C
CORTO

CORTO is an AI workspace for law firms from CORTO Pty Ltd in Sydney, which also runs a US company, CORTO AI Inc., and an office in San Francisco. A firm connects OneDrive, Dropbox or Google Drive, and its folders become a matter list. Inside each matter, CORTO Chat answers questions about the whole matter, one document or a folder, with clickable references to the files behind each answer. The Prompt Library drafts letters, briefs and contracts from matter details, filtered by state and matter type, and the AI Form Filler completes fillable PDF and Word forms from the matter's documents.

AI also fills in matter details, builds a contact list from names in the files, and drafts Fact Pages that tie supporting facts to each legal issue. A Word add in brings chat and prompts into Microsoft Word, and a LawY button opens legal research with optional verification by a practicing lawyer. The same company builds Matter AI, a plug in for an outside practice management system, and Acctivity.ai for legal bookkeeping. Data sits on AWS in Oregon, models come from OpenAI and Anthropic, and no price is published.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Everything in the product starts from a model reading a firm's matter files. Once a storage account is connected, every matter folder becomes a chat space, and CORTO Chat answers questions about the whole matter, one document or a chosen folder. AI fills in the matter details panel from the documents and keeps it current, builds the firm's contact list from the names it finds, and drafts Fact Pages that tie supporting facts to each legal issue.

The Prompt Library turns a structured prompt and a template into a letter, brief or contract populated from matter details, and the AI Form Filler completes fillable PDF and Word forms from the same files. Matters, contacts and facts are all generated from the documents, so without the models the product would be a list of folders. Legal research sits outside, in LawY, which launches from a button in each matter.

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.

Each chat answer carries references to the documents it relied on, and each reference opens the source file, so a lawyer can check a statement against the record it came from. A document status view shows which files in a matter the AI can read, which are still loading, which failed and which the user excluded, and a failed file can be reloaded before a critical query.

Answers draw on the firm's own documents rather than on primary law. Case law and legislation research runs through LawY, a separate service that offers verification by a practicing lawyer in listed jurisdictions. CORTO describes regular internal audits of output quality, monitoring for drift and human review for high risk uses. No accuracy figure, test set or error rate is published, and AI populated matter details carry a label saying they are generated and not final.

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.

Most AI output lands in an editable surface before anyone relies on it. Users are told to review and verify every Prompt Library draft for legal accuracy, and AI populated matter details are marked as generated and not final. Automatic updates to matter details and to contacts can each be switched off, edits are kept in a change log, and an earlier version can be restored.

Canvas Control lets a lawyer regenerate, redirect or delete one section of a response without rerunning the whole draft. The Form Filler leaves blank any field the matter documents cannot answer, for the user to complete by hand, and a queued form can be cancelled or retried. No threshold at which the system stops is set, and nothing describes what follows when an automatic update writes a wrong fact into a matter beyond the change log and restore.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Thousands of law firms worldwide use the product, by CORTO's own description, and its home page counts questions asked, firms chatting and prompts run, with no customer named and no basis given for the figures. The quotes on its site come from CORTO's own head of product, chief technology officer and security staff rather than from customers.

The same platform runs Matter AI, a plug in that brings the AI into an outside practice management system, and Acctivity.ai for legal bookkeeping, with no usage figures for either. No case study, dated deployment, named firm or measured result is published for any of the three.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Client data is not used to train or tune AI models, and the model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, are used under enterprise commitments that keep customer data out of their training. AI providers are isolated from CORTO's wider data environment and have no direct access to it. Each customer's data is kept apart from every other customer's, role based access and audit logging cover the platform, and matter documents are kept for 90 days.

These commitments come from CORTO's security material. No customer agreement or privacy policy text is published, so none of them can be read as a contract term before signing. Privilege and work product are not addressed by name, and nothing describes walls between matters inside a firm. Feedback that users give on responses, which can include sensitive information, is used to improve the service.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

Law firms, corporate legal departments, barristers and legal service providers are the stated buyers, and the product is pitched as a way for legal professionals to work faster. Users are told to review and verify each draft for legal accuracy before using it and to check AI populated matter details, and human review for high risk uses is listed among the safeguards.

No statement says that CORTO gives no legal advice or that the lawyer stays responsible for the work, and no terms of use are published. Through the LawY connection, a practicing lawyer can verify an answer in Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, the United States and four Canadian provinces. In New Zealand and the United States that verification covers only named areas of law.

Source: Vendor Published
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.

Four principles guide the product: responsibility, precision, reliability and partnership. New models are adopted after internal testing that includes evaluation by CORTO's in house legal team and by software built for model assessment, some of it from third parties. CORTO also runs internal audits of AI output quality and monitors for drift.

No AI policy, governance framework or accountable owner is published, and neither the test method nor its results appear. Nothing addresses whether output quality varies across matter types, jurisdictions or the two model providers a user can choose between.

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.

Retention periods are set out under CORTO's data classification, handling and retention policy: most user data is kept for seven years and matter documents uploaded to the platform for 90 days. Users can ask by email for their data to be deleted from the platform and the backend, with a separate address for Matter AI users. CORTO anonymizes data where it can.

Data is encrypted with TLS in transit and AES 256 at rest, staff with access to critical infrastructure pass police background checks and monthly security training, and the environment is monitored around the clock. An incident response plan covers containment, investigation and notice to affected users as the law requires, with no fixed notice period. AWS, OpenAI and Anthropic are named as providers, but no full subprocessor list is published.

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 is published, so no liability cap, indemnity, warranty on output or insurance position is available before signing. The terms of service link in the site footer leads to an empty page, and the Word add in asks each first time user to accept terms and conditions that are not published anywhere public. Nothing states who bears the loss when a draft, a filled form or an AI populated matter detail is wrong.

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.

A storage connection comes first: matters and chat stay locked until one is linked. OneDrive (with a Microsoft business account), Dropbox and Google Drive connect from the startup screen, and CORTO's matter list mirrors the folder structure in that storage, so a firm's existing folders become its matters. Admins choose which folders to import, change the selection later and disconnect a service from account settings.

The CORTO for Microsoft Word add in, installed from Microsoft AppSource, brings chat and the Prompt Library into Word on Windows, Mac and the web, though not on phones or tablets. LawY opens from the matter toolbar in a new tab. No document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments and no practice management or billing system connects, and nothing says whether drafts save back into the firm's storage.

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.

The service runs on AWS, across several data centers in the Oregon region, with continuous monitoring and a 24 hour recovery objective. AI processing uses third party services in the same region, and CORTO says plainly that data from Australian firms leaves Australia for both storage and processing.

Each customer's data is kept apart from every other customer's within that infrastructure. No second region, private cloud, on premises option or residency tier is offered. Transfers from the European Union and the United Kingdom rely on CORTO's certification under the EU and UK Data Privacy Framework with the United States.

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.

A SOC 2 Type II report covers CORTO, Matter AI and Acctivity.ai, and a SOC 3 summary is offered for sharing without an NDA. CASA Tier 3 validation from the App Defense Alliance sits beside them, along with certification under the Data Privacy Framework for transfers from the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Reports and control detail sit in a trust center at trust.docorto.ai. The auditor, the report period and whether the SOC 2 report is open, self serve or sales gated are not stated outside it. External testers run a penetration test every year, and code passes scanning, peer review and internal testing before release, with web application firewalls filtering automated traffic between releases.

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.

Generative features run on enterprise models from OpenAI and Anthropic and their successors, called through APIs routed via major cloud providers in the same Oregon region as the platform. CORTO trains no models of its own. A model selector in CORTO and Matter AI lets the user choose which model handles a prompt, and newly released models join after internal testing by CORTO's legal team.

The specific model versions in use are not named, and no notice is promised when a provider or model changes. Some AI features depend on these outside services, and CORTO says those features may slow or pause during a provider outage while the core platform keeps running.

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, plan name or unit of charge is published. Firms book a consultation or sign up online, and the Word add in listing on Microsoft AppSource offers a 14 day free trial of the subscription it requires. Payment runs by card through a Stripe billing page where an admin upgrades or cancels the subscription, manages staff licenses and downloads invoices. What a seat costs, what the tiers include and whether setup carries a fee are not stated.

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 named are law firms, corporate legal departments, barristers and legal service providers, served from Sydney and San Francisco for firms in Australia and abroad. The Prompt Library filters templates by state and by matter type, and CORTO notes that some matter types have only a few prompts while its legal content team keeps adding more.

Limits are stated for individual features. The Form Filler handles only forms with active fields, and in Word only legacy form fields, so scanned forms and forms with blank lines for answers are out. The Word add in does not run on iOS or Android. Which states and practice areas the Prompt Library covers in depth is not listed, and LawY's verification reaches only named countries and, in New Zealand and the United States, named areas of law.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

5 public documents

The public pages on file for CORTO, 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.

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?

Never, in policy only

A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.

Client data is not used to train or tune AI models, and CORTO trains no models of its own. OpenAI and Anthropic enterprise models are used under those providers' commitments not to train on customer data. No customer agreement is published to carry the promise as a term. Thumbs up and thumbs down ratings on chat answers go to CORTO's team to improve accuracy, and the help center notes that this feedback can include sensitive information.

Source: Vendor PublishedClient data is not used to train or tune AI modelsAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed fixed window

A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.

Under CORTO's data classification, handling and retention policy, matter documents uploaded to the platform are kept for 90 days and most other user data for seven years. Users can delete individual chats from their history and can ask by email for their data to be removed from the platform and backend. No zero retention setting is offered, and what the model providers keep is not stated.

Source: Vendor Publishedmatter documents uploaded to the platform are retained for 90 daysAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

Role based access and audit logging are said to keep matters confidential, and each customer's data is kept apart from every other customer's. Inside a firm there are two roles, Admin and Staff, and they govern settings, billing and storage connections rather than access to particular matters. No ethical wall or matter level permission is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedRole-based access and audit logging keep your matters confidential.As of Oct 13, 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.

Personal data goes to third parties only where providing the service needs it or the law requires it, and outside vendors are vetted under a vendor management policy. No commitment to tell the customer about a legal demand for its data, or to resist one, is published, and there is no transparency report.

Source: Vendor Publishedunless it is necessary for providing our services or required by lawAs of Oct 13, 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.

Answers come from the documents a firm keeps in its own matters, and drafts from templates written by CORTO's legal content team, filtered by state and matter type. No primary law source is named and no corpus of statutes or cases sits behind the product. Legal research runs in LawY, a separate service that launches from each matter.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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.

No case law or legislation is retrieved, so no check of whether an authority is still good law runs inside the product. References in chat point to the firm's own documents. Any research and treatment check sits with LawY, outside CORTO.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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.

The AI Form Filler skips any fillable field whose answer is not in the matter's documents and leaves it for the user to complete. Chat answers show the documents they relied on, and the document status view flags files that failed to load. How chat responds when the matter holds no answer is not described.

Source: Vendor PublishedCORTO AI will skip itAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

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, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming CORTO or its AI Form Filler. CORTO tells users to verify every draft for legal accuracy before using it.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 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 ethics opinion, bar rule or court guidance on AI appears in CORTO's material. Its guidance to users stops at reviewing and verifying AI output before relying on it.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Savings claims only

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.

The pitch to law firms and barristers is speed and more time for client work, with no figure behind the claim. Chats are kept per matter and matter details carry a change log, but no record of AI assisted work is tied to time or invoices, and no guidance on billing or disclosing AI use is published. Bookkeeping is a separate product from the same company, Acctivity.ai.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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.

AWS hosts the service in its Oregon region, and OpenAI and Anthropic supply the models, each vetted under CORTO's vendor management policy. A SOC 3 summary is offered for sharing without an NDA through the trust center, beside the SOC 2 Type II report. No full subprocessor list with functions and regions is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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.

Chats stay in each matter's history, references show which documents an answer drew on, and changes to AI populated matter details are logged with earlier versions restorable. Users pick the model in a selector. No export ties a filed document to the model used, the sources and the person who verified it, and no court disclosure guidance is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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 430 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
October 14, 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