G
Global IA Jurídica
Global IA Jurídica is the AI legal toolset of Economist & Jurist, the Spanish legal publisher and magazine operated by Difusión Jurídica y Temas de Actualidad, S.L. of Madrid. Its assistant, presented as JuristIA, answers legal questions and resolves cases put to it. Four tools sit beside it: a drafting chat, extraction of data from documents, comparison of documents, and a search that locates and summarizes relevant judgments in short case sheets.
The publisher describes a language model specialized in Spanish law that searches its own collection of millions of legal documents, from national and European legislation and case law to decisions and legal articles, using vector embeddings. It is aimed at lawyers, law firms, self employed practitioners, legal aid lawyers, bar associations and public administrations. A free version is offered for trial, and no price for a paid plan is published.
The product page says the information returned is one hundred percent reliable, without a published measurement. The tool was introduced in February 2024. The terms and data protection policy linked from the product page are the publisher's general website documents and do not address the AI tools.
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 AI tools are the product: every function offered on the product page runs through the model. The page presents a question assistant, labeled Ask JuristIA and Resolve your case, a drafting chat, data extraction from documents and document comparison, each with its own button. The publisher's article of 6 February 2025 describes a search that locates and summarizes judgments automatically into short case sheets. The product page says the system uses a language model specialized in law, trained on Spanish law, and locates documents by vector embeddings over a collection of millions of legal documents.
The article of 1 February 2024 calls it an intelligent legal database. Nothing else is offered on the page: no browsable database, practice management or conventional search product is sold beside the AI, and the call to action is a free trial. The legal collection belongs to the publisher, so content and model are sold together, but the page sells the answers rather than the archive. What the AI does beyond the page's descriptions cannot be checked from published material.
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.
Accuracy is asserted absolutely and not measured, and the grounding behind it is only sketched. The product page says the information the legal AI returns is one hundred percent reliable. The publisher's article of 6 February 2025 says the system locates relevant judgments and summarizes their elements in case sheets to support a lawyer's writing. The product page describes retrieval by vector embeddings over the publisher's own collection of millions of documents, and the article of 1 February 2024 lists national and European legislation, case law, decisions and legal articles as the sources.
No published page says whether an answer links to the full text of the judgment or provision it relies on, which collection a citation comes from, or how often the system is wrong. No evaluation, test set, error rate or comparison is published on the product page, the two articles or the terms. No method is stated for the claim of complete reliability.
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.
No oversight model is published for a system offered to resolve cases and draft. The product page invites users to put a case to the assistant under a button labeled Resolve your case, and offers drafting, extraction and comparison tools. No page says that output is a draft for a lawyer to review, that a lawyer must verify citations, or what the system will not do. The product page, the registration page, the terms and conditions, the data protection policy, the aviso legal and the publisher's two articles were checked.
None describes a review step, a limit on use, a confidence signal or a route back to human judgment after an error. Section 8.1 of the terms says the publisher does not guarantee the lawfulness, reliability, usefulness, truthfulness or accuracy of content, but those terms govern the website and its community features and do not mention the AI tools. The audience is professional, which places the duty of supervision on the lawyer by default, and nothing published helps the lawyer carry it.
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.
No production evidence is published. Checked the product page, the registration page and the publisher's own articles of 1 February 2024 and 6 February 2025: no named customer, firm, bar association or public body using the tool, no case study, no testimonial and no user count is published. The articles describe what the tool does and invite readers to try all of its modules, and the 2024 article names a legaltech patron and an integration with another service without describing any deployment.
The product page addresses lawyers, law firms, self employed practitioners, legal aid lawyers, bar associations and public administrations as intended users, which describes a market rather than evidence that any of them use it. Time savings are asserted in general terms on the product page, with no figure. A publisher's own magazine coverage of its product announces it, and announcements say nothing about who uses a tool or what changed when they did. A buyer has nothing published against which to test whether the tool works in practice.
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.
Nothing is published on how client confidences put into the tools are handled. The tools invite users to submit cases and documents for extraction and comparison, so client material is the input. The product page, the terms and conditions, the data protection policy, the privacy policy link, the aviso legal and the publisher's articles were checked. None addresses training on user inputs, professional secrecy, privilege, separation between users or firms, retention or deletion of what users submit, or what any model provider receives.
The data protection policy covers the publisher's websites and lists purposes such as inquiries, events, newsletters, recruitment and billing, without mentioning the AI tools. Section 7.4 of the terms has users grant the publisher, free of charge and nonexclusively, intellectual property rights in content they contribute to the website's participation features. Whether that grant reaches material submitted to the AI tools is not stated, and no separate terms for the tools are published.
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.
No position on the advice line is published for a tool that offers to resolve cases. The product page labels the assistant's button Resolve your case and describes the tool as the legal AI that lawyers of the future need, for every lawyer in any field. The product page, the registration page, the terms and conditions, the data protection policy, the aviso legal and the publisher's two articles were checked. None states that output is not legal advice, that it must be checked by a lawyer, who may use the tools, or which jurisdictions and areas of law they cover beyond Spanish and European sources in general.
The intended audience is professional, but no page restricts registration to professionals or asks for a bar number, and the free version is open to anyone who registers. Section 8.1 of the website terms disclaims the reliability and accuracy of the website's content generally and does not mention the AI.
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.
No governance position for the AI is published. The product page, the registration page, the terms and conditions, the data protection policy, the aviso legal and the publisher's articles of 1 February 2024 and 6 February 2025 were checked. None names an accountable owner, a testing or evaluation regime, a responsible AI policy, a classification under the EU AI Act, or any finding about the system's output across areas of law.
The product page's statement that the information returned is one hundred percent reliable is a claim about results, not a description of how they are checked. The 2024 article mentions a legaltech patron and an integration with another service, which describes partnerships rather than oversight. A buyer has no published basis for judging how the publisher governs the model, how changes are tested, or how errors are found and corrected.
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.
A general data protection policy is published, and it does not address what happens to queries and documents. The policy names Difusión Jurídica y Temas de Actualidad, S.L., Madrid, as controller and Picón y Asociados as data protection officer. It sets retention of at most a year for inquiries and CVs, and keeps commercial communications and event images indefinitely. Named recipients are competent public administrations where the law provides, financial institutions and companies of the Difusión Jurídica group.
No hosting provider, model provider or other processor is named, and international transfers are not addressed. Rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability and objection are described. No retention or deletion rule for questions, uploaded documents or generated answers, no access control, no subprocessor list and no incident practice for the AI tools is published. The policy covers the publisher's websites as a whole and says nothing about the data the tools hold.
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.
Only a general website disclaimer addresses liability, and it disclaims exactly what a legal AI tool could get wrong. Section 8.1 of the terms and conditions linked from the product page says the publisher does not guarantee the lawfulness, reliability, usefulness, truthfulness or accuracy of content. The remaining clauses govern intellectual property, user participation and the courts of Madrid as forum under section 12.1.
Those terms are written for the publisher's website and community features and do not mention the AI tools, a subscription or a paid plan. No indemnity, warranty on output, liability cap, insurance or service level for users of the AI tools is published, and no separate terms for the tools exist on any page read. The claim of one hundred percent reliability sits beside terms that guarantee nothing about accuracy, and a buyer would rely on the terms.
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 practice systems is published. Checked the product page, the registration page, the terms and the publisher's articles of 1 February 2024 and 6 February 2025: no Word or Outlook add in, document management connection, practice management integration, API or export format is described for the tools. The extraction and comparison tools take documents the user uploads, and the drafting chat produces text in the browser, so material moves in and out by upload and copy.
The 2024 article mentions an integration with the Justicio legislation service, which is a content source for the publisher's system rather than a connection to a firm's own systems, and it is not described further. Nothing on the product page tells an implementer what a firm would configure, which systems it could connect, or whether anything is written back to them. A lawyer working in a case management system or a document management system would carry files to the tool and results back by hand.
For a toolset offered to law firms, bar associations and public administrations, the absence of any described connection is the whole of the finding.
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 is published on where the tools run or where user data sits. Checked the product page, the registration page, the terms and conditions, the data protection policy, the privacy policy link, the aviso legal and the publisher's articles: no hosting provider, cloud region, country of processing, model provider location, tenancy model or deployment option is stated for Global IA Jurídica. The tools are reached in the browser on the publisher's domain under the global.economistjurist.es host, which shows delivery as a hosted web service and nothing about where it is hosted.
The data protection policy does not address international transfers, and the product page's description of a language model specialized in Spanish law does not say whose infrastructure it runs on. A firm subject to Spanish professional secrecy rules and to the GDPR cannot learn from any published page whether client documents uploaded for extraction or comparison are processed inside the European Union, or by whom. The publisher's address in Madrid is the only location the estate gives, and it is a postal address rather than a hosting statement.
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 independent security attestation is published. No ISO 27001 certificate, SOC 2 report, Spanish National Security Scheme certification, penetration test, trust center or security page is named for Global IA Jurídica or for Difusión Jurídica y Temas de Actualidad. The data protection policy names an external data protection officer, Picón y Asociados Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías, which is a privacy role rather than a security attestation, and describes data subject rights rather than technical or organizational measures.
No statement on encryption, access control or incident handling appears on any page read. A firm or public administration considering the tool for client material has no published evidence that anyone outside the publisher has assessed its security, and no route for requesting such evidence is described.
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 publisher refers to a specialized legal model without saying what sits underneath. The product page describes a language model specialized in law and trained specifically on Spanish law, and says documents are located through vector embeddings over the publisher's collection. The article of 1 February 2024 describes an intelligent legal database and mentions a legaltech patron and an integration with the Justicio legislation service.
No model name, model provider, version, hosting route or embedding provider is given on the pages checked, and no commitment to tell users when a model changes is published. Whether the model is the publisher's own, a fine tuned version of a commercial model or a commercial model with retrieval is not stated, and the privacy documents name no processor that would answer it. A law firm or public administration bound by outside counsel guidelines or procurement rules on model providers cannot learn which provider would receive its queries, or on what terms.
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.
No price, plan or unit of charge is published. The product page invites lawyers to try the tool and offers access to a free version of the AI, and the publisher's article of 6 February 2025 invites readers to try all of the Global IA modules. Checked the product page, the registration page, the terms and conditions and the publisher's articles: no plan names, prices, seat or query units, limits of the free version, subscription term or enterprise offer is published, and the terms linked from the product page cover the publisher's website rather than a subscription to the tools.
Whether the free version is a permanent tier, a trial or the whole offer is not stated, and nothing says what a paid version would add or cost. A buyer cannot learn from any published page what Global IA Jurídica costs or how it is charged, and a firm or public administration that wants a budget figure has to ask.
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.
Coverage is claimed for every lawyer and every field, without limits or evidence of breadth. The product page calls Global IA a global AI for all lawyers in any of their fields, and lists lawyers, law firms, self employed practitioners, legal aid lawyers, bar associations and public administrations as its users. The sources are described as Spanish and European legislation, case law, decisions and legal articles in a collection of millions of documents.
The publisher's article of 6 February 2025 describes case law search for lawyers preparing briefs. No practice area page, segment page or statement of what the tools do poorly is published on the pages checked. Nothing says whether regional law of the autonomous communities, lower court decisions or other jurisdictions are covered. The page gives the scope of the ambition, a list of intended users with no description of how each is served, rather than the scope of the product.
1 public document
The public pages on file for Global IA Jurídica, 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.
-
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Oct 2, 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?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The terms and conditions and the data protection policy linked from the product page are the publisher's general website documents and do not address training either way. Section 7.4 of the terms grants the publisher non exclusive rights in content users contribute to the website's participation features, without naming training or the AI tools; no separate terms for the tools were located.
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.
Checked the product page, the terms, the data protection policy and the aviso legal on 2 October 2026; the policy sets retention for inquiries, CVs, images and newsletters, and no located material states how long questions, uploaded documents or generated answers are kept.
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 product page, the registration page, the terms and the data protection policy on 2 October 2026; nothing addresses separation between users, firms or matters in the tools.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
The data protection policy names competent public administrations, in the cases the law provides, among the recipients of personal data, with no language on notice to the person concerned. The policy covers the publisher's websites generally and does not mention the AI tools, and no transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
The product page describes a collection of millions of documents from Spanish law, and the publisher's article of 1 February 2024 lists national and European legislation, case law, decisions and legal articles. No database, court collection, license basis or update cadence is named.
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 product page, the registration page and the publisher's two articles on 2 October 2026; nothing addresses whether cited judgments or provisions are checked for later reversal or amendment, and no instruction to verify citations was located.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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 product page and the publisher's two articles on 2 October 2026; nothing describes what the tools do when no source supports an answer, and the product page says instead that the information returned is one hundred percent reliable.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 2 October 2026 for JuristIA and Global IA; no recorded case names the product, and the two results for Global IA concern parties whose names contain the word. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
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 product page, the terms and the publisher's two articles on 2 October 2026; no located material engages with the Spanish legal profession's guidance on AI, the Estatuto General de la Abogacía, the Código Deontológico or professional secrecy.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The product page says legal AI for lawyers saves a great deal of time, without a figure. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed to clients.
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 product page, the terms, the data protection policy and the aviso legal on 2 October 2026; no subprocessor or model provider list and no client facing disclosure material for the tools was located.
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 product page and the publisher's two articles on 2 October 2026; nothing describes a record of the model, sources and human verification behind output for a court filing, or guidance on disclosing AI use to a court.