FirmPilot
FirmPilot is an AI marketing engine for law firms that aims to replace the work a digital marketing agency would otherwise do. Its method starts with competitors rather than with the client: the system crawls competing firms' websites, advertisements, social activity and search performance every ninety minutes, building a picture of what is actually ranking and converting in a given market and practice area, and then uses that intelligence to decide what the firm should publish and bid on. A proprietary knowledge model trained on more than five million pieces of legal marketing content and a database of over three thousand legal cases supplies the domain grounding, drawing on cases, legislation and legal news so that generated material reads as authoritative rather than generic. From there the platform creates, calibrates and publishes website and blog content aimed at ranking in conventional search and in AI answer engines, optimises the firm's site for mobile, page speed and on-page structure, builds links, and manages paid search, Google Business Profile and social channels. Always-on agents handle continuous monitoring, and a dashboard reports leads, campaign performance and return on spend in real time. Practice-specific guidance covers personal injury, family, criminal, employment, estate and probate, immigration, business, bankruptcy and general practice, with separate material for solo, small and mid-to-large firms. Pricing is published as three flat monthly subscription tiers, positioned explicitly against agencies that charge a percentage of advertising spend. FirmPilot AI, Inc. is based in Miami and is backed by Blumberg Capital, Thomson Reuters Ventures and HubSpot Ventures.
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 engine is the entire proposition and the vendor draws the comparison itself. What is sold is a set of inferences no agency workflow produces: a proprietary knowledge model trained on more than five million pieces of legal marketing content and a database of over three thousand legal cases, competitor crawling every ninety minutes across websites, advertisements, social activity and search performance, and generative production of website copy, blog content, social posts and ads calibrated against what that crawl finds. Always-on agents run the monitoring continuously. Asked directly whether it is a wrapper, the vendor answers that it runs on a proprietary engine built for legal marketing rather than a general-purpose model. The stated comparator throughout is not other software but marketing agencies working from gut feeling and manual adjustment, and the founding account describes discovering that structured legal content outranks generic output. Remove the models and nothing distinguishable from an agency remains. Verified 2 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.
Quality is asserted, the mechanism behind it is named only in outline, and the agreement disclaims the whole subject. On the positive side the grounding sources are identified by type: a proprietary knowledge model drawing on cases, legislation and legal news, plus competitive intelligence gathered from live crawling, which is more than a bare claim of legal training. Asked whether machine-written content is penalised by search engines, the vendor answers that its output passes quality checks combining legal intelligence with originality requirements. What is missing is any content behind that phrase. No quality check is described, no accuracy or error figure is published, no evaluation or human review standard is stated, and nothing addresses what happens when the model asserts something incorrect about the law in material published under a law firm's name. The published figures are commercial rather than accuracy measures, covering lead volume and retention. Section 2 of the user terms states plainly that the services and content may contain errors, inaccuracies or omissions and that the vendor does not guarantee accuracy, completeness or currency. Verified 2 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 product is described as publishing without any approval step being mentioned anywhere. The home page states that the system will automatically create, calibrate and publish legal content tailored to the firm's practice areas, and describes deploying always-on agents to handle time-intensive work continuously. Nothing on any surface read describes a review or approval gate between generation and publication, states whether a lawyer sees content before it appears under the firm's name, or identifies who at the firm is accountable for what goes live. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full on 2 September 2026. The user terms allocate responsibility without supplying a mechanism, making the customer solely responsible for User Content and warranting that it is accurate and not misleading, while the vendor reserves the right but disclaims any obligation to review content. The gap matters more here than on most records because what is published is lawyer advertising, which is regulated in every US jurisdiction, and because the material carries the firm's name rather than the vendor's. Verified 2 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.
Two customers speak on the record and the aggregate claims travel without support. Jonathan Steele, Managing Partner at Steele Law, is quoted with a figure, saying FirmPilot quickly tripled to quadrupled monthly lead volume, and Jessica Arena, Managing Attorney at Jessica Arena Law, is quoted on the pricing page. A partner at Romano Law Group appears in a funding announcement. A case studies library is published and was not opened on this pass, which is recorded as a limit on this reading rather than as an absence. Against that, the headline claims are unattributed and undated: 180 per cent or more increases in cases, a 96 per cent client retention rate, tens of thousands of qualified leads since 2023, and a stated average time to return on investment of three to six months. None carries a sample size, a measurement basis or a date, the retention figure appears in a marketing FAQ rather than anywhere it could be checked, and the home page's own headline counter rendered as zero because it is an animated element that did not execute. Verified 2 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.
None of the five limbs is addressed and one published term runs against the customer. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the site footer, on 2 September 2026: there is no security page, no data processing addendum, no confidentiality clause and no trust surface of any kind, and the footer carries only a privacy policy, the terms and a cookie settings link that resolves to a coming-soon page. Nothing states whether customer content is used to train models, nothing describes segregation between customers, neither privilege nor work product is mentioned, no retention or deletion position exists, and no model provider is identified. Section 3 of the user terms goes further than silence: submitting content grants the vendor a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and distribute that material, and to incorporate it into any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. Section 4 adds that the services are not a system of record and disclaims any obligation to store or back up customer content. Verified 2 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.
The advice line is drawn clearly and repeatedly; the professional obligations that actually bite are unaddressed and one clause cuts against them. On the good side, every page of the site carries a footer statement that FirmPilot AI, Inc. and FirmPilot are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice, and section 3 of the user terms repeats it in capitals, stating that the vendor is not an attorney or legal advisor and provides no legal or other professional advice. That is unambiguous and consistently placed. What is absent is anything about the buyer's own obligations. The product generates and publishes lawyer advertising, which is governed by professional conduct rules on communications about legal services, solicitation and claims of expertise in every jurisdiction it operates in, and no rule, ethics opinion or advertising standard is named anywhere. Section 5 of the user terms then disclaims, expressly, any warranty that the services will comply with applicable law, which for a product whose output is regulated speech is the opposite of the assurance a firm would want. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 material was located on any surface. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. There is no responsible AI page, no framework or set of principles, no individual or function named as accountable for model behaviour, no account of what is evaluated before a model or content change ships, and no certification. The nearest published statement is a marketing FAQ asserting that output meets search engine quality standards through legal intelligence and quality checks, which names no control and describes no testing. Nothing anywhere addresses uneven output, which has a specific form here: a system that learns what already ranks and reproduces it will reproduce whatever the incumbent legal marketing corpus contains, including its claims style and its framing of clients and case value, and the vendor's own description of reverse-engineering high performers makes that mechanism explicit rather than incidental. Verified 2 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.
None of the five elements is published and no security surface exists. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. There is no security page, no trust centre or portal, no certification claim of any kind, and no data processing addendum. Nothing states any retention period or deletion practice, no subprocessor or vendor is named, no incident or breach notification practice is described, and no encryption or access control detail appears anywhere. Access credentials are addressed only as the customer's responsibility to keep confidential, with the vendor disclaiming liability for unauthorised access caused by the customer's acts or omissions. Section 4 of the user terms disclaims storage obligations outright, telling customers that the services are not a system of record, that they must extract and back up their own content, and that the vendor will not be responsible for backup or recovery in the event of data loss. Verified 2 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.
The published position is among the most adverse in this corpus. Section 6 of the current user terms caps the total aggregate liability of FirmPilot, its affiliates and its suppliers at one hundred US dollars for anything arising from the services, the platform, the terms or the privacy policy, and separately excludes liability for unauthorised access to or loss of customer information, lost profits, business interruption and cost of substitute services. Section 5 disclaims all warranties of any kind, including expressly any warranty that the services will comply with applicable law or generate enforceable obligations. No indemnity runs from the vendor to the customer in any direction on any subject. Claims must be brought within two years and a jury trial is waived. One further defect belongs on the record: the terms page serves two stacked documents, the current FirmPilot AI, Inc. user terms updated 4 February 2026 and an earlier FirmPilot, LLC website terms of use dated 1 November 2022 carrying a fifty dollar cap, Florida governing law and a mandatory arbitration clause, against Delaware law in the current set. A reader cannot tell from the page which governs. Verified 2 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.
No integration into the systems a law firm runs was located, and none is claimed. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. No practice management, intake, customer relationship or case management system is named, no telephony or lead-routing tool, no connector list, and no API or developer documentation. There is no integrations page in the navigation. What the platform does connect to is the firm's public marketing estate rather than its internal systems, covering the website, Google Business Profile, paid search and social channels, and the user terms acknowledge only in general terms that the services may include links or connections to third-party websites and services with the customer responsible for those third parties' terms. The gap is consequential rather than formal, because a marketing engine that generates leads and cannot deliver them into the firm's intake or case management system leaves the most valuable handoff undescribed. Verified 2 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.
Nothing published addresses where the platform runs or how customers are separated within it. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. No cloud provider is named, no hosting region or country is stated, no residency option is offered, nothing distinguishes processing from storage, and no tenancy or isolation model is described. Cloud delivery is evident only by inference from a customer login on a separate application domain, and even that is not presented as a deployment statement. The only geography published anywhere is the company's own Miami address, and the user terms note that the platform may be subject to United States export control law without stating where anything is hosted. No security page or data processing addendum exists in which any of this could appear. Verified 2 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.
No certification is claimed and no trust surface exists. Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026, and ran a targeted search for company security documentation which returned nothing. Neither SOC 2 nor ISO 27001 nor any other standard is named anywhere on the site, no auditor or attestation is referenced, there is no trust centre or portal, no badge or seal appears on any page, and no penetration testing or vulnerability disclosure programme is described. This is an absence rather than a retrieval limit: every page requested rendered cleanly and the footer, which lists only a privacy policy, the terms and a cookie settings link that resolves to a coming-soon placeholder, establishes that no gated security surface exists behind which such material might sit. Verified 2 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 engine is branded and trademarked and nothing underneath it is identified. FirmPilot describes a proprietary AI Legal Marketing Engine, states that it is protected by pending patents, and quantifies its training inputs as more than five million pieces of legal marketing content and a proprietary database of over three thousand legal cases. Asked directly how it differs from general-purpose tools, the vendor answers that it is not built on them and runs a proprietary engine trained on legal texts, search practice and competitive data. That is a clear denial of one provider without identification of any other. No model is named, no version, no provider entity, and nothing states whether any component is built in-house or reached through a third party, where inference runs, what a provider may retain, or whether customers would be told if the model set changed. No subprocessor list exists in the terms or anywhere else, and the terms refer to third-party providers, licensors and suppliers as a category without naming one. Verified 2 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.
Three named tiers carry published monthly figures, which is rarer in this corpus than it should be. The pricing page lists Lite at 4,250 US dollars per month, Firm at 6,900 and Premium at 9,250, and frames the model deliberately: the vendor notes that traditional agencies bill monthly and charge a percentage of advertising budget, producing fluctuating and surprise costs, and states that it charges flat monthly subscription fees instead. A buyer therefore learns the price, the unit, the billing period and the charging philosophy without contacting anyone, and can compare against an agency retainer directly. What is missing keeps it out of the top band. Each tier carries only the words contact us to learn more in place of any feature list, so nothing states what distinguishes Lite from Firm from Premium, whether advertising spend is included or billed separately on top, or what volume of content or channels each covers. No contract term, minimum commitment or notice period is published, and the user terms are silent on fees, renewal and termination. Verified 2 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.
Segmentation is documented more thoroughly than by most vendors in this lane, along two axes. Nine practice areas each have a dedicated page covering personal injury, family law and divorce, criminal defence, employment, estate and probate, immigration, business, bankruptcy and general practice, and the pages are differentiated in substance rather than templated, with the personal injury page addressing the cost and competitiveness of that market specifically. Three further pages segment by firm size, addressing solo practitioners, small firms and mid-to-large firms. Six service pages set out what is covered, spanning search optimisation and answer-engine visibility, paid search, local search, link building and digital public relations, social media and on-page optimisation. What is absent is the boundary. No jurisdiction is stated anywhere, which matters because lawyer advertising rules differ by state and the product publishes regulated communications, and nothing identifies which states or bar jurisdictions the content is calibrated for. No firm size band is given in numbers and nothing states what the product does not cover. Verified 2 September 2026.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No clause names training in either direction, and the licence the customer grants is nonetheless the broadest in this pull. Section 3 of the user terms provides that content submitted in connection with the services is licensed to FirmPilot on a worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, fully paid-up, irrevocable and non-exclusive basis to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and distribute, and to do the quoted thing with it. A second sentence covering content posted to the website adds transferable and fully sublicensable through multiple tiers of distribution. Separately, the vendor owns all Usage Data and all Feedback outright, together with all improvements to its property based on them. None of that language names training, model training, machine learning or model improvement over customer content, so under the naming test it does not move the value in either direction. What a reader should take from it is that the licence is perpetual and irrevocable rather than term-limited, is not confined to providing the service, and would not need to be widened for training to fall inside it.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
Retention is addressed only as a disclaimer of responsibility. Section 4 of the user terms states that the services are a tool for retrieving, analysing and managing content and are not a storage system or other system of record, that the customer is responsible for extracting and backing up its own content onto its own systems on a regular basis, and that the vendor will not be responsible for backup, recovery or any other step to ensure content is recoverable in the event of data loss. Section 3 adds that content may be deleted at any time without prior notice, that there is no duty to store or back it up, that the vendor may delete all of it at the conclusion of the services, and that it reserves the right to remove content at any time for any reason without notice. Section 3 of the older terms stacked on the same page repeats the point. No retention period is stated for anything, no deletion route or export facility is described, and nothing addresses how long generated content, competitor intelligence or campaign records are held.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes segregation between customers and no tenancy model is stated. The question takes an unusual and pointed form on this product. FirmPilot's method is to crawl competing law firms and use what it learns to build a client's marketing, so two firms competing in the same market and practice area could each be customers while each is also a subject of the other's competitive analysis. Nothing published states whether a customer's own performance data, keyword set or campaign results can inform recommendations made to a competitor who is also a customer, and no wall of any kind is described. For a buyer this is the confidentiality question the product actually raises, and it is unaddressed.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and nothing addresses notice to the customer if a demand arrives. There is no confidentiality article in the user terms at all, in either direction, which is unusual for a business agreement and means the question is not reached rather than answered adversely. The nearest provision runs the other way: the suspension clause permits the vendor to suspend access or remove content where it believes in good faith that continuing would expose either party to legal, regulatory or compliance risk, and the older terms stacked on the same page reserve a right to report users to law enforcement. Neither is a notice commitment. A privacy policy is published and was not opened on this pass.
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 training corpus is described by volume and category with no rights basis stated for any of it, and one category raises a question the vendor does not address. FirmPilot states that its knowledge model has processed more than five million pieces of legal marketing content and draws on a proprietary database of over three thousand legal cases, adding elsewhere that it mines cases, legislation, legal news and videos. Cases and legislation are public records. The five million pieces of legal marketing content are not: they are the website copy, advertisements and social output of other law firms, gathered by crawling competitors every ninety minutes, and that material is ordinarily the copyrighted work of those firms or their agencies. Nothing states on what basis it was collected or may be used, whether robots directives are honoured, or what separates learning from a competitor's approach from reproducing their expression. No database, publisher or supplier is named for the case collection either, and no jurisdictions or update cadence are stated.
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.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms on 2 September 2026. The product does not retrieve primary law for a reader and cites none, so a citator has nothing to operate on in the usual sense. The analogous question is live and unaddressed, and it is not a technicality here. The vendor states that its knowledge model draws on cases, legislation and legal news to produce authoritative content, and that content is published on law firm websites as material prospective clients will read and rely on. Nothing describes whether the legislation behind a published article is checked for amendment or repeal, whether a case relied on remains good law, or whether previously published content is revisited when the law changes. Section 2 of the user terms states in terms that the vendor does not guarantee its content is accurate, complete or current.
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.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes what the system does when it cannot produce reliable output, and no confidence indicator is described as surfaced to the user. The published material describes generation and publication as continuous and automatic, with no account of a case in which the system declines, holds an item, or flags material for a person. The vendor's own framing of quality is a claim rather than a behaviour: content is said to pass quality checks combining legal intelligence with originality requirements, and nothing states what a failed check produces. Nothing addresses what happens when the model has thin grounding for a practice area or jurisdiction, which is where over-confident output would be most likely and most consequential given that the result is published under a law firm's name.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting drawing on it, on 2 September 2026 on the product and corporate names FirmPilot, FirmPilot AI, Inc. and FirmPilot, LLC, together with a separate search for bar advertising complaints or disciplinary action connected to the product. No court order, opinion, disciplinary record or regulatory action naming it was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The signal fits this product class poorly: the platform generates marketing content rather than filings, so its characteristic failure is a misstatement of law in published website copy or a claim that breaches a jurisdiction's advertising rules. That surfaces as a bar complaint or a state disciplinary matter against the firm rather than the vendor, and those are not indexed anywhere comparable to a court sanctions tracker.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview, the nine practice area pages listed in the navigation and the user terms in full on 2 September 2026. No public material engages guidance from any professional body, and on this product that absence is the sharpest in the pull. What FirmPilot generates and publishes is lawyer advertising: website copy, blog articles, social posts and paid search adverts appearing under a law firm's name and read by prospective clients. Communications about legal services are regulated in every United States jurisdiction, covering false or misleading statements, claims of specialisation, comparisons with other lawyers, testimonials, results claims and required disclaimers, and the rules differ by state. Not one rule, ethics opinion or advertising standard is named anywhere. The user terms compound it rather than filling the gap, disclaiming in section 5 any warranty that the services comply with applicable law and placing sole responsibility for the accuracy and legality of published content on the customer.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
No located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses what happens to a client's bill, and the product does not touch billing. FirmPilot operates entirely before the client relationship exists, on visibility, lead generation and case acquisition, so the compression of billable time this signal tracks does not arise and the absence is not a criticism. Nor does the vendor make claims that would engage the lower values: the figures published concern lead and case volume, retention and time to return on marketing investment rather than time saved on legal work. Its cost claims are about replacing agency retainers and reducing marketing overhead, which is a comparison between vendors rather than anything the firm would disclose to a client.
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.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full, together with the full site footer, on 2 September 2026, and ran a targeted search for company security or vendor documentation which returned nothing. No subprocessor list exists in any form, no processor or vendor is named anywhere, and no model or AI provider is identified. There is no data processing addendum, no security page and no trust centre, so no forwardable client-facing artifact exists beyond the published privacy policy and the user terms themselves. The user terms refer to third-party providers, licensors and suppliers as a category, and treat them as third-party beneficiaries of the liability limitations, without naming one. A firm asked by a client which entities process data connected to its marketing, or which model writes content published in its name, could answer nothing from anything the vendor publishes.
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.
Checked the home page, the pricing page, the overview and the user terms in full on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses disclosure of AI involvement to any tribunal or regulator, and no record identifying which content the system generated is described as available or exportable. The forum here is a state bar rather than a court, and the scenario is concrete: where a regulator or a complainant questions a marketing claim published on a firm's website, the firm would need to show what was published, when, on whose instruction, and whether a person reviewed it before it went live. The platform holds that history, since it generates, calibrates and publishes the content and reports campaign performance through a dashboard. Nothing states that any of it is retained as an auditable record or exportable, and section 4 of the user terms cuts the other way by disclaiming that the service is a system of record at all.