D
Depositions by Filevine
Depositions by Filevine is a remote deposition service and platform for attorneys, insurance carriers and court reporting firms, formerly sold as Parrot and now part of Filevine. It is still sold on its own Parrot website under the terms of Parrot Tech, Inc. A firm books a deposition or examination under oath online and gets a Zoom link at once, and a vetted digital reporter attends every proceeding. The platform delivers an AI transcript draft within 90 minutes, synced to the audio and video, and generates summaries in narrative, page and line, or custom topic form, each linked back to the transcript.
Users cut clips, annotate, tag findings and look things up across all their transcripts by meaning, including transcripts taken elsewhere. Exhibits are managed through a Zoom app. Deposition Summaries by Filevine is also sold on its own as an upload service and through an API, and Medchron by Filevine summarizes medical records. Each proceeding is priced as one line item. Filevine sells separate deposition tools, including Depo CoPilot, inside its own case management platform.
Depositions by Filevine, 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 Depositions by Filevine
Vendors in the same categories as Depositions by Filevine 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.
- AAI.LawAI.Law is a litigation platform for solo and mid size firms that combines drafting tools with a full practice management system, with roughly sixty named tools.
- JJusticeTextJusticeText is an evidence review platform for criminal defense attorneys, built mainly for public defender offices by JusticeText Inc.
- RRevRev, from Rev.com, Inc. of Austin, Texas, is an investigative intelligence and legal transcription platform for criminal prosecution and defense teams, civil law firms, law enforcement and…
- IiCONECTiCONECT is a document review and data analysis platform from iCONECT Development, LLC, founded in 1999.
- LLexbeLexbe is a cloud eDiscovery platform for law firms, corporate legal departments and managed review providers, sold by Lexbe Inc. of Austin, Texas, which was founded in 2006.
- OOpenText eDiscoveryOpenText eDiscovery is an electronic discovery platform covering collection, processing, analysis, review and production, sold to corporate legal departments, law firms and investigating…
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.
The service at the center is remote court reporting: scheduling, a Zoom proceeding and a vetted digital reporter on every deposition. AI runs through the rest of it. Speech recognition produces the transcript draft in real time and within 90 minutes after the proceeding, synced to the recording. Models that Depositions by Filevine describes as proprietary and custom trained for legal work write the summaries, and semantic lookup finds related testimony and exhibit images by meaning.
An AI assistant, powered by OpenAI, helps with case work. The scheduling, recording and reporter service would still run without the models, while the standalone summary service is AI throughout.
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.
Every summary links each point back to the page and line it came from in the source transcript, and clicking a point in the recording finds the same spot in the text. Depositions by Filevine presents the links as the way to verify factual accuracy and context. Transcript drafts are described as highly accurate and summaries as accurate, with no error rate, test set or comparison published. The terms say AI output can contain errors, misstatements or omissions and should be vetted by a lawyer before use.
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 human digital reporter attends every proceeding, and a dedicated human resource is included in every booking. The AI drafts the transcript and summaries; nothing runs on a client matter without the firm reviewing it. The terms require that output be reviewed or vetted by a lawyer licensed in the relevant subject and jurisdiction, and say no output is legal advice. Review happens in the platform: summaries link to the transcript, the transcript is synced to audio and video, and users can highlight, annotate and tag. How a rough AI draft becomes the certified final transcript, and who checks it, is not described.
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.
Three attorneys are quoted by name and firm: Aaron Warner of Warner & Fitzmartin, Jacqueline Halpern of Halpern, Santos & Pinkert, and Adam Rossen of Rossen Law Firm. Rossen says the platform saves money on transcripts. In client survey figures, 79% of clients say its technology features helped them win a case, 91% say their teams are more efficient, and firms save 32% on average, with no sample or method given. Bar associations, law firms and Fortune 500 insurance carriers are named as user types without naming them.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The terms of Parrot Tech, Inc., last updated 15 January 2025, give Parrot and its affiliates a broad license to customer data. Section 7.4 lets Parrot use inputs, customer data and outputs to train and improve its own and its affiliates' AI models. Inputs include deposition recordings, exhibits and transcripts. Data used that way does not have to be deleted or returned when the agreement ends. The privacy policy says the outside AI vendors Parrot uses, such as Anthropic and OpenAI, are restricted from training on or retaining customer data.
Recordings and documents move under AES 256 encryption with chain of custody tracking. Nothing published addresses privilege or work product, or separates one matter from another inside an account.
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.
The terms say no communication or output from Parrot, whether produced by software, a person or both, is legal advice. Customers must not rely on output as formal legal advice and must have it reviewed by a lawyer licensed in the relevant subject and jurisdiction, and they remain responsible for decisions made with it. The product is sold to attorneys, insurance claims teams and court reporting firms. Depositions by Filevine says its transcripts comply with federal and state law and are admissible in court, and its reporters are licensed professionals. No position is published on supervision duties or on the ethics of using AI drafts in litigation.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No AI governance policy, testing method, accountable owner or disclosure about uneven transcription quality across speakers, accents or audio conditions is published. The models behind summaries are described only as custom trained for legal needs.
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.
The privacy policy, dated 15 January 2025, lists the kinds of service providers that receive personal information, including hosting, customer support, email and AI providers such as OpenAI. It keeps personal information for as long as its purposes and legal duties require. The terms let Parrot keep a copy of data received through the service and keep records at least as long as the law requires. Data used for training does not have to be deleted at termination.
Recordings and documents travel under AES 256 encryption on FIPS compliant servers with chain of custody tracking. No named subprocessor list, retention period for recordings and transcripts, or breach notice practice is offered.
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.
The terms are governed by Florida law. Each party's total liability is capped at the greater of $1,000 or the fees the customer paid in the six months before the event, and lost profits, data, revenue and indirect damages are excluded. The service and software are provided as is, with no warranty of accuracy, and Parrot disclaims liability for actions taken on its output. Customers indemnify Parrot for breaches of the license and data sections and for unlawful use.
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.
Depositions run on Zoom. Booking returns a Zoom link at once, and an exhibits management Zoom app lets counsel upload exhibits during the proceeding and keep them private until presented. Dates sync to the user's calendar with automatic email reminders. Summaries, highlights and notes download as editable Word files, and an API lets other legal software generate deposition summaries at scale. Transcripts from other providers can be added to the platform and found alongside its own. A link from deposition data into Filevine's case management platform is not described on this route.
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 is hosted on what it calls FIPS compliant servers, with recordings and documents encrypted in transit. The hosting provider, the region where recordings and transcripts are stored and processed, and the tenancy model are not stated.
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.
The site describes the service as compliant with SOC 2, HIPAA and HITECH standards, and the summary service as running on infrastructure that is SOC 2 and HIPAA certified. No auditor, report type, coverage period or way to request a report is given, and the security link on the site leads to Filevine's own security page rather than to material for this service.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The privacy policy names Anthropic and OpenAI as generative AI vendors used alongside Parrot's own technology, and says the AI assistant is powered by OpenAI. Summaries run on models described as proprietary and custom trained for legal needs. Which models handle transcription and summaries, where they run, and whether customers are told when a provider changes are not stated.
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 proceeding is billed as one line item that includes audio, video, three summary formats, clip cutting and annotation, which Depositions by Filevine calls all inclusive pricing. The deposition summary service is sold on its own by upload, and API and enterprise plans are offered on request. No rate per proceeding, per page or per summary is published.
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.
The service is built for attorneys and support staff at plaintiff firms, for insurance carriers handling depositions and examinations under oath, and for court reporting firms. Coverage is remote depositions and related proceedings in the United States, with depositions scheduled on one day of notice. Medical record summaries extend it to personal injury and claims work. Practice areas beyond litigation and claims, and work outside the United States, are not described.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Depositions by Filevine, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
parrot.us/depositions1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
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?
The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
Section 7.4 of the Parrot Tech, Inc. terms, last updated 15 January 2025, lets Parrot use inputs, the rest of customer data and outputs to train and improve its own and its affiliates' AI models. That use includes labeling and model training. Inputs include deposition audio and video, exhibits and transcripts. No opt out is offered, and data used this way need not be deleted at termination. The privacy policy restricts outside AI vendors such as Anthropic and OpenAI from training on customer data.
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.
The terms let Parrot keep a copy of all data received and stored through the service and keep records at least as long as the law requires, with no fixed period. Depositions are described as accessible forever in the platform. The privacy policy keeps personal information as long as its purposes and legal duties require.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Depositions are kept in one place per account, and any colleague can be given access to the history. Nothing published describes separating cases or matters, or limiting access within a firm's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
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 policy lets Parrot use and disclose personal information to comply with laws, lawful requests and legal process, including subpoenas and requests from government authorities. It may also share information with law enforcement where it believes in good faith that is appropriate. No commitment to notify the customer is made.
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.
The product works on the customer's own recordings, transcripts and exhibits and does not retrieve primary law, so no legal source collection 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.
Summaries cite pages and lines of the deposition transcript rather than case law, and the product makes no claim to check legal authority.
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.
Nothing describes what the summaries or the AI assistant do when testimony is unclear or a question cannot be answered from the record. The terms say AI output may contain errors or be incomplete.
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 Depositions by Filevine or Parrot. The product transcribes and summarizes depositions and does not draft legal citations.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No bar opinion, ethics rule or professional guidance on AI use is engaged. The terms require that output be vetted by a lawyer and say it is not legal advice.
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.
Depositions by Filevine cites 32% average cost savings across client firms and says attorneys can take more depositions in a day and start case work on the rough draft at once. Plaintiff firms are among its buyers. It publishes nothing on how firms bill clients for AI summaries or disclose AI work, and deposition costs are not described as passed to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor list or disclosure pack is published. The privacy policy names Anthropic and OpenAI among its AI vendors and describes other providers by category.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Nothing describes a record of which parts of a transcript or summary were produced by AI, or support for disclosing AI use to a court. Depositions by Filevine says its transcripts comply with federal and state law and are admissible in court.