G

Gaius-Lex

The agent is the product. The terms of service define the paid services as putting questions to a language model and issuing instructions to it, and the metered unit of charge, called a Lex, is consumed per AI action. There is a classic text search alongside it, described in the terms as a separate service, but every function the product is sold on runs through the model.

Grounding is documented in detail. Every thesis carries a footnote and a link to the regulation or ruling, case signatures are checked for existence against the database, and the vendor says that where confirmation is missing the system flags it rather than asserting. No accuracy rate, hallucination rate or published evaluation exists. The record also holds a contradiction. The marketing sites claim the product never guesses and produces no hallucinations.

The terms of service say the AI does not always answer in line with reality, name the problem as hallucinating, and warn that it may materially affect the result. The contractual disclosure is candid; the absolute marketing claim is not evidence.

The product is marketed at the high autonomy end, as an autonomous trainee that plans its own research and delivers drafts, and the vendor sets against that a contractual statement that generated content is never self standing, is to be treated only as a suggested formulation, and requires the user's own work at the concept, creation and review stages. A contractual constraint is materially stronger than a marketing assurance of human review, which is why this is a high B. It stays at B because it is a general statement rather than one attached to a named plan or mode stating what that tier's output may not be used for.

No named customer, no case study and no production figure of any kind is published by the vendor. There is substantial Polish trade press coverage and an investor blog post referencing dozens of early clients, but both are third party and the investor is not a neutral source. The product is plainly operating, with a live checkout, an application and four jurisdictions, and operating is not outcome evidence.

Real controls exist: encryption in transit and at rest, and automatic or manual anonymization for each document. A contractual term bars users from submitting third party personal data at all unless a data processing agreement has been signed, and requires every document to be anonymized until then. Two gaps remain. Privilege, work product and professional secrecy are not treated anywhere as duties the vendor owes, and no segregation by matter is described.

And the agreement conflicts with the marketing on confidentiality: the terms reserve a right to use query history to develop the vendor's AI algorithms, while the English site says client files, cases and analyses are never used to train any model by the vendor or any third party.

The posture is contractual rather than marketing. The terms say the provider does not supply legal assistance, that an answer is not legal assistance, and that a user taking any legal step should consult someone professionally qualified to give it. Eligibility is limited to entrepreneurs contracting directly in connection with their business or profession. Consumers are routed to a separate, individually negotiated arrangement through a dedicated address.

A separate student agreement grants an educational license that expressly bars commercial, paid or professional use, including during a law firm internship. No bar or ethics guidance is named, and the terms address Polish law while the product is now marketed across four jurisdictions, so the jurisdictional limits of the posture are not stated.

No governance owner, testing before release, evaluation practice or statement about output variation across matter types, jurisdictions or parties is published. The terms do disclose that the model is developed on limited data sets whose content the provider does not answer for, which is a limitation disclosure rather than governance.

The subprocessor position is the strongest element. The privacy policy names the providers whose engines power the AI (OpenAI, OctoML, Gladia, Anthropic and RunPod) and says each processes under a data processing agreement using European Commission standard contractual clauses. The list has been maintained, since an earlier published version named only two of the five. Encryption at rest and in transit, anonymization for each document, account deletion within 24 hours of a request, and an export of stored query history when an account is blocked are all published. No retention period is stated for documents or prompts, and no incident response practice is described.

The position is published, specific and entirely negative, which is worth more to a buyer than silence and is why this sits above D. The terms exclude the provider's liability for the quality of AI output and set out six stated reasons, including that the system depends on third party providers running the AI engine, that the model is built on limited data sets, and that it may hallucinate. No indemnity, no liability cap, no carve out and no insurance position is published.

The terms also record that an individually negotiated agreement takes precedence where it conflicts, so an enterprise buyer may be able to negotiate something the published document does not offer.

No document management integration is published, and iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and OneDrive appear nowhere. There is no Word or Outlook add-in. The product is a browser application, defined in the terms as software run in a web browser, into which a user uploads files in listed formats. Documents live in the vendor's own store rather than the firm's.

Deployment options are strong: SaaS, hybrid and on premise are all published as buyer choices, and running locally is the core pitch. Residency is where it comes apart. The English site says every uploaded document is processed only on servers in the European Economic Area and never routed outside it. The privacy policy names US incorporated providers among those receiving user queries, and an earlier version of the same policy expressly contemplated transfers outside the European Economic Area under standard contractual clauses.

The on premise product may resolve this, since nothing leaves the customer's systems, but no page says the residency claim applies to one deployment shape only.

No SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summary, trust portal or attestation of any kind is claimed or reachable, and there is no self service request route. The European Union funding badge in the footer is a grant mark, not a certification.

The disclosure sits in the privacy policy rather than in marketing. The vendor names five providers supplying the engines behind its AI (OpenAI, OctoML, Gladia, Anthropic and RunPod) with standard contractual clauses as the transfer basis, and comparing published versions shows the list being kept up as the stack changed. Two gaps remain. No specific model or version is named, only providers. And the disclosure conflicts with the marketing, which presents the product as running locally deployed small language models without connecting to public cloud AI services; naming OpenAI and Anthropic as recipients of user queries describes a different architecture. No commitment to notify customers when the list changes is published.

A buyer can price this without speaking to anyone. Two plans are published with rates, Gaius Standard at 159 euro per month net and Gaius Pro from 2,150 euro per month net, each with a live checkout, and a seven day full trial requires no card. The unit of charge is published and defined at length in the terms: a Lex is an internal accounting unit consumed per action, plans carry a stated Lex allowance, a consumption table sets the cost of each action, and the rules on top ups, carry over, freezing on non renewal and expiry after 90 days are all written down.

Team plans pool Lexes across seats with each additional seat priced. Billing periods of 30, 90 and 365 days are offered and price changes require 14 days notice with a right to cancel. A free tier and a student plan sit below the paid rate.

Eight buyer segments are named, each with a stated use: law firms, solo practitioners, tax advisers, courts, public administration, financial institutions, corporations, and small and medium businesses, with a student plan alongside. Jurisdictional coverage is specific, naming the primary sources for Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria. Firm size is addressed only through the two plan tiers and a team seat model, and there is no breakdown by practice area beyond tax being called out separately.