G
GC AI

GC AI is an AI platform for in house legal teams, made by General Counsel AI, Inc. in San Francisco. Cecilia Ziniti, a three time general counsel, founded it in 2023 with CTO Bardia Pourvakil, and Sound Ventures, Worklife Ventures and Fellows Fund back the company. It launched in 2024 and serves more than 2,100 legal teams in 53 countries.

Lawyers work in a chat workspace with projects, shared files, a skill library and Easy Prompt, and in a Microsoft Word add in that redlines against the team's playbooks. Automations rerun saved instructions on a schedule. Contract Intelligence extracts and reconciles terms across a contract portfolio synced from Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox or Ironclad. Exact Quote links each answer to highlighted source text, and legal research draws on more than 14 million United States court opinions and an International Law database covering more than 30 jurisdictions.

Agent Connectors read and act in about 20 business apps, with write actions waiting for approval by default. A REST API, an MCP server and a command line tool reach people without seats. An individual seat costs $500 a month.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Chat answers questions and drafts documents, playbooks run first pass contract reviews, and Contract Intelligence extracts and reconciles terms across a whole portfolio. The Word add in redlines selected clauses or entire agreements, Automations rerun saved instructions on a schedule, and Easy Prompt rewrites a plain request into a detailed legal prompt before it runs. Chats can also draft and send email, build PowerPoint decks and bring earlier conversations back into a new one on request.

Requests route across models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI, with automatic fallback to another provider when one fails. Complex tasks run through a five step reasoning sequence of scoping, systematic review, pattern tracing, completeness accounting and reconciliation. Cohere's embedding model handles retrieval over uploaded files, and GC AI describes a 20,000 line system prompt tuned for concise, business focused answers.

Files, projects, vaults and the skill library hold the material and instructions the models work from. Inside a project, each chat can read the project's files and its sibling chats.

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.

Answers carry numbered citations that open the source with the quoted passage highlighted, so a lawyer can read the exact text behind each statement. Exact Quote works across uploaded files, web research and the legal databases, and an exported chat can include a citations section listing each quote and its source file.

More than 14 million federal and state opinions, supplied by Midpage AI, back the case law answers. Each cited case opens in full in an Opinion Reader, with treatment flags where later history exists. The International Law database links each authority to its official portal, shows how often later decisions cite a case and marks some statutes as in force or not. The Research Agent ranks primary law ahead of secondary sources and uses reference sites such as Wikipedia only for background, never as citations.

On GC AI's own In-House Legal Bench of 100 in house tasks, published in May 2026, GC AI passed 86.8% of attorney written criteria, against 79.8% for ChatGPT, 68.4% for Claude and 57.5% for Gemini. Its widest margins came on legal research, regulatory tracking and checklists, and only example tasks and answer keys are released. GC AI tells Word add in users to double check output because hallucinations and errors can occur.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Autonomy and Oversight ModelWhat the system runs alone, what constrains it, and how a lawyer checks it are all published: modes, thresholds, review surfaces, and the route a matter takes back to human judgment. A categorical limit on a named mode or tier, stating what its output may not be used for, meets the threshold limb without a number.

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.

Agent Connectors split every app action into read tools and write tools. Reads default to Always allow, while writes and deletes default to Needs approval, so GC AI asks before an email goes out or a record changes. A member can set any tool to Always allow, Needs approval or Block, and each approval card offers Approve, Always approve or Deny, with the draft open for editing first. Admins set each connector to Disabled, Read only or Full access for everyone or for named members.

Changes inside GC AI follow the same pattern. Creating, renaming, moving or deleting a project appears as a proposal to approve or deny, and files added from chat wait for approval. Contract Intelligence links an amendment to its parent agreement on its own only when the match is high confidence, and offers the rest as suggestions to confirm or dismiss. Any extracted value can be corrected by hand and later reverted to the AI value with its citations.

Stakeholder seats give outside counsel and business partners a restricted vault chat. It answers factual questions about shared contracts and sends questions of legal or commercial judgment back to the legal team. Automations run unattended and deliver each result as a new chat for review, and the services agreement requires the customer to make sure users review output.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Eight customer stories name both the company and the lawyer. Tipalti's senior director of corporate legal reports 609 hours saved year to date. Snyk's senior managing counsel says time on core legal tasks fell by half or more, and Interface's head of compliance estimates major tasks take about half the time. Helix's chief privacy officer says productivity doubled, and Jasper's head of commercial legal says tasks that took an hour now take ten minutes.

Arc'teryx, Columbia Sportswear and Viant Technology describe how their teams use the product without figures. Viant's chief legal officer, for example, runs HR and privacy questions through GC AI before deciding whether to call outside counsel. Customer logos in the trust center include Vercel, Wayfair, Bass Pro Shops, Eventbrite and Post Holdings.

More than 2,100 legal teams in 53 countries use the product by GC AI's count, over 200 of them public companies, and more than 12 million contracts have been reviewed. A December 2025 ROI study of more than 100 active customers reports 14 hours saved per lawyer each week and outside counsel spend down 14%, while GC AI's FAQ puts that cut at 30%. The story figures are the quoted lawyers' own accounts, and an unnamed Fortune 500 technology company is cited as saving 400 hours a month on NDA review.

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.

Section 4.9 of the services agreement bars GC AI from using customer data to train generative AI models, and section 5 binds both sides to confidentiality, with notice before any compelled disclosure. Customer data is logically separated from other customers' data, encrypted with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, and hosted in the United States.

Its privilege guidance centers on United States v. Heppner, the February 2026 Southern District of New York ruling that a defendant's exchanges with a consumer AI tool were not privileged. GC AI points out that the court left room for tools used at counsel's direction under enforceable confidentiality terms. It tells lawyers they can treat GC AI like any trusted cloud tool, such as Google Workspace, Slack or Asana.

OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Cohere and Reducto process customer content on zero retention terms. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, with Anthropic keeping its data for 30 days, and it stays off until an admin enables it. Users delete inputs and outputs whenever they choose, and an organization's full erasure follows a written request.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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 product is sold to lawyers for in house legal work, and GC AI states that it does not give legal advice; it helps attorneys and their companies deliver advice more efficiently. The services agreement makes the customer responsible for having users review output and for meeting their own legal, regulatory, professional licensing and fiduciary duties.

Exact Quote is presented as support for the lawyer's duty to verify sources. GC AI also quotes New York Formal Opinion 2024-5, which says a lawyer must review all generative AI output, citations included, before using it for a client or a tribunal. Lawyers are pointed to their local bar for current rules.

Stakeholder seats keep non lawyers to factual questions about shared contracts and send judgment questions to the legal team. GC AI states that it assists with legal work in every jurisdiction, and users set the governing law in each request.

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.

The In-House Legal Bench, published in May 2026, is how the company evaluates its own output. Six R&D attorneys wrote 100 in house tasks across ten categories, with answer keys averaging 12 criteria each. An LLM judge marks each criterion pass or fail, and attorneys reviewed a sample of its verdicts by hand. Pass rates are published by category, from 81.6% on summarizing documents to 91.4% on comparison and benchmarking, and GC AI says the results drive product changes.

Claude Fable 5 led every other model in GC AI's suite on a benchmark of 100 demanding in house tasks, by GC AI's account. Admins on Team and Enterprise plans can switch off Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI models for the whole organization, and a settings table records who changed each provider and when.

An AI Governance and Risk Management Policy sits in the trust center beside the security, conduct and acceptable use policies, shared on request. Who inside GC AI answers for model behavior is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

Version 4.0 of the data processing agreement, from June 2026, and an information security addendum set the data rules. GC AI processes personal data only on the customer's instructions. After the term ends it deletes all customer data within 30 days of a written request, at downstream vendors too, and clears backups within 90 days. Users can delete inputs and outputs from the app at any time, and data is kept only while the account is active.

The subprocessor list names each provider with its purpose, data types and hosting location, and was last updated 18 September 2026. GC AI emails customers before adding or replacing one, allows 30 days to object, and lets the customer terminate if no solution is agreed within 90 days. A confirmed security incident is reported without undue delay, with cause, mitigation and updates as they become available.

Sign in runs through WorkOS with SSO over SAML or OIDC, multifactor authentication and organization roles, and custom roles limit what each member can use. Production code is scanned daily for malware, a third party penetration test runs at least once a year, and backups are encrypted and replicated.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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 self serve services agreement, version 10.0 of 24 September 2026, sets the allocation of loss, and customers buying through an order form sign separate terms. Each party's liability is capped at the fees paid or payable for the affected services in the 12 months before the claim, or $100 if that is greater. Indirect and consequential losses are excluded. Gross negligence, willful misconduct and indemnity obligations sit outside the cap.

Against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property, GC AI defends the customer and pays agreed settlements and awarded damages. The indemnity excludes customer data, connected third party apps, modified output, third party web content and misuse. Its remedies run from securing the right to continue, to replacing the technology, to ending access with a refund of prepaid fees.

The warranty covers professional, workmanlike service and a platform that materially performs as documented, with correction or a refund as the remedy. The agreement disclaims output, saying AI accuracy can never be guaranteed and that GC AI has no liability for use of or reliance on output. No insurance is stated.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

About 20 apps sit behind Agent Connectors, among them Gmail, Outlook, Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Notion, Confluence, HubSpot, Asana, Linear, GitHub and Granola. Legal workflow systems include Ironclad, Agiloft and Checkbox, along with ServiceNow, Jira and the USPTO. Each member connects through OAuth, and GC AI acts only with that member's existing access in the source app.

For Microsoft 365, GC AI publishes every delegated Graph permission it requests, from Mail.Send to Sites.ReadWrite.All, with the feature each one serves and why it needs that level. Checkbox, ServiceNow, Google Workspace and the USPTO have their own setup guides covering keys, OAuth apps and admin approval.

Contract Intelligence syncs vaults from Google Drive, SharePoint, OneDrive, Dropbox or Ironclad, picking up new files every 15 minutes, with import rules and manual resync. The Word add in installs from AppSource or an XML manifest. A REST API, an MCP server for ChatGPT, Claude and Cursor, and the gcai command line tool expose chats, files, projects, playbooks, skills and vaults, with inference capped at 60 requests a minute per organization.

A machine client such as Salesforce Agentforce can reach the MCP server with OAuth client credentials. No connector reaches iManage or NetDocuments.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

The service runs on Google Cloud, with Vercel hosting the application and Cloudflare routing traffic. Each organization's data is logically separated, with its own access controls and encryption. Under the data processing agreement, customer personal data is hosted in the United States at all times, and GC AI states that all of its servers are in the United States. Every subprocessor, model providers included, lists the United States as its hosting location.

Processing may happen elsewhere. The agreement lets GC AI and its subprocessors process personal data wherever they operate when needed to provide the service, with transfers covered by the Data Privacy Framework or standard contractual clauses.

The United States is the only hosting location offered, on every plan.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

SOC 2 Type II certification, renewed through annual audits, sits alongside a SOC 3 report and a SOC 2 Type I report. GC AI's SafeBase trust center holds the SOC reports, a penetration test summary and policies covering AI governance, acceptable use, anti bribery and conduct. Documents are released through an access request, under a nondisclosure agreement.

The information security addendum commits to third party penetration testing of a representative instance at least once a year, vulnerability ranking with CVSS and daily malware scanning of GC AI managed code. Business continuity plans are reviewed each year, and staff with access to customer data are background screened and trained on hire and annually.

The reports themselves are released only through that request.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.

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.

Anthropic's Claude family, OpenAI's models, Google's Gemini and xAI's Grok handle chat and analysis. Cohere's embedding model powers retrieval over files, and Reducto parses documents. Requests go to the model best suited to each task and fall back across providers during an outage, and users do not choose a model.

Each provider appears on the subprocessor list with zero retention and United States hosting. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, since Anthropic keeps its data for 30 days for safety work, and it stays off until an admin accepts those terms. Admins on Team and Enterprise plans can switch off Anthropic, OpenAI or xAI, with each change logged by person and time, while Gemini cannot be switched off.

Before adding or replacing a subprocessor, GC AI emails customers and gives them 30 days to object.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

An individual seat costs $500 a month, billed monthly or yearly by card, and can be bought without a sales call after a 14 day free trial. GC AI says individual pricing is standard and not negotiable. The seat includes unlimited chats and skills, the Word add in, Easy Prompt, analytics on usage and time saved, AI Academy and CLE courses, and the Slack community.

Team plans are annual and priced on request, with enterprise SSO, a team skill library, Contract Intelligence, shared chats, solutions attorney support and one legal database. Enterprise pricing is custom. On individual seats, the case law and international law databases are add ons at an unpublished price, each with a one time 30 day trial.

API and other usage based features draw on prepaid credits, priced in the platform at purchase and pooled across the organization. Credits expire at the end of the term, usage stops when they run out, and nothing is billed in arrears. Fees are non refundable and renew at the current published price.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Firm and Practice CoverageWho the product serves is documented precisely: firm segments, in house and government use, and the practice areas actually supported, with the limits stated.

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.

In house legal departments are the only market, from solo and fractional general counsel on the individual plan to enterprise legal teams. Customers range from startups to Fortune 500 companies across technology, finance, retail and apparel, manufacturing and healthcare, including Hitachi, Vercel, Snyk, Tipalti, Gusto, Arc'teryx, Columbia Sportswear and Wayfair.

The named work runs from commercial contracts, NDAs, DPAs and MSAs to privacy, employment, corporate governance, board materials, regulatory research and portfolio contract review. Ready made playbooks cover NDAs, DPAs and MSAs for SaaS and for commercial use. A playbook run can take the deal stage into account when it suggests fallback language, and it works on drafts that carry tracked changes from earlier rounds.

Generalist in house lawyers are the best fit, GC AI says, and it will recommend other platforms to specialized practices. Some teams, it notes, keep a traditional research seat for exhaustive litigation research. The legal databases cover United States federal, state and specialized courts and more than 30 jurisdictions in Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

9 public documents

The public pages on file for GC 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.

Pricing

$500 per user/month

USD, as published, never converted
  • One lawyer pays $500 a month and can buy online with a card, with no sales call.
  • There is a free 14 day trial first.
  • Case law databases cost extra on the single seat plan, and that price is not on the website.
  • Team and enterprise prices are only given if you ask.
  • Using GC AI from other software uses prepaid credits that end with the subscription term.

Per user, per month, with three plans. Individual is $500 a month, billed monthly or yearly by card. It includes unlimited chats and skills, the Word add in, Easy Prompt, usage and time saved analytics, AI Academy and CLE courses, multifactor authentication and the Slack community. Team is annual and priced on request. It adds enterprise SSO, a team skill library, Contract Intelligence, shared chats, solutions attorney support and one legal database, either United States case law or international law, with the other as a paid add on.

Enterprise is custom, with custom integrations, managed procurement and onboarding, change management, ROI forecasting and dedicated support. API use draws on prepaid credits pooled across the organization, at rates shown in the platform.

Implementation: Not stated. Team customers receive onboarding and enablement support, and professional services for playbook buildouts, custom integrations and workflows are offered without a published fee. Custom security questionnaires beyond the data processing agreement may carry fees for extensive requests.

Note: Individual pricing is standard and not negotiable, while team pricing depends on scope, seats and requirements. Partner discounts may apply but cannot be stacked. Fees are non refundable, are paid in USD through Stripe, and renew at the then current published price. Credits expire at the end of each term and usage stops when they run out, with no overage billing. The case law and international law add ons for individual seats carry a one time 30 day trial and an unpublished price.

What changed

Tracked changes at GC AI

Sep 30, 2026Integration / interoperabilityVerified

GC AI added a native Salesforce connector, set up from Settings, that lets chat work with Salesforce records and lets Salesforce be added as a Vault source. GC AI can now also be installed as a desktop app from the Chrome, Edge or Safari menu, running in its own window on the same account as the web app. Users get an email and an in app notice when a Vault scan or rescan finishes, and command bar search now finds past chats by meaning rather than by title alone.

Bears on: Practice Systems Integration DepthSource
Sep 22, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

In a Contract Intelligence Vault sidebar chat, clicking a citation badge now opens the document sheet on the cited passage, with highlights on PDFs, Word files and text documents. The chat citation panel also now splits case law, legislation and web sources into separate sections so statute and regulation hits are distinguishable from cases.

Bears on: Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureSource
Sep 22, 2026Safety / governanceVerified

Admins can now pick the user groups each invitee joins on acceptance, and automatic member access applies groups to people who join by invite link, SSO or SCIM provisioning. Contract Intelligence chats started in a Vault can be shared only with full members of that Vault (no public links or edit access), external View shares send tracked email invitations, and a new Metrics view shows uploads by user to admins without revealing document or Vault names. Organization data exports can now also include uploaded and generated files alongside chat transcripts, grouped by user.

Bears on: Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSource

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.

Section 4.9 of the services agreement says GC AI will not use customer data to train generative AI models, including large language models. GC AI adds that its model providers do not train on that data either, and that data from connected apps is used only to answer the user's requests.

Three carve outs apply. GC AI may use deidentified, aggregated content to improve the service and to build insights on market terms, contract positions and industry benchmarks, and once deidentified it is no longer treated as customer data. Material submitted to a preview feature may be used to develop the service, and feedback given through thumbs up or down belongs to GC AI.

Source: Vendor PublishedGC AI will not use Customer Data to train generative artificial intelligence modelsAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

Users delete their own inputs and outputs from the app at any time, and an organization can have all of its data erased by written request. GC AI keeps customer data only while the account is active and describes its retention policies as customer managed. After the term ends it deletes everything within 30 days of a request, including at downstream vendors, and clears backups within 90 days.

Model providers process prompts on zero retention terms and keep nothing after a response. Claude Fable 5 is the exception, with Anthropic keeping its data for 30 days once an admin enables it. Citation snippets and case metadata stay in chat history for display.

Source: Vendor PublishedDelete your inputs and outputs at any time, right from the app.As of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

Permissions in GC AI follow its own model. New chats, skills and company profiles are private to their creator until shared, and a project is either private to invited members or open to the whole organization, with View, Edit and Owner levels. Contract Intelligence vaults start access controlled, and linking a vault to a project gives nobody new access.

Custom roles, access tiers and user groups set what each member can use, and Stakeholder seats confine outside counsel to the vaults they are added to. Under the services agreement, organization admins may access any member's data. Agent Connectors act with each member's own access in the source app, so retrieval from Gmail, SharePoint or Drive follows that app's permissions, while content copied into GC AI follows GC AI's model.

Source: Vendor PublishedBy default, new content in GC AI is privateAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

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.

Section 5.2 of the data processing agreement commits GC AI to tell the customer promptly of any valid subpoena, warrant or court order compelling disclosure of customer personal data, unless the law forbids it. The notice gives the customer time to seek a protective order. Where notice is barred and GC AI judges a demand unlawful, it will take reasonable steps to challenge it. Other inquiries, from regulators or individuals, are redirected to the customer.

The services agreement adds a mutual confidentiality term covering all customer data. A party compelled by a court or regulator gives notice before disclosing where time allows, helps seek protection and shares only what is legally required. No transparency report is published.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill promptly notify Customer of any valid, enforceable subpoena, warrant, or court orderAs of Oct 12, 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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

Midpage AI supplies the case law, drawing opinions from court websites and government records and updating daily. GC AI holds no case law collection of its own and fetches opinions live from Midpage's API. The International Law database takes case law and legislation from court websites, government legal portals and official gazettes through Moonlit, refreshed daily, and links each authority to its official portal.

United States coverage runs to federal courts at every level and to state supreme and appellate courts in all 50 states and DC. Some state trial courts are included, along with tribunals such as the Tax Court, PTAB, TTAB and NLRB. Abroad it reaches more than 30 jurisdictions, some with case law only or legislation only, and a coverage view inside the app lists current sources. The rights basis for the material is not stated.

Source: Vendor Publishedsourced from authoritative publishers like court websites and government records through Midpage AIAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Own treatment signal

The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.

Treatment flags appear beside cited cases where later history exists. Negative marks a case reversed or overruled, cautionary one that was distinguished, questioned or criticized, positive one followed or affirmed, and neutral history with no clear direction. GC AI reads the full opinions and checks treatment status as it answers.

Recent decisions and cases with little later history may carry no flag, and users are told to verify critical citations themselves. Midpage AI supplies the case law, and where the treatment data comes from is not said. International authorities show how often later decisions cite them, and some statutes show whether a provision is in force.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

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.

Exact Quote ties statements to highlighted source text, the Research Agent runs further rounds of research until it has a thorough answer, and complex tasks end with a completeness check before findings are reconciled. On statutes, in force badges come with a note that a missing badge says nothing about current status.

Stakeholder vault chat answers factual questions about shared contracts and sends questions of legal or commercial judgment back to the legal team. No behavior is described for a question the sources cannot answer.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming GC AI. GC AI is sold to in house teams for contracts, research and advice to the business rather than court filings, and its blog keeps a tracker of AI hallucination sanctions decisions.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Named guidance addressed

Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.

The security FAQ names ABA Formal Opinion 512 and New York Formal Opinion 2024-5. It quotes the New York opinion on reviewing all generative AI output before relying on it, and tells lawyers to check their local bar for current rules. It also points to the Northern District of Texas rules on disclosing AI use to a court.

The July 2026 sanctions tracker on GC AI's blog restates Opinion 512's point that the duty to verify stays with the lawyer, and its privilege guidance rests on United States v. Heppner. No document maps product features to the duties in each opinion.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Outside the fee relationship

The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.

GC AI is sold to in house legal teams. Its customers page quotes legal leaders at Vercel, Arc'teryx and Interface, and its workflows, output style and pricing are built for corporate counsel. Savings land in the company's own legal budget. GC AI says customers often cut outside counsel spend by 30%, offers an ROI calculator, and gives admins analytics on usage and time saved. Its December 2025 ROI study of more than 100 customers reports 14 hours saved per lawyer each week. Viant's chief legal officer describes working an issue through GC AI before paying outside counsel by the hour.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 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 public subprocessor list gives each provider's purpose, data types, hosting location and retention status, beside GC AI's data processing agreement, information security addendum, services agreement and privacy policy. A models page names Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI and Cohere and explains how each handles data, and the security FAQ answers common procurement questions.

The trust center adds SOC reports, a penetration test summary and policies through an access request. GC AI completes custom security questionnaires at its discretion and may charge for extensive ones. No disclosure statement is published for a legal team to give the business units it serves.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 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.

Chats export as PDF, DOCX or Markdown, whole or one message at a time, with an optional citations section listing each citation's number, quoted text and source file. Tables export to CSV or XLSX, and an API chat can be saved into history with a shareable link. Admins see organization usage analytics and a log of model provider changes.

For court rules on AI disclosure, GC AI points lawyers to examples such as the Northern District of Texas and to their local bar. The export names no model.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 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