Epiq AI is the AI product line of Epiq Systems, Inc., a New York legal services and technology company whose other businesses include class action and bankruptcy administration, managed review and cyber incident response. Launched in January 2025 as Epiq AI Discovery Assistant on technology from Epiq's 2024 acquisition of Laer AI, it now runs on the Epiq Laer platform, which orchestrates models, agents and human reviewers.
The line comprises Epiq AI for Review (responsiveness, issue, PII and privilege classification from review protocols, with recall, precision and elusion metrics), Epiq AI for Privilege (privilege classification and log generation with reasoning and citations at line level), Epiq Assist (conversational fact research over a dataset), and versions for antitrust, compliance and plaintiff class actions. Accelerators run inside RelativityOne and Relativity Server.
It is sold per matter through the Epiq Service Cloud and Epiq Access, alone or with Epiq review teams, and Epiq says 130 clients had adopted it by early 2026. Epiq also resells third party AI, including Leah contract software, which is a separate product. Software is governed by the published Epiq Software Terms and Conditions and the Epiq Global Terms of Service.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Epiq AI 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.
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.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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 product is the AI. Epiq AI is a line of applications whose work is done by the models. Epiq AI for Review turns review protocols into prompts and classifies documents for responsiveness, issues, PII and privilege; Epiq AI for Privilege classifies privilege and drafts logs; Epiq Assist answers questions in natural language over a dataset. All run on the Epiq Laer platform, which orchestrates models, agents and reviewers.
Without the models there is no product. Epiq's wider eDiscovery platform and services, and resold third party AI such as Leah, are separate products.
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.
Grounding and validation are real and the method is documented, without published accuracy figures on a test set. Epiq AI for Privilege gives reasoning and citations at line level for each call, and Epiq Assist answers with links to supporting documents. Epiq's validation article sets out how results are tested: recall, precision, elusion and richness estimated from random samples with confidence intervals. It adds tradeoffs between recall and precision for each tag from k fold cross validation, which it says are not a substitute for a control set.
The only outcome figures (review up to 90 percent faster, more than 80 percent of review automated) are speed claims with no accuracy measurement behind them.
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.
Human validation is built in and described, with guidance on cutoffs for each tag, but no published stopping points or error route. Classifications carry reasoning and citations for reviewers to check, and each issue tag comes with guidance for choosing a cutoff score. Epiq recommends sample validation of the responsive and nonresponsive sets before production, and review services pair the AI with reviewers who validate its results.
The Software Terms state that generative outputs are preliminary and that the client is responsible for verifying them. Where the AI routes material with low confidence, and what happens when validation fails, are not published.
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.
Real deployment evidence with figures is published, without named customers or method. Epiq says 130 clients, including global corporations and law firms, adopted Epiq AI within its first year. Its case studies report a health insurer's 50 percent savings, a media company saving US$1.5 million on a regulatory deadline, and an Am Law 25 firm deploying Epiq AI for Review, all anonymized in their titles. Epiq AI won the 2026 Legalweek Leaders in Tech Law award for best use of AI in eDiscovery and litigation.
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 written into published agreements, with training limited but not excluded and privilege not named. The Epiq Software Terms (revised February 2026) treat every Discovery Document, including material under protective order, as confidential without the usual exceptions. They limit use of client data to providing the software, require notice before compelled disclosure, and require return or destruction at termination at the client's choice.
Section 15, however, lets Epiq use client data to fine tune its generative AI tools for that client's environment. The Epiq AI FAQ says it does not train public models with client data, and the Responsible AI page says the Azure OpenAI service behind Epiq's summarization keeps prompts and outputs from OpenAI and other customers. Neither agreement addresses privilege or work product by name.
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.
A clear contractual position on advice versus tooling is published, without jurisdiction limits. The Epiq Software Terms say that nothing Epiq does is the practice of law, a legal opinion or legal advice, and that Epiq has told the client it is not representing it. The Epiq Global Terms of Service say Epiq is not a law firm. The Software Terms add that generative outputs are preliminary, untested and unverified, and that the client bears responsibility for verifying them. The product is sold to law firms and legal departments. No jurisdictional limits are stated.
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.
A published governance structure names a body, without testing results. Epiq's Responsible AI page says a Responsible AI Committee oversees the development and deployment of its AI, that bias assessments are carried out to identify and reduce bias, and that practices are reviewed regularly. It adds employee training and a route for staff to raise concerns. Epiq AI Labs, led by the founders of Laer AI with Cornell's Center for Data Science for Enterprise and Society as a founding member, researches the technology. No assessment results, release testing or findings about uneven performance are published.
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 published commitments on data handling have gaps. The Software Terms commit to breach notification without undue delay with assistance to the client, confidentiality obligations on staff and agents, no subcontracting of personal data processing without permission, and return or destruction of personal data at termination. The Global Terms of Service allow 30 days to export data after termination, after which Epiq may delete it.
The security page describes identity and access management on Zero Trust principles, 24/7 managed network monitoring and regular penetration tests. No subprocessor list, fixed notification window or retention period for AI inputs and outputs is published.
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
A real published position includes indemnities and caps, with an express disclaimer of AI output. The Software Terms warrant that the software performs substantially as documented, with correction or termination and a refund pro rata as the remedy. They indemnify the client for infringement, material breach, gross negligence, security breaches the client did not contribute to and legal noncompliance, and cap liability at six months of fees for the software concerned.
The Global Terms of Service cap liability at 12 months of fees, with exceptions for confidentiality breach and gross negligence. Both disclaim any warranty of accuracy for AI outputs, which the client must verify.
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 with the review platforms legal teams use are described at the level of what they do. Epiq AI Accelerators add translation, image analysis, OCR and agentic automation inside RelativityOne and Relativity Server, and Epiq AI for Review and Epiq Assist are built into Epiq Discover. Access runs through Epiq Access single sign on in the Epiq Service Cloud, with Microsoft, AWS and Relativity named as technology partners.
Epiq lists an Epiq MCP page in its navigation that could not be read and may say more. No implementer documentation is published.
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.
Deployment is described in real terms, without the regions. Epiq says it runs Tier 3+ data centers in ten locations worldwide, offers private cloud capabilities in the Epiq Service Cloud and sites specific to regions across 14 countries, and that the Epiq Laer platform uses local models to control throughput and cost. The data center locations, where AI processing happens relative to storage, and residency options for Epiq AI are not published.
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.
Certifications are named without scope, dates or reports. Epiq's security page shows ISO, Cyber Essentials, TISAX and UKAS marks, says it is aligned with HIPAA, NIST and FISMA, and says that third parties assess its program, with Bitsight ratings giving clients visibility of its posture. The page does not say which ISO standard is held or its scope, still shows the EU-US Privacy Shield mark invalidated in 2020, and offers no reports or trust center.
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 architecture is described and one provider is named, without a model list or change notice. The Responsible AI page says Epiq's summarization uses the Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service and sets out that service's data terms. The Epiq AI FAQ says the Epiq Laer platform orchestrates multiple models and agents and uses local models strategically. Epiq has announced partnerships with AWS and DeepJudge. Which models power each Epiq AI application, their versions and how model changes are notified are not published.
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.
The pricing unit and structure are published without a figure. Epiq AI is sold per matter, with unlimited prompts and protocol changes and reclassification at no additional fee, and is also offered to managed services clients at a predictable monthly cost. The Software Terms describe prepaid and monthly service fees with subscriptions of 12 months that renew automatically. No price is published.
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Segments and matter types are described with substance, without stated limits. Epiq AI is sold to corporate legal departments and law firms. It is positioned for investigations, risk assessments, HSR filings and second requests, merger reviews, M&A contract review after execution, PII and PHI identification, early case assessment, incoming production review, deposition preparation and litigation review, with versions for antitrust, compliance and plaintiff class actions.
Epiq says it classifies documents in any language. Where the AI is weaker, by language, data type or matter type, is not stated.
The public pages on file for Epiq AI, 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, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 18, 2026
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 18, 2026
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Read Sep 18, 2026
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
Per matter, with unlimited prompts and protocols and reclassification without additional fees; also a predictable monthly cost for Epiq Managed Services clients. The Epiq Software Terms describe prepaid and monthly service fees on 12-month auto-renewing subscriptions. Sources: Epiq AI Discovery Assistant launch release (14 January 2025), Epiq AI for Review page, Epiq Software Terms and Conditions, read 18 September 2026.
Implementation: Not published. Optional Epiq review services and AI consulting are sold alongside the software; no figures published.
Epiq launched Model Context Protocol servers that connect Epiq applications to outside AI assistants. Legal teams can reach Epiq data and capabilities from the assistant they already use, rather than only through Epiq's own interface.
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.
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.
The published agreement reserves a right to train on client content, limited in scope. Section 15 of the Epiq Software Terms and Conditions lets Epiq use client data to fine-tune or adapt its generative AI tools for the limited purpose of improving outputs specific to that client's environment; no opt-out is stated. Elsewhere the same terms restrict client data to providing the software, the Epiq AI FAQ says Epiq does not train public models with client data, and the Epiq Global Terms of Service let Epiq use customer data to improve the services for that customer.
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.
Retention is addressed without a period for AI inputs and outputs. The Global Terms of Service give 30 days to export data after termination, after which Epiq may delete it, and the Software Terms require return or destruction at the client's choice on termination; the Azure OpenAI service behind summarization is described as stateless. How long prompts and outputs are kept during a matter is not stated.
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Access control is claimed without documented matter-level segregation. The Epiq Service Cloud page describes flexible user permissions under Epiq Access single sign-on, and Epiq AI is bought per matter, but no page describes how access to one matter's data, prompts or outputs is walled from other matters or users.
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The Software Terms commit to written notice before disclosing confidential information under a court or agency order, and cooperation in seeking a protective order; the Data Processing Terms commit to inform the client and give it an opportunity to object where a law requires disclosure of personal information, unless notice is prohibited. The Global Terms of Service give prior notice where permitted. No transparency report is published.
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.
Provenance stays inside each matter, and licensing of outside legal content does not come up for this product. The products work on the client's own matter data; no external legal corpus is described.
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.
Good law checking has little to act on here. Citations point to documents in the matter, not to case law, and no check of cited authority is described.
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.
The product exposes its uncertainty for classification. Each issue tag comes with recall and precision trade-off metrics from k-fold cross-validation and guidance for choosing a cut-off score, and Epiq recommends sample validation of the responsive and non-responsive sets with confidence intervals. How Epiq Assist behaves when the dataset holds no answer is not described.
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Epiq AI. None located.
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.
The case made for the product is a litigation case, not a professional conduct one. Defensibility is framed around metrics accepted by regulators, courts and opposing counsel; no ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or bar guidance is referred to.
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.
Cost savings are marketed without disclosure guidance. Epiq AI is sold per matter with unlimited prompts and reclassification at no extra fee, and its case studies report savings of 50 percent and US$1.5 million; nothing addresses how law firm customers should bill or disclose AI-assisted review to their clients.
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.
A firm fielding a client's outside counsel guidelines would find some of the paperwork it needs and not the rest. The Data Processing Terms are public, and Azure OpenAI is named for summarization, but no subprocessor list, model provider list or disclosure pack for client guidelines was located, and none is offered on request.
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Parts of a defensibility record exist. Epiq AI reports recall, precision and elusion metrics with confidence intervals, gives reasoning and line-level citations for classification and privilege calls, and Epiq positions the metrics for regulators, courts and opposing counsel. No per-document record of the model used and the human verification is described as exportable.
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.