I
Inhouse
Inhouse is an AI legal assistant for small business owners, founders and individuals in the United States, sold by Inhouse AI, Inc. of Santa Monica. Users ask legal questions in plain language, draft and review contracts, letters and corporate documents, and keep their chats and files in a personal dashboard. The AI runs on foundation models hosted inside Inhouse's own Amazon Web Services account through Amazon Bedrock and is tuned to United States business law.
A free tier answers questions. The $49 a month Inhouse AI plan adds unlimited document drafting. The $149 a month Inhouse Counsel plan adds lawyer time from Inhouse Counsel P.C., an affiliated law firm, with discounted rates from a network of outside attorneys for specialist work. On the Counsel plan the AI acts for the firm and conversations are privileged. On the AI plan they are confidential but not privileged, and attorneys may review them and offer their services.
Inhouse also publishes a GPT in the ChatGPT store and playbooks for formation, hiring, fundraising, contracts and disputes, and reports more than 160,000 businesses served.
Inhouse, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to Inhouse
Vendors in the same categories as Inhouse whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- NNexLawNexLaw is an AI legal assistant for US litigators from NexLaw Inc., founded in June 2024 by Francis Lui with Bernie Law as chief operating officer.
- DDragon LegalDragon Legal is speech recognition software for lawyers and legal staff from Nuance Communications, a Microsoft company.
- HHAQQHAQQ is a legal AI platform from HAQQ Inc., built in Beirut and sold to law firms, in house legal teams and individuals, with its deepest coverage in the Middle East and Europe.
- PPaxton AISelf serve legal AI assistant aimed at solo attorneys, small and midsize firms and in house teams, covering research, drafting, document analysis, medical chronologies and medical billing summaries.
- LLawpathLawpath is an Australian platform that handles legal, tax and compliance administration for small businesses in one place, without engaging a separate adviser for each task.
- OOrbitalOrbital is an AI platform for commercial real estate legal work, sold to the real estate practices of law firms, to real estate businesses such as investors, developers and REITs, and to…
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
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 assistant is what a subscriber buys on the Free and Inhouse AI plans. It answers legal questions, drafts nearly any business document from a short request, and reviews documents a user uploads. It will also suggest a better document where one fits, such as an offer letter in place of an employment contract for a new hire. Inhouse calls it an AI associate that learns the user's business and remembers past chats and files.
Lawyer time is sold on top, on the Counsel plan or as flat fee work, and the AI draft is the starting point the lawyer reviews. Inhouse describes the models as top performing foundation models refined with feedback from the lawyers who review output.
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.
The AI is billed as the most accurate legal AI available, and the Inhouse AI plan is marketed as guaranteed accurate or your money back. No measurement, test set or comparison method sits behind either claim. A quote from the general counsel of Marathon Digital Holdings says Inhouse was the most reliable of several systems compared for contract drafting, with no detail of the comparison.
Research answers draw on a knowledge base curated by legal experts that is not described further, and nothing says whether answers link the statutes or cases behind them. The terms and FAQ say the AI can hallucinate, that its output may be inaccurate or out of date, and that a lawyer should review all of it. The money back promise works through a refund request within 24 hours of the service.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The design puts a lawyer after the AI. A user drafts with the AI, then sends the document to a lawyer for review from inside the chat, with attorney review promised in under 24 hours. On the Counsel plan a dedicated lawyer from Inhouse Counsel P.C. oversees the user's AI work. The scope of any attorney task is agreed in writing, and a conflict check runs before work starts. On the Free and Inhouse AI plans no attorney reviews the work.
Inhouse describes the AI plan as a self help tool, and its FAQ says all AI output should be reviewed by lawyers. Beyond the terms' advice to consult a licensed attorney when a problem is too complex for the tools, nothing describes what the AI does when a question exceeds 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.
The home page counts more than 160,000 businesses served, 7 million legal chats and 10,000 ratings averaging 4.5. It also claims $360M in attorney fees saved in 2026, seven minutes to build a complete document and attorney review in under 24 hours, with no method behind the savings figure.
Named users quoted include Ivan Perez, CFO of Concierge MedSpa, Zabi Nowaid, general counsel of Marathon Digital Holdings, and founders of a health platform, a design agency and a consulting firm. One founder, Jacob McDaniel, says an engagement agreement he valued at about $2,500 took around 12 minutes. Another page cites more than 4,000 clients and a network of more than 2,000 lawyers. No case study with dates and measured results is offered.
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.
Confidentiality depends on the plan. On the Inhouse Counsel plan the user is a client of Inhouse Counsel P.C., and the AI works as the firm's agent. Inhouse says those conversations with the lawyers and the AI are privileged, kept away from marketing and other attorneys, and not used to train AI models. On the Free and Inhouse AI plans the user is not a client, and conversations are confidential under the privacy policy but not privileged.
The terms tell those users to use the discretion they would with ChatGPT or Google, and let attorneys and legal partners review their conversations and contact them to offer services. Moving to the Counsel plan does not make earlier chats privileged. Models run inside Inhouse's own AWS account through Amazon Bedrock, conversations are not sent to outside AI labs, and staff and contractors sign confidentiality agreements. Retention is stated only as long as needed.
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 terms open with a heading that says Inhouse is not a law firm. Inhouse AI, Inc. provides the technology, legal services come from Inhouse Counsel P.C. and affiliated attorneys, and an attorney client relationship forms only with a firm the user retains. The AI plan is described as a self help tool, and the terms say its legal information is not legal advice and that complex problems need a licensed attorney.
Marketing uses advice language. The free tier offers legal advice on any issue from a lawyer trained AI, and the home page promises private legal advice and documents. Questions on foreign law go to United States lawyers only, and a footer on every page repeats which plan's conversations are privileged.
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 AI governance policy, testing method, accountable owner or disclosure of uneven output is published. Inhouse describes a feedback loop in which reviewing lawyers make the AI more accurate over time, and markets the result as the most accurate legal AI available. How accuracy is measured, and how changes are tested before release, is not described.
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.
One privacy policy covers Inhouse's AI product, its registered agent service and the legal services of its affiliated firm. The AI runs on models hosted in Inhouse's own AWS account through Amazon Bedrock, conversations are not sent to outside AI labs, and chats are encrypted. Personal information is kept for as long as Inhouse needs it for its purposes, legal obligations and business, and Counsel client files follow the firm's retention duties and the engagement letter.
Deletion and correction requests are granted at Inhouse's discretion unless the law requires otherwise. No subprocessor list, retention period for chats and documents, or breach notice practice is published. Chats and documents are saved to the user's dashboard.
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 terms are governed by California law, with individual arbitration and a 30 day window to opt out. Any liability Inhouse has is limited to the amount paid for the products or services, and users hold Inhouse harmless for indirect, punitive and consequential damage. Inhouse disclaims responsibility for inaccuracy, errors or other defects in AI output, and makes no guarantee about the results of attorneys in its network, who work as independent contractors.
The Inhouse AI plan is marketed as guaranteed accurate or your money back. In the terms the remedy is a refund request within 24 hours of the service, plus a prompt refund if an attorney cannot finish work in the advertised time. Network attorneys carry errors and omissions insurance.
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.
The product is a standalone web app with a personal dashboard for chats and documents, plus a GPT in the ChatGPT store. A comparison with law firms describes the AI as connected to your systems, but no connection to email, document storage, electronic signature, accounting or business software is named.
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 is hosted. Models run inside Inhouse's own Amazon Web Services account through Amazon Bedrock, and chats and documents stay on Inhouse servers rather than going to outside AI labs. The AWS region, the tenancy model and where data is processed are not stated, and no private deployment option appears on the plans.
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.
Security fit for enterprises, encrypted chats and confidentiality agreements for staff and contractors are promised. No security certification, independent audit, trust center or security page is offered.
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 platform is named but not the models. The AI runs on foundation models hosted in Inhouse's own AWS account through Amazon Bedrock, so prompts stay inside its cloud account rather than going to outside AI labs. Those foundation models are not trained on conversations. Which Bedrock models are in use, and whether users are told when they change, is not stated. The system is refined with feedback from the lawyers who review output.
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.
Prices are on the home page and in the FAQ, monthly and with no fees. Free answers legal questions and stores documents. Inhouse AI is $49 a month for unlimited drafting, editing and review of documents, with more messages and uploads. Inhouse Counsel is $149 a month and adds lawyer time to finalize AI work, along with privileged AI conversations and discounted member rates. That lawyer time is a monthly consultation in the plan table and an hour of lawyer time in the FAQ.
Specialist attorneys from the network bill at 50% off their standard rate, and flat fee work is scoped in writing before it starts. Plans can be cancelled at any time, and fees can rise on 30 days' notice before a renewal.
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.
The product is built for business owners, operators and founders, with personal pages for individuals on debt, consumer disputes, employment, earn outs and housing. Business coverage spans formation, contracts and negotiation, employment and HR, fundraising, intellectual property, compliance, growth and disputes, with playbooks and document pages for each. The AI is tuned to United States business law.
Lawyers at Inhouse Counsel are licensed in California, Michigan and New York and serve clients in all 50 states on core needs such as formation, contracts and strategy. They specialize in contracts, corporate governance, employment, compliance and commercial matters, and specialists from the network take other work. Litigation and matters outside the United States are not set out as covered.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Inhouse, 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.
-
inhouse.ai/privacy-policy3 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
inhouse.ai/faqs2 signals
Client Data in Training, Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
inhouse.ai1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 12, 2026
$49/month
- You can ask the AI legal questions for free.
- For $49 a month the AI writes and checks as many legal documents as you need.
- For $149 a month you also get time with a real lawyer.
- Bigger legal jobs cost a flat fee that you agree on first.
- You can cancel any time.
Monthly subscriptions in three tiers. Free answers legal questions and stores documents. Inhouse AI is $49 a month for unlimited drafting, editing and review of documents with more messages and uploads. Inhouse Counsel is $149 a month and adds lawyer time from Inhouse Counsel P.C. to finalize AI work, privileged AI conversations and discounted member rates for specialty work. Attorney work beyond the plan is flat fee, with the scope agreed in writing before it starts, and specialists from the network bill at 50% off their standard rate.
Implementation: None stated; the plans are self serve.
Note: Plans can be cancelled at any time. Fees can rise on 30 days' notice before a renewal term, and the new fee applies unless the user cancels. A refund can be requested within 24 hours of a service, and attorney work not finished in the advertised time is refunded. The AI plan is marketed as guaranteed accurate or your money back.
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?
Public material states that customer content trains, refines or personalizes models, with no matching term located in the published agreement. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The foundation models in use are refined with feedback from the lawyers who review output, a loop the FAQ credits with making the AI more accurate over time. The privacy policy uses personal information for product development, including machine learning and AI, except Inhouse Counsel client information, which is not used to train AI models. Conversations are not used to train the underlying foundation models. The terms of service say nothing about 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 for as long as Inhouse needs it to provide services, meet its retention obligations and run its business, with no period stated. Chats and documents are saved to the user's dashboard once an account exists. Inhouse Counsel client files follow the firm's retention duties and the engagement letter.
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.
Each user works in a personal dashboard. Inhouse publishes nothing on separating matters or users inside a customer account. The only access rule described is for Inhouse Counsel clients, where access inside the firm is limited to people who need it to provide the legal service.
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 lets Inhouse disclose personal information as the law requires, including in answer to a subpoena or a lawful request from a public authority. It may also disclose when it believes that protects its rights or someone's safety. It makes no commitment to tell the user first. Inhouse says Counsel plan chats are privileged and cannot be compelled, while AI plan chats carry no privilege and may be produced in a lawsuit.
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 AI is tuned to United States business law, where Inhouse's lawyers are licensed, and can apply foreign law with support from United States lawyers only. Research draws on a knowledge base curated by legal experts, with no sources 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.
Nothing describes checking whether a case or statute in an answer is still good law. The FAQ and terms say AI output may be out of date and should be reviewed by a lawyer.
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.
Nothing describes what the AI does when it cannot answer or lacks support for an answer. The terms send problems that are too complex for the tools to a licensed attorney.
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.
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 Inhouse or Inhouse.ai. Inhouse drafts business documents and answers legal questions for business owners, with lawyer review offered on its drafts.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The privacy policy says Counsel plan communications are confidential under the rules of professional conduct, and the terms and FAQ describe attorney client relationships, conflict checks and independent contractor attorneys. No named ethics opinion or bar rule on AI use is engaged.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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.
Inhouse sells to business owners and individuals who buy legal help for themselves and bill no client for it. Its savings claims are aimed at the buyer's own legal spend. Inhouse cites $360M in attorney fees saved in 2026, a dedicated lawyer for less than one billable hour at a firm, and 50% off network attorney rates. Lawyer work beyond the plan is flat fee and scoped in writing first.
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.
No subprocessor list, model provider list or disclosure material for a client's outside counsel review is published. The privacy policy describes service providers in general terms and names Google Analytics for marketing cookies.
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.
No court disclosure guidance or record of how a document was produced is offered. Chats and documents are saved in the user's dashboard.