E
Everlaw

Everlaw is a cloud ediscovery, investigation and litigation platform covering upload and processing, review, production and trial preparation. It is sold to law firms, corporate legal departments and government agencies at federal, state and local level. The Everlaw AI suite adds Review Assistant for summaries and extractions, Coding Suggestions for first pass review and Writing Assistant inside Storybuilder for drafting from the evidence.

Deep Dive answers natural language questions across matters of more than 20 million documents, with citations to the source documents. Predictive Coding and Clustering run beside them. Everlaw connects to Claude, ChatGPT Enterprise, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey, Legora and Thomson Reuters, offers API and MCP connectors, and collects data from Microsoft 365, Zoom and Google Workspace. It runs on AWS in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia and holds FedRAMP Moderate and GovRAMP authorizations.

Its customer terms, data processing addendum, subprocessor list and a government request transparency report are published.

Compared with

Everlaw, 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 platform covers upload, processing, review, production and trial preparation, and was sold before the generative layer arrived in 2024. The models drive a core layer on top of it. Coding Suggestions automates first pass review, Deep Dive answers natural language questions across matters of more than 20 million documents, and Review Assistant and Writing Assistant summarize, extract and draft. Predictive Coding and Clustering apply machine learning that predates the generative features.

Everlaw now presents itself as the evidence layer for legal AI, serving outside AI tools through its integrations, while the document review platform still runs without the generative layer.

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.

Everlaw AI cites source documents in its results so users can verify output, and Deep Dive answers draw on facts extracted from specific documents, retrieved from a vector database of the customer's own documents. Everlaw says grounding curtails hallucinations without removing them. Coding Suggestions gives tiered recommendations with a justification for every document, and the AI product page says it can exceed human review performance.

No accuracy rate, recall or precision figure, test set or evaluation method from Everlaw itself is published. The 98.2% recall figure comes from one customer's layered workflow combining keyword culling, Coding Suggestions and Predictive Coding.

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.

Control is the first of Everlaw's generative AI principles, beside Confidence and Transparency, Privacy and Security. Users can opt in or out of Everlaw AI, and an icon marks every generative feature. Everlaw AI cites the source documents in its results so users can check their work, and each statement in a draft is followed by the document meant to support it, one click away. The customer terms require the customer to evaluate output for accuracy, including through human review, before relying on it.

Coding Suggestions gives tiered coding recommendations with a justification for every document. In the Dinsmore & Shohl study, attorneys validated its output against a 120 document ground truth set. No threshold at which a document must go to a person, and no limit on what Coding Suggestions decides unaided, is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Operational and Outcome EvidenceNamed firms or legal departments, dated, with figures for what changed and a method a reader can assess.

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.

Dinsmore & Shohl's study, published on 24 March 2026, describes a review of 26,000 contracts after a client's cyber incident. Partner Jennifer Mitchell and ediscovery director Peter Pepiton first culled about 20,000 drafts and duplicates. They then ran Coding Suggestions against attorney written criteria, validated it on a 120 document ground truth set, and finished with Predictive Coding. Recall rose from about 92% on the first Coding Suggestions pass to 98.2% after formal statistical validation.

The home page adds stories from an unnamed Am Law 200 firm and an unnamed Fortune 500 company. Government agencies use Everlaw under its FedRAMP Moderate and GovRAMP authorizations.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureWritten commitments a buyer can read before signing: no training on client data, segregation documented at the level the buyer segment requires (matter level walls for a firm, tenant level separation for an in house team), privilege and work product handling addressed directly, retention and deletion stated, and the position on third party model providers made explicit.

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 customer terms bar Everlaw from using inputs or outputs to train or fine tune a generative AI model for general use through the service, and inputs and outputs remain case materials the customer owns. The enterprise language models follow a zero data retention policy, using data only to generate a response and deleting it on completion. Data is not shared between customers, and the models hold no persistent knowledge of a customer's case that a data injection could extract.

The vector database behind Deep Dive keeps numerical embeddings created from customer documents, which retrieval needs. Everlaw describes its environments as built for sensitive case data, privileged communications and personal information. No retention period is stated for the embeddings.

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 departments and government legal teams, with no consumer product. The customer terms require the customer to review output for accuracy before relying on it and disclaim any warranty on AI output. Everlaw is a document review and case building platform rather than an advice tool, and it publishes nothing on advice versus tooling, on competence or supervision duties, or on jurisdiction limits.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner.

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.

Everlaw publishes an AI Governance Framework built on three generative AI principles: Control, Confidence, and Transparency, Privacy and Security. Third party technologies are evaluated from technical, legal, privacy and security perspectives before adoption, and accuracy assessments inform which language models Everlaw uses. Users can opt in or out of Everlaw AI, and the framework sets out protections against data injection and exfiltration.

On bias, the framework says Everlaw cannot manage bias inside third party foundation models and does not use prompt based mitigation, because that could mask bias in the case documents themselves. No accountable owner of AI governance is named and no testing results are published.

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.

Everlaw's language models follow a zero data retention policy, so data sent for processing is used only to generate a response and deleted on completion. Everlaw itself keeps customer data only as long as the customer stores it on the platform. A Pinecone vector database stores embeddings of customer documents to power Deep Dive. The data processing addendum commits to notice of a verified security incident without undue delay, with information as it becomes known and steps to contain and remediate.

Subprocessors are listed with function and country, and additions or replacements are notified at least 10 days ahead. Termination instructs Everlaw to delete customer data within a commercially reasonable timeframe. Customers choose the AWS instance where data is stored and processed. No period is stated for deletion after termination or for keeping the embeddings behind Deep Dive.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

Everlaw's Customer Terms of Service, last updated 1 October 2025, carry an indemnity from Everlaw against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property rights. Claims that Everlaw AI Assistant output infringes are excluded, along with customer negligence, breach, alteration and combination with other products. Each party's liability is capped at the fees paid or payable in the 12 months before the liability arises, and indirect and consequential damages are excluded.

Everlaw's cap for an unpaid subscription is $100. Everlaw warrants only compliance with applicable law. It makes no warranty on the accuracy, completeness or reliability of AI output, and the customer must review output before relying on it. The terms state that Everlaw is not an insurance company and point the customer to its own insurance for losses outside Everlaw's express obligations.

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.

Everlaw connects to the AI tools legal teams already use, naming Claude, ChatGPT Enterprise, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Harvey, Legora and Thomson Reuters as integration partners, each described in a line. Claude can retrieve and analyze case materials directly, and ChatGPT Enterprise uses Everlaw as an evidence layer. API and MCP connectors let firms and partners build custom tools on Everlaw as the evidentiary system of record.

Cloud connectors collect data straight from Microsoft 365, Zoom and Google Workspace. No public page sets out which objects each integration moves, in which direction, or what a firm must configure.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment options and data residency are published, including the regions available, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.

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.

Everlaw runs on Amazon Web Services, and customers choose the instance where data is stored and processed: United States, United Kingdom, EU in Germany, Canada or Australia. AI processing follows the instance. Google and OpenAI process in the EU for UK and EU customers, and OpenAI processes in Canada for the Canadian instance, under the same zero retention and no training terms. Government agencies run on Everlaw's FedRAMP Moderate and GovRAMP authorized environments.

The transparency report says Everlaw is subject to United States law and that data may also be subject to the laws of the chosen instance's country. No tenancy model is described.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCurrent independent attestation with named scope, reachable without a sales call: a trust center carrying reports, dates and the standards actually covered.

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.

Everlaw holds FedRAMP Moderate and GovRAMP Moderate authorizations, SOC 2 Type 2 and SOC 3 reports, ISO 27001:2022, ISO 27017 and ISO 27018 certification, Cyber Essentials Plus, and CCPA and GDPR compliance. Its security and compliance portal at trust.everlaw.com lists the SOC 2 Type II report with a 2026 bridge letter and a penetration test executive summary. It also lists a HIPAA HITECH assessment, a CAIQ dated May 2026, a SIG Lite and the ISO statement of applicability.

Reports open through an access request on the portal. The portal also carries an architecture diagram, the AI governance framework and a 2026 disaster recovery test summary.

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.

Everlaw's subprocessor list, updated 2 October 2026, names Amazon Web Services and Google as cloud and AI service providers, OpenAI as an AI service provider and Pinecone for the vector database behind Deep Dive. It gives countries of processing by instance, with Google and OpenAI processing in the EU for UK and EU customers and OpenAI in Canada for the Canadian instance. The integrations page says Google Gemini powers retrieval and context engineering.

The data processing addendum commits to notice at least 10 days before a subprocessor is added or replaced, with 15 days to object. The AI governance framework says the language models follow zero data retention terms and that accuracy assessments inform which models Everlaw uses. No model or version is named for any feature.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

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.

Everlaw's pricing page lists what the platform includes rather than what it costs. Cloud connectors, processing at one million documents an hour, transcription, redactions, productions, Predictive Coding, Clustering, timelines, transcript analysis, onboarding, training, standard data migration and unlimited user licenses are included. Coding Suggestions, Deep Dive, machine translation and custom extractions run on credits, with single document use free of credits.

An intake portal with case management and compliance reporting is an add on. No figure, tier or unit of charge for the platform is published, and pricing runs through a demo request.

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.

Everlaw sells to law firms, corporate legal departments and government agencies at federal, state and local level. Public sector use cases include litigation, investigations and Freedom of Information Act requests. Private sector use cases include document review, early case assessment, legal holds, internal investigations, data privacy, depositions and trial preparation. Its practice scope is ediscovery, investigation and litigation from data upload through production to trial, with no claim to transactional or advisory work.

Regional instances run in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia. Segmentation by firm size, industry breakouts and any statement of what the platform is not built for are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

6 public documents

The public pages on file for Everlaw, 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.

What changed

Tracked changes at Everlaw

Sep 17, 2026Integration / interoperabilityVerified

Everlaw released a plugin for ChatGPT Enterprise, one of the partner plugins that went live alongside OpenAI's Astra for Law on 17 September. Legal teams can search, query and analyze case evidence held in Everlaw from inside ChatGPT. It works on the substance of the documents rather than only their metadata, and runs against the permissioned data already in Everlaw rather than a copy.

Bears on: Practice Systems Integration DepthSource
Aug 27, 2026Integration / interoperabilityVerified

Everlaw launched a Model Context Protocol integration with Harvey. The connection lets users query Everlaw's evidence, project data and reporting information conversationally from inside Harvey's interface, rather than moving between the two systems.

Bears on: Practice Systems Integration DepthSource

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 the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

Under its Customer Terms of Service, Everlaw will not use inputs or outputs to train or fine tune a generative AI model for general use through the service. Inputs and outputs are case materials the customer owns. The AI governance framework says the enterprise language models follow zero data retention terms, deleting data on completion and never using it to train their models. Predictive Coding learns from the coding decisions within a customer's own matter.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill not use Input or Output to train or finetune a generative AI modelAs 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.

Data sent to the language models is deleted on completion and not kept after the request. Everlaw keeps customer data only as long as the customer stores it on the platform, and does not retain deleted data unless the law requires it. The Pinecone vector database behind Deep Dive stores numerical embeddings created from customer documents, which retrieval needs. Termination instructs Everlaw to delete customer data within a commercially reasonable timeframe, and no period is stated for the embeddings or for deletion after termination.

Source: Vendor Publishedonly keep customer data for as long as customers store itAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

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

Everlaw says data submitted and responses received are not shared between customers, and the models hold no persistent knowledge across requests. Nothing published sets out how separation is enforced between users, teams or matters inside one customer, where walls operate. A firm running two adverse matters on the platform has no published description of whether Deep Dive retrieval can cross between them.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs 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.

Everlaw's data processing addendum says that if it must respond to a request for customer data, it will promptly notify the customer and provide a copy of the request unless legally prohibited. Its government request transparency report adds that Everlaw reviews each request, may seek to narrow or object to it, and emails the customer before disclosing. Notice is withheld only where the law prohibits it, after an account takeover or in an emergency, and is given once a prohibition lifts. United States authorities must use a subpoena, court order, warrant or national security request.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill promptly notify Customer and provide it with a copy of the requestAs 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.

No primary law corpus sits behind Everlaw. Retrieval runs against the customer's own case documents, uploaded into the platform and indexed as embeddings in a vector database, so the source material is the evidence in the matter. No vendor supplied legal collection, 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.

Everlaw's corpus is the evidence in a matter rather than published case law, so its output cites documents, not authority. Writing Assistant drafts arguments from the evidence, and any legal authority in that writing comes from elsewhere. No treatment signal or check of subsequent history is described.

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.

Everlaw does not describe what the product does when the documents do not support an answer, and shows no confidence signal for an answer. It says grounding curtails hallucinations, and answers cite source documents so a user can check them. Deep Dive answers questions across matters of more than 20 million documents, and its behavior when the evidence is absent is not described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs 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 Everlaw. Everlaw generates answers and drafts from a matter's own 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.

Everlaw names no ethics opinion or bar guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512. Its AI governance framework and generative AI principles govern its own conduct rather than the professional duties of the lawyers who use it. It also does not connect its AI features to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to 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.

Everlaw's savings claims are about throughput: Coding Suggestions automates first pass review with results it says can exceed human review, and Deep Dive answers questions across very large matters in seconds. Everlaw sells to law firms, where that review time is billed to clients. Nothing published addresses how AI assisted review is recorded or billed, 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 subprocessor list, updated 2 October 2026, names AWS, Google, OpenAI, Pinecone, Zendesk and Datadog with function and country. Everlaw's customer terms, data processing addendum and government request transparency report sit beside it. The trust portal carries SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports, a penetration test summary, a CAIQ and a SIG Lite behind an access request. Security, endpoint detection and response tools are left off the public list and are available by email.

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 Everlaw AI result cites the source documents behind it, and an ediscovery platform keeps review and production histories at document level, so what an answer relied on can be traced. No export per document records the model used, the sources retrieved and the human check together, and no model is named for any feature. Courts have long engaged with technology assisted review in ediscovery, and Everlaw does not connect its AI disclosure material to that case law.

Source: Vendor Publishedcite source documents in results for users to reference when checking their workAs 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