model over the knowledge base: access controls at document level keep content for business users and internal legal content separately scoped, and AI responses draw from the knowledge base with that access control applied. The legal team sets and maintains the permissions; nothing published maps them to matters, and no inheritance from a document management system's access model is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedDocument-level access permissions for business vs. internal useAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.

The Privacy Notice, last modified 8 December 2025, lists assisting law enforcement and responding to subpoenas among the uses of information, and says information may be disclosed to comply with law, to cooperate with government or law enforcement officials or private parties, and to respond to claims and legal process. Neither a commitment to notify the customer nor a reserved discretion to do so is published, and no customer agreement is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedTo assist law enforcement and respond to subpoenasAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

The AI answers from the customer's own contracts, policies and guidance documents, and the home page, the AI Assist page and the security page identify no body of primary law behind its output.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Answers cite the customer's own documents, and nothing on the home page, the AI Assist page or the security page addresses checking legal authority for later history.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.

Coheso's home page says the AI decides for each request whether it can be answered from source documents or needs escalation, and the AI Assist page says it escalates automatically when a question requires legal review, routes answers on topics the legal team has flagged through legal validation first, and reports which questions it cannot yet answer so the team can fill the gap. No published evaluation shows how often it declines or escalates.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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 records no case naming Coheso, and no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product appears in the public record. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

No material on the home page, the AI Assist, security, ROI and privacy pages or in the Taskrabbit case study refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Outside the fee relationship

The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.

The product is bought by in house legal teams whose work bills no client, so no fee between a lawyer and a client is touched. The savings Coheso claims are aimed at the buyer's own cost: responses up to 75 percent faster, more than eight hours saved per attorney each week, and an ROI calculator estimating hours recovered and reduced outside counsel spend.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

The Privacy Notice names the processors that handle customer material, including Amazon Web Services for documents and logs, the Azure OpenAI Service for features built on GPT, Adobe's PDF viewer, Frontegg for user management, and Vercel and Render for analytics, and the trust center carries a subprocessors section beside a SOC 2 report and penetration test report available on request. No disclosure pack on AI use for clients is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Every AI interaction is logged with its cited sources and can be reviewed by legal, and responses are logged and searchable. No export of a record for each document covering the model used, the sources and the human check is described, and no disclosure guidance is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
November 8, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746