I
Imagility
Imagility is an immigration platform from Imagility LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, for immigration law firms, corporate HR and mobility teams, and individual applicants. For attorneys it combines intake, OCR and language-processing extraction of data from resumes and immigration documents, an interactive Immigration Wizard, petition building with automated drafting, a petition analysis report that checks fees, job descriptions against specialty-occupation requirements and missing documents, RFE response building, case and practice management, LawPay payments and electronic filing.
It covers employment-based, family, humanitarian and naturalization cases, and a separate compliance suite handles I-9, LCA and public-access file obligations for employers. Pricing is not published.
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.
AI features sit inside an immigration case and practice management platform that would work without them. The attorney page describes AI-driven intake, OCR and language-processing extraction of data from resumes and immigration documents, automated petition drafting, predictive case analysis and an interactive Immigration Wizard. Petition analysis is described as rule checks on fees, job descriptions and required documents, and case management, e-filing, compliance tracking and payments are workflow. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. The site drafts petitions and says petition analysis increases success rates hugely, but publishes nothing on the accuracy of drafted content or extracted data, how drafts are grounded, or how errors are caught. Verified 22 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.
Review is implied, not built out. Petition analysis produces a report of gaps and recommendations that can be re-run until the petition is complete, and attorneys build and file petitions themselves. Nothing states what the AI features do on their own, how drafted content is reviewed, or any limit on the applicant-facing assistant. Verified 22 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.
Unattributed results. The case studies, dated 2023, describe unnamed customers such as a medium-sized Dallas immigration firm, a Cambridge law firm and a global technology company, and the home page cites 60% faster petition preparation, more than 50,000 workflows and a 4.9 rating on G2 without a basis. No named customer with results was located. Verified 22 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.
Asserted in general terms only. The site says client data is protected with enterprise-grade encryption, SOC 2 standards, strict access controls and multi-factor authentication. The published end-user licence agreement contains no confidentiality clause, and nothing addresses whether customer data trains any model, which AI providers process it, privilege, or how long case files are kept. Verified 22 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. 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.
Checked the home, attorney, Individual and About pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The platform drafts immigration petitions and serves individual applicants as well as attorneys, but nothing states whether it gives legal advice, who may use which features, or how attorney review and supervision are supported. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, About, attorney and petition analysis pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how predictive analysis performs across visa types or applicants was located. Verified 22 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.
Security claims and a generic privacy policy. The site mentions encryption, multi-factor authentication and access controls; the Privacy Policy says reasonable measures protect personal information and that it is kept as long as relevant, with backups kept longer. Nothing states how long uploaded case documents are kept or how they are deleted, and no subprocessor list or incident notification commitment was located. Verified 22 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.
Addressed only through a standard limitation clause. The end-user licence agreement disclaims all warranties, including that the platform will achieve any intended results, excludes consequential and other damages, and requires the user to indemnify Imagility for claims arising from use of the platform and submitted content. Nothing stands behind a petition drafted or analysed with the platform. Verified 22 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.
Named connections into the immigration workflow, short of documented depth. The attorney page lists a LawPay payments integration, direct electronic filing, OCR bulk upload of documents and a mobile app for law firms. What each connection moves and how it is configured is not described. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, About, attorney and contact pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published. Verified 22 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.
A named attestation without a report route, stated inconsistently. The home and About pages display SOC 2 Type II and GDPR, while the attorney FAQ says the platform meets SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards. No auditor, scope, date, trust centre or way to obtain a report is published. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, About and attorney pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The site describes AI-enabled features but names no model, model provider, inference location or change notification. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, attorney, sign-up and Fulfillment Policy pages on 22 September 2026. No price, unit or tier is published; every route to a price is a demo request. Verified 22 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.
Visa categories and buyers are named, short of limits. The site covers employment-based work such as H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN and PERM, family-based, humanitarian and asylum petitions, removal defense and naturalization, for immigration law firms, corporate HR and mobility teams and individual applicants, plus I-9 and LCA compliance for employers. What it does not handle is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Imagility, 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.
-
imagility.co/privacy-policy3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
imagility.co1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 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 end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy are published and neither says whether customer content is used to train any model. The Privacy Policy reserves use of personal information for internal business purposes, including to improve the products; that improvement right never names training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
The Privacy Policy keeps personal information as long as it may be relevant to its stated purposes, or longer where the law requires, and says deleted information may persist on backups. No retention period for case documents, prompts or generated drafts is stated.
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, attorney, About and Company pages on 22 September 2026. The site mentions strict access controls in general terms; nothing describes separating matters or users within a firm or an employer account.
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 Privacy Policy says Imagility uses and discloses personal information as necessary to comply with legal process and to respond to requests from public and government authorities, including outside the user's country. Nothing addresses notifying the customer.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. The site says the platform evolves with USCIS policy updates, but no source of the rules, regulations or policy guidance behind drafting and analysis is identified.
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 attorney, petition analysis and petition builder pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses checking any authority cited in drafted petitions or RFE responses for currency.
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 attorney, petition analysis and Individual pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what the drafting, predictive analysis or applicant-facing assistant does when it cannot support an answer.
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 22 September 2026 for Imagility, and no recorded case was returned. 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 home, attorney and About pages, the end-user licence agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No material engages with lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.
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 site claims 60% faster petition preparation for law firms and includes LawPay billing. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is charged.
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, About and attorney pages and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material 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 attorney, petition builder and petition analysis pages on 22 September 2026. Petitions go to USCIS; nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in filings.