D
Docketwise
Docketwise is immigration case management software built for immigration law firms and legal service providers, and it is the forms library rather than the case file that sits at its centre. A single multilingual client questionnaire, customisable and sent by email or text, collects a client's details once and auto-populates every relevant form across the USCIS, EOIR, DOL and DOS libraries; the vendor maintains those forms as the agencies revise them and describes the library as the core product rather than an add-on.
Around it sit the working parts of an immigration practice: document requests and uploads, eSignature, deadline and priority-date tracking, automatic case status updates drawn from a direct USCIS integration, a secure client portal, task and email automation, reporting on matter status and expirations, invoicing and trust accounting, and direct electronic filing with USCIS for a growing set of forms including the I-130, I-765 and I-129.
Payments run through LawPay, a sibling product. The AI is branded DocketWise IQ on the product and 8am IQ across the group, and is included on the Pro and Advanced tiers rather than the entry plan. It has two parts: a Document Assistant that reads scanned identity documents, including passports and green cards, extracts names, dates and other key details and maps them straight into forms and client profiles; and a Writing Assistant that edits and refines client correspondence and translates between English and Spanish.
Docketwise integrates with Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, QuickBooks, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, Outlook and Google Calendar, and publishes an open API. Founded in 2016 and based in Austin, Texas, it is owned by 8am, formerly AffiniPay.
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 are a core capability layered on a product that would function without them, which is B, and the vendor's own tier structure demonstrates it rather than leaving it to inference. Docketwise was founded in 2016 and built its position on the forms library: USCIS, EOIR, DOL and DOS forms auto-populated from a single multilingual questionnaire, with case management, deadline and priority-date tracking, USCIS status integration, eSignature, invoicing and trust accounting around it. **The Basic plan at $69 per user per month contains no AI at all** and remains a working immigration practice system; DocketWise IQ appears only on the Pro and Advanced tiers.
What the AI adds is real but bounded: a Document Assistant that reads scanned passports and green cards and maps extracted details into forms, and a Writing Assistant that refines and translates correspondence. Recorded on the other side, because the direction is visible: 8am launched enhanced IQ capabilities across the portfolio in June 2026 and describes AI-assisted data capture as central to the value, and the vendor now leads its own home page with auto-filled forms and AI-assisted data capture together. Verified 12 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, which is C. The claims are consistent and unquantified: form auto-population produces measurable accuracy and time savings, the Document Assistant reduces manual entry and improves accuracy, and the platform minimises filing errors, described as the number one source of error in immigration practice. No figure, error rate, sample, test set or evaluation is published anywhere, and no failure mode is named.
Grounding is real in outline, since extraction runs on the customer's own uploaded identity documents and populates named agency forms rather than generating free text, but nothing describes how a mapped value is traced back to the page it came from or whether the source is shown to the reviewer. R15 governs the authority limbs: the product cites no legal authority, so citator-style checking and linked primary sources do not bite.
One thing is expressly not credited here. The 8am group publishes a **Case Assistant** that returns answers with citations traced back to their source, and its own availability table places that assistant in MyCase and not in DocketWise, so it belongs to a sibling product and is not this record's evidence. Verified 12 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.
The AI is scoped narrowly and the oversight around it is implied rather than described, which is C. The scope is genuinely modest and the vendor is straightforward about it: the Document Assistant extracts details from scanned identity documents and maps them into form fields, and the Writing Assistant edits and translates correspondence. Neither drafts a legal position or decides anything, and the workflow that surrounds them is one an attorney drives, completing a questionnaire, reviewing populated forms and filing them under signature.
Reverse Autofill and real-time collaboration on questionnaires are published as features, which are editing surfaces of a kind. What is not published is any of the structure this axis asks for. Nothing states that a populated form must be reviewed before filing, no confidence indicator is exposed on an extracted value, nothing describes what happens when a scanned document is illegible or a field cannot be matched, and no threshold or escalation route appears.
That matters here because the output is a government form signed under penalty of perjury: a wrongly extracted date of entry or alien registration number is not a drafting inconvenience. Verified 12 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 in quantity without an outcome carrying a method, which is B under R122(2). Five firms are named on the pricing page with logos, including Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt, Davis & Associates, Rushton Hoffmann & Associates and Fogle Law Firm, and three testimonials carry a named attorney, a title and a firm: Saja Raoof of Saja Raoof, Inc. Law Corporation, Shahzad Khan of Shahzad R. Khan Legal, and Anna Ernest of Ernest Law Group.
Scale is published, more than 7,000 immigration law firms and 15,000 legal professionals, alongside an average of six hours saved per day footnoted as based on real customer outcomes. **That footnote gestures at a basis without supplying one**, and a productivity claim of tenfold inside a testimonial is a customer's impression rather than a measurement, so neither reaches the A limb. The closest thing to a dated third-party artifact is recorded and weighed rather than credited: the AILA Marketplace Study 2022, reported by Law360, ranked Docketwise the most used immigration case management software.
That is an adoption ranking rather than an outcome, and it is four years old. A success-stories page is published and was not opened. Verified 12 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.
Confidentiality is addressed through security controls rather than through a data position, which places this at C. The protection side is specific and is graded principally on the stewardship row: AES-256 encryption at rest, HTTPS throughout in transit, role-based access controls configured by administrators at user level, permission groups and multiple admin roles on the Advanced tier, two-factor authentication on all plans, production access limited to authorised employees, staff with access to sensitive data required to use single sign-on or two-factor authentication, background checks and signed confidentiality agreements.
Three of the five limbs this axis asks about are unaddressed on the surfaces read. **Nothing states whether customer content is used to train models**, which is the first question a firm should ask of a tool that reads its clients' passports. No model provider is named, so nothing states what any third party may retain. And privilege and work product are addressed nowhere, on a product holding the complete file of a client whose immigration status may be precarious.
Recorded rather than resolved: the 8am group Privacy Policy and Terms of Service are published at 8am.com and were not opened on this pass. Verified 12 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.
AMENDED 12 September 2026, from D. The prior grade rested on the finding that nothing was published on who may use the product, and named the 8am Terms of Service as a document not opened on that pass. The agreement has now been read in full and it publishes a real position, so D, whose words are that nothing is published on the advice line, is no longer true of this record. What the agreement and the 8am IQ Usage Policy publish, both adopted by this product's own footer and both naming 8am DocketWise or DocketWise IQ expressly: the platform is for legal, accounting and other client-based professionals located in the United States and Canada; the vendor states that it does not provide legal advice and is not engaged in the practice of law; the customer must use the platform in compliance with any rules of professional conduct applicable to its profession; unauthorized practice of law is named as a prohibited activity in both instruments; and output may not be relied on as a substitute for professional judgment or human review.
C rather than B, because C's own words are true of this record and B's are not. The intended audience is left ambiguous, and on this product that ambiguity is the substance rather than a technicality. Docketwise is sold to attorneys and also to legal service providers and nonprofits, in the one United States field where non-lawyer accredited representatives may lawfully practise before the agency, and the phrase legal, accounting and other client-based professionals does not resolve whether a DOJ-accredited representative sits inside or outside it.
Nothing published addresses what a non-lawyer representative may do with the drafting tool, and nothing on the vendor's own marketing estate addresses professional responsibility at all. The sibling record CasePeer, governed by the same agreement, sits at B because its audience is unambiguous, so the distinction between the two is the audience rather than the paperwork.
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.
No governance position for the AI was located on the surfaces read, which is the D band. The vendor publishes an unusually complete security and compliance summary covering attestations, infrastructure, access, operational testing, personnel, governance and incident response, and **not one line of it concerns the AI**: nothing names a framework, identifies who is accountable for AI decisions, describes what is evaluated before an assistant ships, or addresses uneven output.
The one governance item in the summary that touches the board, an annual briefing on cybersecurity and privacy risk, is a security governance practice rather than an AI one. Bias is live rather than theoretical on this product and the note records why. The Document Assistant reads scanned passports and green cards, which are identity documents issued in many formats, scripts and transliterations, and it maps what it reads into fields on forms filed under penalty of perjury by applicants whose immigration status may turn on a date or a name rendered correctly.
Nothing published addresses accuracy across document types, issuing countries or non-Latin scripts. Named as unopened under the sufficiency discipline: the 8am AI page and the trust centre at trust.8am.com. Verified 12 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.
Real commitments are published on most of the question, short of the full set, which is B, and the disclosure is more granular than the size of the product would suggest. Access control is the strongest part: role-based controls with administrators configuring permissions at user level, permission groups and multiple admin roles on Advanced, two-factor authentication available on every plan, production access limited to authorised employees who need it for their role, staff with sensitive-data access required to use single sign-on or two-factor authentication, a documented and enforced password policy, background checks on all new employees and signed confidentiality agreements.
Encryption: AES-256 at rest and HTTPS for all data in transit. Resilience: AWS across multiple availability zones with continuous automated backups roughly every five minutes and encrypted snapshot volumes. Operational testing: annual third-party penetration testing with SLA-bound remediation, continuous third-party vulnerability scanning, annual control self-assessments with documented corrective actions. Incident practice: a documented protocol covering escalation, rapid mitigation and post-incident review, with customers notified of critical system changes.
Deletion: customer data purged from production environments when customers leave. **The missing limb is subprocessors**, no list appearing on any surface read. Verified 12 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.
Liability is not addressed on any surface read beyond the ordinary commercial framing, which places this at C rather than lower, and the note states the retrieval position so a later pass can correct it. Nothing published on the product estate sets out a warranty, an indemnity, a liability cap, a service credit or an insurance position, and nothing distinguishes responsibility for a form populated wrongly by the Document Assistant from responsibility for one typed wrongly by a paralegal.
What the pricing page does publish sits adjacent rather than on the point: a seven-day free trial, no setup fees on standard accounts, free data migration on annual Advanced plans, and priority support at the top tier, which are commercial terms rather than an allocation of risk. The group's Terms of Service are published at 8am.com/terms/terms-of-service and the Privacy Policy alongside it; **neither was opened on this pass** under the sufficiency discipline, and they are the documents that would carry the cap and any indemnity, so this row would move on a reading.
The question has real content here because the output is filed with a federal agency: an incorrect alien registration number or date of entry on a submitted form is a consequence a firm would want allocated in writing. Verified 12 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.
Real integrations, named across the categories an immigration firm actually uses, plus a published API, short of the depth an implementer could work from. The named list is unusually broad for a product this focused: practice management connections to **Clio, MyCase and PracticePanther**, accounting to QuickBooks, storage to Dropbox and OneDrive, email and calendar to Gmail, Outlook and Google Calendar, payments natively through LawPay, and a listing on the Google Workspace Marketplace.
Two of those are worth naming as unusual. Integrating with Clio and PracticePanther means connecting to direct competitors of the parent's own MyCase, which the vendor presents as serving firms that want to run both. And an **open API is published with a developers page**, which is more than most records at this size offer. Gmail and Outlook are described as add-ons in the plan comparison, so the shape of those two is at least indicated.
What holds it off A is documentation: nothing describes which objects sync, in which direction, what authentication is required or what a firm must configure, and the developers page was not opened on this pass. Verified 12 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.
Cloud delivery is stated with real architectural detail and neither the region nor the tenancy model is given, which is C. The deployment side is described further than most records manage: the platform is hosted on Amazon Web Services, in data centres described as having round-the-clock security, biometric scanning and video surveillance, with infrastructure distributed across multiple AWS availability zones for failover and disaster recovery and continuous automated backups taken roughly every five minutes as encrypted snapshot volumes.
That tells a buyer how the service survives a failure. What it does not tell them is where it is. No AWS region is named, no country is identified, no residency option is offered or refused, and nothing distinguishes where documents are stored from where the Document Assistant processes them. No tenancy model is described and no single-tenant or private option is mentioned. The gap has particular weight on this product and the note records why: the customer base is immigration firms, the data is identity documents and immigration histories belonging to non-citizens, and where that material physically sits and under whose jurisdiction is a question those clients have direct reason to ask. Verified 12 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.
Certification is real, current and scoped, with a public trust centre naming the route to the report, short of the report period and auditor, which is B at the top of the band. **R16 is satisfied in the crediting direction, which is worth setting out because this corpus more often applies it the other way.** The attestation is the parent's, SOC 2 Type 2 held at the 8am LLC level, and the child's own surface makes the connection expressly: Docketwise states that it is operated by 8am LLC, that it maintains an active compliance program documented at 8am's public trust centre, and that the current SOC 2 Type 2 report is available through it.
That is the second of R16's two connectors, the child's own surfaces linking the parent's artifact as covering it, so the attestation credits rather than being merely described. The trust centre is public at trust.8am.com and Docketwise also publishes its own security page. Around the attestation sits a real programme: annual third-party penetration testing with SLA-bound remediation, continuous third-party vulnerability scanning, annual control self-assessments with documented corrective actions, and PCI DSS v4.0.1 compliance through the LawPay integration.
What holds it off A is that no report period, observation window or auditor is named, and the trust centre was not opened on this pass. Verified 12 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.
The vendor refers to its AI by brand without identifying anything underneath it, which is C. The AI is named twice over and inconsistently, as **DocketWise IQ** on the product's own pricing page and as **8am IQ** across the group, and neither name resolves to a model. No model is identified, no version is given, no provider is named, no hosting arrangement for inference is stated, and nothing commits to notifying a customer if any of it changes.
The security summary names Amazon Web Services as the infrastructure host, and under the ground rules a cloud provider on an infrastructure statement is infrastructure rather than a model, so it is graded on the deployment row and not here. No subprocessor list exists on any surface read, which would be the ordinary place a model provider surfaced. The gap is material rather than formal on this product: the Document Assistant reads scanned passports and green cards, so identity documents belonging to non-citizens are being processed by a model whose operator the customer is not told, and a firm asked by its client where those images went could not answer. The trust centre was not opened and is named as the likeliest home of a subprocessor list. Verified 12 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 learn what this costs without entering a sales process, which is the A band. Rates are published outright, per user per month, in both billing cadences: **Basic $69, Pro $99 and Advanced $119 on annual billing**, against **Pro $109 and Advanced $129 monthly**. The unit is stated plainly and is the one that matters to a firm, a per-user seat with unlimited cases. What each tier contains is set out twice, in three plan cards and then in a full comparison table running to roughly forty rows across case management, forms, CRM, DocketWise IQ and administration, so a buyer can see exactly where the AI sits, which is Pro and above, and where eFiling, eSignature and permission groups sit.
The commercial terms around the price are published too: a seven-day free trial, no setup fees for standard accounts, free data migration on annual Advanced plans, escalated feature requests on annual plans, and onboarding and migration available on request. Purchase is self-serve on the Advanced tier through a free-trial signup, with a demo route offered alongside. Nothing material is withheld: there is no unpriced enterprise tier, and the only variable cost, LawPay transaction processing, is disclosed with fees waived for new subscribers. Verified 12 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.
Coverage is stated with its limits, which is the A band, and this is the clearest statement of scope located in this pull. The practice area is not merely named but declared exclusive: the product is built exclusively for immigration law, and the vendor makes the boundary the centre of its positioning rather than a caveat, contrasting itself with generalist platforms and stating that its data model, workflows and forms library are built around immigration practice.
Firm types are enumerated: solo attorneys, boutique firms, larger immigration teams, legal aid and nonprofit immigration organisations, with named audience segments covering attorneys, paralegals and support staff, firm administrators and consultants. Jurisdictional and substantive coverage is given at the level a practitioner would check, the forms library being defined by agency across USCIS, EOIR, DOL and DOS, with the e-filing subset named form by form and one form flagged as temporarily unavailable pending a version update.
What is out of scope is addressed rather than left implied: the vendor states plainly that firms wanting general practice management should run Clio or MyCase alongside, and publishes the integrations to do it. Six common use cases are published. Verified 12 September 2026.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Docketwise, 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.
-
docketwise.com/llm-info6 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Good Law Verification and 3 more
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
8am.com/terms-of-service3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
trust.8am.com1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
8am.com/iq-usage-policy1 signal
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 12, 2026
From $69 per user per month, billed annuallyUSD, as published, never converted
- Docketwise publishes its prices in full and charges per user per month, with unlimited cases on every plan.
- Basic is $69 per user per month on an annual plan. It covers the immigration forms library with smart auto-population, case management, multilingual intake questionnaires, priority date and case tracking, the client portal, document requests, calendaring, time tracking and unlimited storage. It has no AI.
- Pro is $99 annually or $109 monthly. This is where the AI sits: DocketWise IQ gives you the Document Assistant, which reads scanned passports and green cards into your forms, and the Writing Assistant. Pro also adds e-filing with USCIS, e-signatures, CRM and lead management, text and bulk messaging, custom attributes, an HR portal and QuickBooks.
- Advanced is $119 annually or $129 monthly and adds multiple branches, permission groups, multiple admins, priority support, tailored setup, a 5GB file size limit and free data migration on the annual plan.
- There is a seven-day free trial, no setup fees on standard accounts, and LawPay transaction fees are waived for new subscribers.
Fully published per-user subscription pricing with figures in both cadences, tier contents and a complete feature comparison, all ungated. **Basic $69 per user per month billed annually**: smart forms, case management, multilingual custom intakes and questionnaires, case and priority date tracking, client portal and document requests, calendaring and time tracking, unlimited cloud storage, secure data encryption, invoicing and trust accounting, LawPay integration, workflows and automation, internal chat, reporting, Gmail and Outlook add-ons, two-factor authentication. **Pro $99 annually and $109 monthly**, everything in Basic plus eFiling, eSignatures, human resources portal, CRM and lead management, custom attributes, text messaging, bulk messaging, QuickBooks integration and **DocketWise IQ, the legal AI layer, comprising the Document Assistant and the Writing Assistant**. **Advanced $119 annually and $129 monthly**, everything in Pro plus multiple branches, user permission groups, multiple account admins, priority support, tailored account setup, free data migration on the annual plan, escalated feature requests on the annual plan, and an enhanced file size limit of 5GB.
The comparison table runs to roughly forty rows across case management, forms, CRM, DocketWise IQ and administration. Commercial terms published alongside: a seven-day free trial, no setup fees for standard accounts, onboarding and data migration available on request, and LawPay transaction fees waived for new Docketwise subscribers. Purchase is self-serve on the Advanced tier through free-trial signup, with a demo route offered on the other two. No unpriced enterprise tier exists.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on any surface read, and none would ordinarily be expected: the platform holds immigration records rather than protected health information, and the compliance frame the vendor publishes is SOC 2 Type 2 at the 8am LLC level, PCI DSS v4.0.1 through the LawPay integration for payments, and IOLTA trust accounting compliance. Worth recording for a reader who assumes otherwise: immigration files routinely contain medical examination results, most obviously the Form I-693 report of medical examination and vaccination record, so health information can reach this platform through an ordinary filing even though the product is not sold as a health system and makes no HIPAA claim.
Note: Every figure, tier name, inclusion and commercial term read directly from the vendor's own pricing page on 12 September 2026, which publishes them ungated in both billing cadences with a full feature comparison table. The annual figures also appear in the page's own meta description, which is consistent with the tier cards. entryPriceUsd is recorded as 69, the published Basic annual rate, which is a real purchasable entry point rather than a floor: R10's discipline is that a figure is a figure, and there is no free tier here, only a seven-day trial, so null and zero are both wrong. entryPriceDisplay carries the annual qualifier because the monthly rate differs. **Reported for sampling: recording the AI entry point instead, $99 for Pro, is arguable, since the Basic tier contains no AI at all and this is an AI index; the Lawpath and AI.Law records took the free-tier-zero route on the same question and this one takes the lowest purchasable rate, so the three together are worth reading side by side.** Commercial Transparency is graded A on this evidence.
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.
AMENDED 12 September 2026, from silent. The prior value recorded that the 8am Terms of Service were published and unopened and that R43(1) was therefore not discharged; the agreement has now been read in full and it settles the question in the vendor's favour. Terms of Service Part III provides that 8am does not use Customer Content or IQ Content to train or fine-tune any large language model or other generative AI model, whether developed by 8am or a third party, and that the substantive content of inputs and outputs is never used to update model weights or otherwise incorporated into the training data of any AI model.
It binds the model layer as well, the LLMs used to deliver 8am IQ being permitted to retain content for up to thirty days and prohibited from training on it. The agreement names 8am DocketWise expressly as a covered Practice Management Solution and this product's own footer adopts it, so it reaches this record on both R16 connectors. Three qualifications belong on the record. Part I grants a perpetual licence over aggregated and anonymised Customer Content, excluding personal information, for internal business use to improve the platform, which under the R28 naming test is not a training right and which Part III controls over in any event.
The vendor reserves aggregated human and automated review of inputs and outputs to monitor accuracy and performance, so a person may read a prompt even though no model trains on it. And the weight of the question on this record is unchanged: what is processed here includes scanned passports and green cards belonging to non-citizen clients.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
AMENDED 12 September 2026, from disclosed-vague. The prior value rested on the vendor's compliance summary, which acknowledges a data lifecycle without stating a period; the 8am Terms of Service, named as unopened on that pass, have now been read and they state a period for exactly the material this signal is about. Terms of Service Part III provides that the large language models used to provide 8am IQ may retain IQ Content for up to thirty days, and that this data will not be used to train any LLM.
That is a bounded, contractual answer to what happens to a prompt after processing, and it is stated about the model provider rather than only about the vendor. The agreement adds that 8am itself will process and store IQ Content in accordance with its privacy policy and retain it as necessary to comply with law, perform the services, enforce the agreement or identify misuse. Two limits are recorded and neither displaces the value.
The thirty-day window governs the model layer, and no period is published for the retention of case content generally, the vendor's own material deferring to a Data Retention policy whose period is not stated and committing only that customer data is deleted or de-identified after the applicable period on departure. And a stricter retention rule that appears in the same section does not reach this product: the bar on deleting an 8am IQ Case Assistant chat history attaches to Case Assistant, which the agreement confines to the 8am MyCase Advanced tier.
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 maintains its own documented permission model that the firm must administer, which is this value. The published elements are specific and tiered: role-based access controls with administrators configuring permissions at user level on every plan, and **user permission groups, multiple account admins and multiple branches on the Advanced tier**, so a firm running more than one office can separate them. Two-factor authentication is available on all plans.
On the vendor's side, production access is limited to authorised employees who require it for their role, staff with sensitive-data access must use single sign-on or two-factor authentication, and a documented password policy is enforced. The alignment burden sits with the firm, which is what places this value rather than the tier above: nothing enforces an external system's access model and no default configuration is published.
What is not addressed is separation at the matter level, or what the AI can reach. Nothing states whether the Document Assistant or Writing Assistant operate within a user's permission scope, which is the point at which a configured wall would either hold or not.
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.
AMENDED 12 September 2026, from not-addressed. The prior value named the 8am Terms of Service as unopened and as the document that would carry the position, and it does carry it. Terms of Service Part I permits either party to disclose the other's confidential information to the extent required by law or by order of a court, regulatory authority or other governmental body, and provides that in such cases the receiving party will provide prompt notice to the disclosing party, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to allow the disclosing party to seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy.
Both limbs this value looks for are therefore present, notice and protective-order cooperation, and no transparency report exists. The agreement names 8am DocketWise expressly as a covered Practice Management Solution. Two qualifications, and the first matters here more than on most records. The commitment sits in a mutual confidentiality clause framed around confidential information, and the agreement provides that the privacy policy governs the processing of personal information and supersedes that clause to the extent of any conflict, so the protection for client data may be narrower than the clause read alone suggests.
And a further consequence of legal process is published: where the vendor must respond to a subpoena or other compulsory process relating to the account, the customer must on request compensate the vendor for its personnel's time and costs. What the prior note said about why this matters on this record stands unchanged: the platform holds complete immigration files for non-citizen clients, including identity documents, alien registration numbers and a direct USCIS status feed, and the person whose interests turn on notice is the applicant rather than the firm.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The corpus is named by source with a maintenance commitment attached, and no licensing basis or cadence is stated, which is this value. The naming is precise and checkable: the forms library is defined by issuing agency across **USCIS, EOIR, DOL and DOS**, the vendor describes it as the largest immigration forms library in legal practice software and as the core product rather than an add-on, and commits to maintaining it for accuracy as the agencies revise forms.
The second corpus is the customer's own client record, from which every form is auto-populated, and the identity documents the Document Assistant reads. What is not stated is the basis or the cadence. These are United States government forms and therefore not proprietary, but nothing published says so or addresses licensing, and no update schedule, version history or review date is given for any form. That matters because the vendor's own support material records a live instance of the problem: the N-400 e-filing path is flagged as temporarily unavailable while it is updated for compatibility with the most recent version of the form, and a customer review complains that a new naturalisation form took over a month to appear. Nothing identifies what sits behind the AI itself.
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.
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and on this product class the question arrives in a different form worth recording. The product cites no cases, statutes or regulations. It populates agency forms from a client record, tracks deadlines and priority dates, and pulls case status from USCIS. Nothing it produces is a proposition about the state of the law that a lawyer would check for later treatment.
The analogous currency question does bite and is addressed only partially: what must be current here is the **form version**, since agencies reject filings made on superseded editions, and the vendor commits to maintaining the library for accuracy as forms change without publishing an update cadence, a version indicator or a review date. That half is graded on the corpus provenance row. Priority-date and case-status currency is handled through the direct USCIS integration and automatic notifications, which is a mechanism rather than a treatment check. Recorded so the row states the position rather than leaving a reader to infer it from the product category.
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.
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot read or map a value with confidence. The Document Assistant is described in terms of what it achieves, reading data from scanned passports and green cards and automatically importing key details to forms and client profiles, extracting names, dates and other key information and mapping structured data directly into USCIS forms. Nothing describes the other case.
No statement says that a low-confidence extraction is flagged, left blank, highlighted for review or accompanied by a confidence score, and nothing describes behaviour on a poor scan, an unfamiliar document format, a non-Latin script or a field the source document does not contain. No evaluation is published. The gap is sharper here than on a drafting product because a silently wrong extraction is harder to catch than a visibly wrong one: a plausible but incorrect alien registration number sitting in a populated field looks exactly like a correct one, and the form is filed under penalty of perjury.
The surfaces read were the product pages, the pricing comparison and the vendor's own compliance and capability summary.
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 on 12 September 2026, on the product name with an immigration-software qualifier and on the parent's name, against published trackers of decisions on AI-generated fabricated citations including coverage of the Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database and two independent sanctions trackers. None located. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject as of the date shown, and under R119 this signal records fabricated citations and nothing else, so it is not a litigation history.
Two notes for a future reader. The product generates no citations to legal authority at all, so the exposure this signal tracks is not the exposure this product presents; its analogous failure would be a misextracted value on a filed government form, which no tracker records and which would surface as an agency rejection or a malpractice matter rather than as a sanctions order. And the parent group rebranded from AffiniPay to 8am in August 2025, so any search of the historical record needs both corporate names.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
AMENDED 12 September 2026, from not-addressed. The prior value rested on the marketing estate; the 8am Terms of Service and the 8am IQ Usage Policy, named as unopened on that pass, have now been read and professional responsibility is engaged in general terms in both. The IQ Usage Policy, updated 19 August 2025 and incorporated into the Agreement, prohibits engaging in the unauthorized practice of law or offering tailored legal advice without a qualified person reviewing the information, and adds that the models are not fine-tuned to provide legal advice, that they should not be relied on as a sole source of it, and that all outputs should be reviewed and resources verified.
The Terms of Service require the customer to use the platform in compliance with any rules of professional conduct applicable to its profession, and state that the vendor does not provide legal advice and is not engaged in the practice of law. That is engagement in general terms rather than none, which is this value. What remains absent is any named authority: no bar opinion is cited, ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not appear, and nothing maps a feature to a rule of professional conduct in any jurisdiction.
The gap has a particular edge on this record, and it is why the value does not climb further: immigration is the one United States field in which non-lawyer accredited representatives may lawfully practise, the product is sold to legal service providers and nonprofits as well as to attorneys, and the guidance question that actually arises here, which is what a non-lawyer representative may do with an AI drafting tool, is addressed nowhere.
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.
Time savings are claimed throughout and nothing addresses billing or disclosure, on a product sold to firms that bill clients. The savings claims are the commercial argument: reduced manual data entry, minimised filing errors, an average of six hours saved per day, and a customer describing a tenfold productivity increase. The fee relationship is engaged and the platform sits inside it more directly than most, because Docketwise ships the billing system too: time tracking, invoicing, trust accounting and native LawPay payment processing are published features on every tier.
So the same product both compresses the work and raises the invoice for it. Nothing published states whether AI-assisted work is identified on a bill, whether a client is told the tool was used, or how a firm should price form preparation that now takes minutes. The point has a particular edge in immigration practice, where flat-fee billing per petition is the norm rather than the exception, so the saving falls to the firm unless the fee moves; nothing published addresses that either. No cost pass-through statement was located.
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 located public material supports a client-side disclosure obligation, though this record comes closer than most and the note records exactly where it stops. The client-facing artifact limb is met: a **public trust centre at trust.8am.com** carries a current SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, the child's own surfaces link it as covering this product, and the vendor also publishes its own security page and a detailed compliance summary.
Any of those could be forwarded. The two limbs that fail are the ones this signal turns on. **No subprocessor list appears on any surface read**, and **no model provider is named anywhere**, so a firm asked which third party processed its client's passport scan could not answer from anything published. The value is not on-request either, since nothing indicates such a list sits behind a request process. Recorded as the route by which this row would move: the trust centre was not opened on this pass under the sufficiency discipline and is the ordinary home for a subprocessor list, so a reading could lift this to subprocessors-listed or higher.
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.
No located public material addresses disclosure of AI involvement or verification of AI output. Nothing states which values on a form were extracted by the Document Assistant as against entered by a person, no record identifies the model and no model is named anywhere, nothing captures that a human checked an extracted field, and no export, certification form or disclosure template is offered. The product does publish an eSignature capability and a form review step, and neither is presented as a record of machine involvement.
The framing this signal usually takes needs adjusting on this record and the note does it explicitly: the output does not go to a court but to a federal agency, on forms signed under penalty of perjury and accompanied by a Form G-28 identifying the attorney or accredited representative of record. **That is a certification regime, and the person certifying is the one who would need to know which fields a model filled in.** Immigration adjudicators and the agencies have begun addressing AI use in filings, so the question is live rather than hypothetical, and nothing published equips a filer to answer it.