C
Concord
Concord is a contract lifecycle management platform from Concord Worldwide, Inc., first launched in 2014, that covers drafting, negotiation, e-signature, storage and renewal tracking in one system. Its AI Copilot answers questions about contracts, explains risks and obligations and suggests edits; AI extraction pulls key terms from uploaded agreements with notes explaining how each value was identified; and its Horizon workspace adds an agent builder for automated workflows and AI-generated reports.
It is designed for legal teams and for the business teams, such as sales, procurement and finance, that handle contracts without legal involvement, with intake forms and legal-approved templates. Concord integrates with Salesforce, HubSpot, Google Drive, Box, Dropbox, DocuSign, Microsoft Word and Zapier, offers a public REST API and MCP connections for ChatGPT and Claude, and names OpenAI and Google among its AI subprocessors.
It publishes its pricing: Essentials at $499 a month for five users, Business at $899 and Enterprise at $1,299, billed annually. The company was founded by French entrepreneurs and describes its current headquarters as Austin, Texas, with an office in Paris.
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 drive the capabilities the vendor now leads with, on a contract platform that predates them and works without them, which is the B band. AI extraction of key terms, the AI Copilot that answers questions about contracts and suggests edits, AI-generated reports and an agent builder for automated workflows are model work, and the changelog shows them developed release by release. Concord launched in 2014 as a contract lifecycle system, and its drafting, redlining, e-signature, repository, approval workflows, intake forms and deadline reminders all function without the models. Verified 18 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.
Accuracy is asserted without measurement and the grounding method is not described, which is the C band. The vendor's comparison pages claim an accuracy improvement of more than 10 per cent over manual review with no method or source, and the changelog says AI extractions now include notes explaining how each value was identified, which gives a reviewer something to check. The terms state plainly that output may contain hallucinations and must be evaluated with human review, and the AI ethics page says outputs may be incorrect, biased or misleading.
The FAQ answers on the AI page, including How does Concord ensure AI accuracy in contract analysis, could not be read and may move this row. Verified 18 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.
A written commitment to human oversight with review surfaces, short of a control structure for automated steps, which is the B band. The terms require customers to evaluate output accuracy, including by human review, and the AI ethics page says AI should augment rather than replace people and that humans are accountable for Concord's AI tools. Approval workflows, extraction notes and audit trails give reviewers a place to check.
The agent builder lets AI agents read properties and trigger workflow actions, and nothing published states which automated actions require a person to approve them. Verified 18 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.
Named customers without measured outcomes, which is the B band. The home page carries attributed testimonials from Vecna Robotics' chief legal and safety officer, LeoVegas' head of legal and legal counsel, Yates Construction's contract administrator, PAAY, GreenSlate, Pima Community College and Navarino, and an associate corporate general counsel at Sevita. The case studies page lists twenty-two stories: eleven named customers from 2022 to 2025, including Sovrn, AANA, Navarino and LeoVegas on the AI features, and eleven anonymised stories from 2018 with figures such as a 70 per cent cut in contract preparation time and signature time falling from a month to three minutes.
No story gives a measurement method, and the figured ones predate the AI features and are unnamed. The comparison pages cite third-party market estimates rather than customer results. Verified 18 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.
A contractual training bar and confidentiality terms, with a named AI supply and a documented permission model, short of privilege, which is the B band. Section 5.2 of the Commercial Terms grants Concord a broad perpetual licence to use customer data and output to maintain, provide and improve the system, with an express proviso that Concord will not use customer data or specific output to train its AI models; section 4 treats customer data as confidential information with notice before compelled disclosure.
The security page says the AI provider is bound by a zero data retention agreement, the subprocessor list names OpenAI and Google for AI processing, and admins control which document types each user can see. Privilege and work product are not addressed, and the privacy policy permits aggregate and anonymised analysis of content. Verified 18 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.
An output-accuracy disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing positions the product for contract work without legal review, which is the C band. The terms say output may be inaccurate and must be reviewed by a person, but contain no statement that the product does not provide legal advice. The home page describes a post-legal world in which 70 per cent of companies do not run contracts through legal and says Concord is built for them, with the AI Copilot answering business teams' contract questions and suggesting edits.
The FAQ Does Concord's AI replace the need for legal review could not be read and may state a position. Verified 18 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 principles framework with light practices and no mechanism a reader can check, which is the C band. The vendor's Ethical Approach to AI page sets out principles on security, privacy, human accountability for design choices and training data selection, bias mitigation through team education and diverse training scenarios, and transparency through indicators when an automated system is in use, and it closes with a limitations section acknowledging incorrect, biased or misleading output.
No accountable owner, pre-release testing regime or bias result is published. The FAQ answers on bias and accuracy could not be read. Verified 18 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.
A substantive published position covering most of the ground, short of an incident notice commitment, which is the B band. The security page states AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, need-to-know staff access, granular customer access controls with SSO and two-factor authentication, encrypted daily backups, twice-yearly external penetration tests and an annual subprocessor review, and says the AI provider is bound by zero data retention.
A full subprocessor list is published with each provider's function and processing location. The privacy policy caps debug data retention at six months and returns customer data on request within 30 days of termination. Incident handling is described only as a strict internal policy with no notification timeline, and deletion after termination is not committed to. Verified 18 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.
A standard published liability position with a vendor indemnity and cap, short of anything behind output, which is the B band. Section 7.1 of the terms gives a vendor indemnity against third-party claims that the system infringes intellectual property, with modify, license or refund remedies; section 8 caps each party's liability at fees paid in the prior twelve months and excludes indirect damages; section 6.1 warrants security measures and material conformance with documentation.
Section 6.3 states that output may contain hallucinations and that Concord is not liable for damages relating to output. The pricing comparison lists a 99.5 per cent uptime guarantee on higher plans. No insurance position is published. Verified 18 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.
A broad set of named integrations with some depth described, short of implementer documentation read, which is the B band. The pricing page lists Google Calendar and Outlook, a Microsoft Word plugin, Box, Dropbox, Google Drive, DocuSign, Salesforce, HubSpot, Zapier, the Concord REST API, and MCP connections for ChatGPT and Claude, with SSO through Okta, OneLogin and Azure AD and SAML 2.0 and LDAP. The changelog describes field-level bidirectional Salesforce sync and webhook events.
The public API reference at api.doc.concordnow.com was opened and returned no readable content (it renders in the browser only), so the top band is not asserted on it; third-party integration listings describe its operations but are not credited. No document management system used by law firms or legal departments is named. Verified 18 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.
Hosting and residency choice are stated, without a tenancy model, which is the B band. The subprocessor list shows AWS hosting in the EU region for EU customers and North America for North American customers, the security page says customers can choose where their data is stored in data centres in the United States and Europe, and the plan comparison lists data residency. AI processing locations are given per provider (OpenAI in North America, Google in North America and the EU). No tenancy model or private deployment option is stated. Verified 18 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 named attestation with a published access route, short of evidence read, which is the B band. The Security & Compliance page states that Concord provides a SOC 2 Type II report through its Conveyor portal, holds a Cloud Security Alliance STAR Level One entry (a self-assessment), and is certified under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and its UK and Swiss extensions. The auditor, report period and scope are not stated on the page.
The Conveyor portal was opened and returned an empty page, so its contents could not be read. Verified 18 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.
Model providers are named with their processing locations, without a change notification commitment, which is the B band. The subprocessor list names OpenAI as the AI-based data extraction provider in North America, Google for LLM tooling and OCR in North America and the EU, and LangSmith as an LLM tool, and the security page says the AI provider is contractually bound to zero data retention. No model versions are given and nothing commits Concord to notify customers before a provider changes. Verified 18 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.
A buyer can price the product and see what each tier includes before any conversation, which is the A band. The pricing page publishes Essentials at $499 a month, Business at $899 a month and Enterprise at $1,299 a month, each billed annually with five users included and additional users at $49, $69 and $89 a month, with a feature comparison across tiers and volume discounts available on Enterprise. The terms cap renewal price increases at five per cent.
The vendor's comparison pages describe the Essentials price inconsistently, once as per user; the pricing page is the figure of record. A pricing row is written. Verified 18 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.
Segments and uses are described with substance, short of stated limits, which is the B band. The vendor sells to small companies, single teams inside larger businesses, and enterprises needing subsidiary management, and describes use cases for legal, procurement, finance, sales, HR, operations and IT across any contract type, with customers in robotics, gaming, construction, payments and education. It does not state which contract types, languages or jurisdictions its AI handles less well, or whether it suits law firms. Verified 18 September 2026.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for Concord, 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.
-
concord.app/security-compliance2 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
concord.app/terms-of-service2 signals
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
concord.app1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
concord.app/data-privacy1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
concord.app/subprocessors1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
$499 / month (5 users, billed annually)USD, as published, never converted
- Concord's Essentials plan costs $499 a month, billed yearly, for up to five users.
- Extra users cost $49 a month each.
- The Business plan is $899 a month and Enterprise is $1,299 a month, each for five users.
- AI Copilot and extraction are included in every plan.
- Larger companies can ask for volume discounts on Enterprise.
Essentials: $499 per month billed annually, 5 users included, additional users $49 per month; AI Copilot and extraction, unlimited e-signatures, documents and guests. Business: $899 per month billed annually, 5 users included, additional users $69 per month; adds intake forms, approval workflows, custom roles, reports and CRM and storage integrations. Enterprise: $1,299 per month billed annually, 5 users included, additional users $89 per month; adds clause library, subsidiary management, bulk send, open API and custom branding; volume discounts available. Renewal price increases capped at 5 per cent by the Commercial Terms.
Note: Figures from the vendor's pricing page, read 18 September 2026. Plans are billed annually and each includes five users. Some vendor comparison pages describe Essentials as $499 per user per month; the pricing page is the figure of record.
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 published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The published Commercial Terms prohibit training on customer data and output. Section 5.2 grants Concord a broad perpetual licence to use customer data and output to maintain, provide and improve the system, subject to an express proviso that Concord will not use them to train its AI models. The security page adds that the AI provider is contractually bound to zero data retention and that no customer data is used for AI model training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
The customer controls deletion of its content in the product. The privacy policy says users can edit or delete content through the system, caps debug data retention at six months, keeps anonymised analytics indefinitely, and returns a copy of customer data on request within 30 days of termination. The AI provider is bound to zero data retention.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
The product's own permission model is documented. The security page says administrators can create unlimited roles and categories, grant rights feature by feature, and control which document types each user can see; the Business plan adds custom roles and teams, and the changelog records custom-role permissions over folders and properties.
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.
The Commercial Terms commit to prompt written notice and a reasonable effort to obtain a protective order before compelled disclosure of confidential information, which includes customer data. The privacy policy separately reserves disclosure to law enforcement with or without notice at Concord's discretion; the agreement is recorded as controlling for customer data, and the conflict is noted.
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.
Searched the home, pricing, security, subprocessor and AI pages and the terms on 18 September 2026. The AI works over the customer's own contracts; no external legal corpus is described.
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.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The product does not cite case law, so no subsequent-history check arises and none is described.
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.
Searched the home, pricing, Security & Compliance, Subprocessors and Ethical Approach to AI pages, the Commercial Terms of Service, the Privacy Policy, and the changelog and comparison pages in the site's search index on 18 September 2026. No abstention path, confidence indicator or grounding score is described; the terms and the AI page say output may be wrong and must be checked by a person, and AI extractions carry notes explaining how each value was identified.
Two FAQ answers on the AI page, How does Concord ensure AI accuracy in contract analysis and What happens if the AI makes a mistake in contract analysis, were located but could not be read (collapsed and absent from the served page) and are recorded under R128; under R130 neither asks this row's question.
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 the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Concord's contract platform. None located. Results for Concord Music Group v. Anthropic concern an unrelated party. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
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.
Searched the home, pricing, security and AI pages and the terms on 18 September 2026. No bar ethics opinion or court rule on AI is named or engaged. The AI page's FAQ on regulation could not be read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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 businesses to manage their own contracts, where no client is billed for the work. Savings are claimed for the buyer's own time and spend, such as hours saved and missed renewals avoided.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A current subprocessor list is published and names the AI providers. It lists OpenAI for AI-based data extraction, Google for LLM tooling and OCR and LangSmith as an LLM tool, alongside AWS hosting and other processors, each with a function, processing location and transfer mechanism. The data processing agreement is available on request rather than 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.
Some elements of a record exist, short of an AI disclosure export. The tamper-evident audit trail logs every action on a document with time and user, which the vendor presents as usable in court, and AI extractions carry notes explaining how each value was identified. Nothing records which model produced an AI suggestion or who verified it.