D
DISCO

DISCO is a cloud ediscovery and litigation platform covering hold, ediscovery, review, timelines, deposition management and case building, sold to law firms, corporate legal teams and government. Cecilia AI is the generative layer. Cecilia Q&A answers questions about case evidence with citations, and single document Q&A, document summaries and definitions sit beside it. Auto Review runs first pass review at up to 32,000 documents an hour from tag descriptions the customer writes, alone or with DISCO's AI consulting team, with an explanation for every tagging decision.

DISCO bills on processed data at a rate per GB, with unlimited use of Cecilia AI included. Its terms and conditions, AI supplementary terms, data processing addendum and subprocessor list are published. The operator, CS Disco, Inc., is listed on Nasdaq as LAW and reported 1,549 customers, including 330 large customers, at 31 December 2025.

Compared with

DISCO, 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

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.

The models drive a core layer on a platform that works without them. DISCO Ediscovery covers upload, filtering, review and production, and Cecilia AI arrived in 2023, about a decade after the company was founded. Cecilia Q&A, single document Q&A, summaries, definitions and Auto Review's first pass classification run on language models. DISCO now sells unlimited Cecilia AI inside its per GB rate, so the generative features come with every matter on the platform.

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.

Cecilia Q&A answers only from the customer's evidence, with citations, and Auto Review gives an explanation for every tagging decision so a reviewer sees why each classification was made. Auto Review tracks recall and precision inside the product, and DISCO's AI consulting team advises on sampling and validation. DISCO says Auto Review delivers precision and recall 10 to 20 percent above human reviewers. No test set, date, evaluator or method accompanies that figure, so an outsider cannot check or reproduce it.

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.

Auto Review suggests tags with an explanation for each, and the team moves to quality control on those suggestions. Customers choose whether to run Auto Review themselves, refining tags with Tag Tuner, or to have DISCO's Managed Review team run the project, including privilege review. Recall and precision are tracked in the product so a team can validate the review before relying on it. Cecilia answers cite the evidence they draw on. No threshold at which a document must go to a person, and no limit on what Auto Review decides unaided, is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

CS Disco's annual filing, a regulated document, reports 1,549 customers including 330 large customers and a 98 percent dollar based net retention rate at 31 December 2025. Named customer material is published too. A Perkins Coie associate is quoted on Auto Review, and a story on Rhoades McKee describes DISCO's professional services on an inherited multi jurisdiction case. Auto Review is said to deliver precision and recall 10 to 20 percent above human reviewers, with no test set, date or method given. No named customer is paired with dated figures and a method a reader can assess.

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.

The language models used in Cecilia never train on or learn from customer data and usage, DISCO says, and do not retain customer data after a query. The models behind Auto Review are prohibited from training on or retaining customer data after processing, and model vendors must hold SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO 27001 certification. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest. The data processing addendum binds DISCO to confidentiality, breach notice and deletion or return of personal data on termination, and notice of subpoenas or other orders seeking personal data.

No position on privilege or work product as such, and no separation between users or matters inside a customer, is published.

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.

The buyers are law firms, corporate legal teams and government legal teams, with no consumer product, and DISCO analyzes collected evidence rather than giving advice. Auto Review instructions can be written with DISCO's AI consulting team, and its Managed Review team can run a first pass review and handle privilege review, which places vendor staff inside the customer's review method. Nothing published addresses advice versus tooling, the supervising lawyer's responsibility for a review DISCO's team runs, competence duties or jurisdiction limits.

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.

Every Auto Review tag suggestion carries an explanation, and Auto Review tracks recall and precision inside the product so a team can validate a review. DISCO's AI consulting team advises on sampling, validation and defensibility. The annual filing discusses AI related operational and regulatory risk beside cybersecurity, privacy compliance and reliance on third party model and cloud providers. No AI governance framework, AI principles, ISO 42001 certification, named owner of model governance or prerelease testing regime is published.

Nothing addresses uneven output across matter types, parties or populations, for a product that classifies up to 32,000 documents an hour.

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.

DISCO's data processing addendum commits to notice of a personal data breach without undue delay, with assistance afterward, and on termination DISCO deletes or returns customer personal data or provides a way to do so. Its subprocessor list names each provider with function and country, and customers have 14 days to object after the list is updated. The language models behind Cecilia and Auto Review do not train on or retain customer data after processing, and every model vendor must hold SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO 27001 certification.

Data is encrypted in transit and at rest on AWS. No period is stated for keeping case documents, Cecilia prompts or generated output, and retention under DISCO's own document retention policies is reserved.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

DISCO's terms and conditions indemnify the customer against third party claims that the technology offerings or documentation infringe United States intellectual property rights, with the usual exclusions. DISCO warrants that each technology offering conforms in all material respects to its documentation, and that professional services are performed in a professional and workmanlike manner, with correction or termination as the remedy.

Each party's liability is capped at the fees paid or payable under the order in the 12 months before the claim. A separate data protection cap of twice the general cap covers breaches of data protection obligations. Fraud, wilful misconduct, negligence causing death or injury and indemnification obligations sit outside the caps. The AI supplementary terms exclude AI services from any service level agreement, and no insurance position is published.

Source: Vendor Published
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.

DISCO Hold connects to a customer's systems, and the high speed uploader moves enterprise data straight into the platform. DISCO publishes guidance on Google Workspace collection through Google Vault and on migrating data from other ediscovery providers. A DISCO API is published for connecting the platform to a firm's other systems, and the subprocessor list names Box and Dropbox as file transfer tools. The consolidated integrations page now returns a not found page, and no documentation per integration sets out what moves, in which direction or what an administrator configures.

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.

DISCO runs in the cloud on AWS, which its subprocessor list places in the United States, Ireland and Canada. Microsoft Azure and Google appear as further hosting providers in the United States, and OpenAI processes in the United States and the EU. The platform was designed to operate in the cloud, with AWS used to minimize data footprint and strengthen privacy controls. The data processing addendum sets out transfer mechanisms for data leaving the EEA, the UK and Switzerland. No customer choice of region, tenancy model or private deployment is described.

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.

DISCO undergoes an annual SOC 2 Type 2 audit covering security, availability and privacy, holds ISO 27001 certification for the technical and operational delivery of its service, and commissions penetration testing. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest on AWS, and DISCO states GDPR compliance. The security page links a trust center at trust.csdisco.com, and the data processing addendum points to it for the subprocessor list.

Customers can use two factor authentication, expiring passwords and single sign on through SAML, and a vulnerability reporting route is published. The auditing firm and the SOC 2 coverage period are not stated on the public pages.

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.

DISCO's subprocessor list names Writer and OpenAI as large language model providers, Writer in the United States and OpenAI in the United States and the EU, and Pinecone as the vector database. AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google are named as hosting providers. The data processing addendum gives customers 14 days to object after the list is updated on DISCO's trust center. Model vendors must hold SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO 27001 certification and may not train on or retain customer data. No model or version is tied to a particular feature.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

DISCO publishes its unit and structure without a figure. Its pricing page bills on processed data at a rate per GB, with no additional charge for unlimited use of Cecilia AI on the platform. The per GB rate includes filters, Cecilia Q&A, single document Q&A, document summaries, definitions, timelines and deposition management, and a feature table sets out what is included. The rate itself comes through a quote. The annual filing records the 2026 move to usage based pricing.

Source: Vendor Published
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.

DISCO sells to law firms, corporate legal teams and government, with dedicated material for IP litigation, construction litigation, plaintiffs and a pro bono program. Its annual filing counts 1,549 customers, including 330 large customers, at 31 December 2025. The platform spans the ediscovery lifecycle with hold, ediscovery, review, timelines, deposition management and case building, and pricing is quoted for customers across the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and parts of Asia. Firm size segmentation, language coverage and any statement of what the platform is not built for are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

5 public documents

The public pages on file for DISCO, 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.

According to DISCO's AI page, the language models used in Cecilia never train on or learn from customer data and usage. The Auto Review page adds that its models are prohibited from training on or retaining customer data after processing. Both statements address the model layer, and the terms and conditions and AI supplementary terms contain no training clause. Nothing addresses whether DISCO itself trains or tunes any model on customer content.

Source: Vendor PublishedThe LLMs used in Cecilia never train on or learn from customer dataAs 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 without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Auto Review's language models may not retain any customer data after processing, and every model vendor must hold SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO 27001 certification. On termination, the data processing addendum has DISCO delete or return customer personal data, subject to retention its own policies or the law require. No period is stated for how long DISCO keeps case documents, Cecilia prompts, generated answers or the explanation attached to each tag suggestion, and no customer setting for that window is described.

Source: Vendor Publishedprohibited from training on or retaining any customer data after processingAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

DISCO describes no separation between users, teams or matters inside one customer and no ethical wall feature. Its published controls cover single sign on, two factor authentication and the vendor's own supplier and communications security. For a platform sold to large firms running concurrent matters, how access is screened between matters is not described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

Under DISCO's data processing addendum, each party must notify the other promptly in writing of any subpoena or other judicial or administrative order seeking customer personal data, to the extent the law allows. No transparency report is published. The clause covers personal data, which in an ediscovery collection runs through most of the documents a firm uploads.

Source: Vendor Publishednotify the other Party promptly in writing of any subpoenaAs 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.

DISCO holds no primary law collection. Cecilia answers only from the customer's own evidence, and Auto Review classifies against tag descriptions written for each matter, so the source material is the documents collected in discovery. No vendor supplied legal content, license basis or update cadence applies.

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.

DISCO works on collected evidence rather than published case law, so its output cites documents, not authority. It describes no treatment signal and no check of later history.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Nothing describes what Cecilia Q&A or Auto Review does when the evidence does not support an answer or a tag, or how uncertainty is shown to the reviewer. Cecilia answers only from the customer's evidence, with citations, and Auto Review explains each tagging decision.

Source: Operator Verifiedan answer crafted only from your evidenceAs 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.

Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database, which tracks court decisions worldwide on hallucinated AI content, has no entry naming DISCO or Cecilia. DISCO answers and classifies from a matter's collected evidence rather than from case law.

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.

DISCO names no ethics opinion or bar guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512. Its Auto Review material speaks of defensibility, sampling and validation, but connects them to no rule of civil procedure or case law on technology assisted review.

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.

DISCO claims its savings in review hours, saying Auto Review completes a first pass review in hours with precision and recall above human reviewers, at up to 32,000 documents an hour. It bills on processed data per GB with unlimited Cecilia AI included, so the AI cost a firm passes on follows data volume rather than review hours. Nothing published addresses how AI assisted review is recorded or billed per matter, or whether clients are told.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

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.

A published subprocessor list names each provider with function and country, including Writer and OpenAI as language model providers, Pinecone as the vector database and AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google for hosting. DISCO's terms and conditions, AI supplementary terms and data processing addendum sit beside it. Certifications are stated with scope, SOC 2 Type 2 across security, availability and privacy and ISO 27001 for service delivery, and a trust center sits at trust.csdisco.com.

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.

Each Auto Review tagging decision carries an explanation on the document it concerns, and recall and precision are tracked in the product. The basis for a first pass review can therefore be reconstructed document by document. Cecilia answers carry citations to the evidence. No single export combines the model used, the sources retrieved and the human check, and no model is named for any feature.

Source: Vendor Publisheddetailed explanations for every AI tagging decision on each reviewed documentAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
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