Intapp sells cloud software to law firms, corporate legal departments, accounting and consulting firms, investment banks and private capital managers. It is listed on NASDAQ as INTA and contracts as Integration Appliance, Inc. Its legal products cover the client lifecycle: new business intake, conflicts, AML and know your client checks, lateral hire onboarding, ethical walls (Intapp Walls), outside counsel guideline compliance (Intapp Terms), timekeeping (Intapp Time), prebilling and billing (Intapp Billstream), Microsoft 365 matter workspaces, and relationship intelligence (DealCloud).
Generative AI reaches buyers two ways. Intapp Assist is built into Time, Terms and DealCloud and answers questions from firm data; its Ask Intapp feature runs in Microsoft Teams and answers questions about client obligations with links to the source records. Intapp Celeste is the firm wide AI layer, and customers can choose between Anthropic models on Amazon Bedrock and Azure OpenAI models. The company publishes a dated AI transparency statement, a detailed subprocessor list with change notices, a data processing addendum, and ISO, SOC and CSA STAR certifications audited by Schellman. Hosting is on Microsoft Azure across seven named regions.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Intapp 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.
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.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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.
Models do real work on top of a platform that ran for two decades without them, and the vendor's own architecture pages say so. Intapp Assist is built into Intapp Time, Intapp Terms and DealCloud, answering conversational questions by analyzing firm data, generating insights and automating data entry and relationship tracking. Its Ask Intapp feature runs inside Microsoft Teams and answers questions about client contractual obligations with links to source records.
Intapp Celeste is a firm wide AI layer with its own use case library and architecture documentation, and customers can choose between Anthropic models on Amazon Bedrock and Azure OpenAI models. The larger half is not models. Intake, conflicts, AML, ethical walls, timekeeping, prebilling, billing, matter workspaces and relationship management are systems of record a firm would still buy without the generative features, and the vendor describes its AI as built on an Intapp Data Foundation that serves them. The transparency statement describes products that apply rule based logic, statistical models and machine learning.
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.
Grounding is real and documented, limitations are published with real candor, and nothing is measured. Ask Intapp is described as answering only from the firm's own Intapp Terms data and returning answers with direct links to the source information, so the answer is bounded to a known source and traceable to it. The AI transparency statement publishes five limitations. Outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or context dependent; performance depends on the quality and context of input data; no specific accuracy level is guaranteed unless stated; outputs are no substitute for professional judgment or expertise; and outputs are not guaranteed to be error free, uninterrupted, consistent, up to date, accurate, complete or free from bias.
A separate AI Disclaimer sits in the product terms. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set, benchmark or evaluation is published for Assist, Celeste or any other AI feature, and no check beyond the source link is described. A reader can see what the vendor declines to promise, but not how often the products are right.
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 autonomy boundary is stated, and the oversight position is stated bluntly. The products are not meant for fully autonomous decision making; users remain responsible for final decisions and for checking outputs; the user or customer is ultimately responsible for the action taken; and automated decision making is a prohibited use, alongside any use that would reclassify the system under the EU AI Act. Users are told when they are dealing with an AI system and that outputs are AI generated, in line with EU AI Act transparency duties.
The blunt part is the vendor's statement that users operate its products without Intapp's involvement beyond standard support. It follows, the vendor says, that Intapp does not apply human oversight to a user's use of the products, and that oversight of outputs is the customer's and user's responsibility. That is a clear allocation, and it tells a buyer exactly where the duty sits. Missing is the product side: no review step, approval gate, confidence signal or escalation path is described, and no autonomy setting can be configured.
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.
Institutional evidence is strong, and no AI outcome is measured. The vendor is a public company listed on NASDAQ as INTA, with an investor relations site and the periodic financial reports listing requires, which is verifiable operating evidence. A named legal customer has a published case study: Fredrikson and Byron chose Intapp Terms to digitize and centralize its clients' outside counsel guidelines. The vendor also claims a partner ecosystem of more than 100 organizations, and runs a client community, a training university and a public system status site, all signs of an installed base.
Dated product milestones are published, including general availability of Intapp Assist for Terms in August 2024. No deployment is quantified, no time or cost saving is measured, and no adoption figure for Assist or Celeste is published. The one percentage located, that adopting Activator behaviors can raise partner revenue by up to 32 percent, is attributed to research, not a customer result, and concerns a behavior program rather than an AI feature. A clients page and a client stories library exist in the navigation and were not opened; they may say more.
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.
Controls are stated at a high level, and privilege is not addressed. What is published about the AI specifically is one paragraph: safeguards suited to a low risk AI system, including encryption in transit and at rest, access controls and role based permissions, data minimization and retention limits, audit logging and monitoring, and secure development and testing. The platform also publishes a Tenant Access Policy, a client data stewardship page and Microsoft 365 matter workspaces; none was opened, and they may say more.
Express privilege and work product treatment appears nowhere on the pages read. A sharper gap is specific to this vendor. Intapp sells Intapp Walls, whose stated purpose is to secure, control and enforce access to sensitive client information and limit access to sensitive matters across applications, in fulfillment of a firm's ethical duty. Nothing published says whether Intapp Assist, which reads firm data to answer questions, honors the walls that product enforces.
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.
Several of the usual concerns do not apply, and what remains is generic. The products do not advise on law: they run intake, conflicts, AML checks, ethical walls, outside counsel guideline compliance, timekeeping, prebilling and relationship management, and the AI features answer questions about a firm's own contractual obligations and internal data. So the unauthorized practice risk is remote, the users are a firm's professional staff rather than the public, and there is no legal research output or client advice surface to fence.
On what does apply, engagement is thin. The AI transparency statement says outputs are no substitute for professional judgment or expertise and that users must check all outputs before relying on them, a general competence statement. The ethical walls solution page describes the product as fulfilling a firm's ethical duty to its clients and profession, which acknowledges the duty while selling against it. No rule of professional conduct, bar guidance, ethics opinion or court practice direction is named.
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.
A dated and versioned AI transparency statement, effective 2 August 2026, covers all of the vendor's AI products, short of attestation and a named owner. It describes how the products work, by processing input data and applying rule based logic, statistical models and machine learning. On the EU AI Act, it gives a self assessed classification as a low risk AI system with matching safeguards, commits that users are told when they are dealing with an AI system and that outputs are marked as AI generated, and bans any use that would reclassify the system.
It lists prohibited uses, including unlawful, discriminatory and harmful purposes and automated decision making, offers a complaints route that includes a user's data protection authority, and commits to communicating material changes. It also says outputs are not guaranteed to be free from bias. Missing: no one is named as accountable for model behavior, no evaluation, benchmark, red team exercise or result is published, and the bias statement is a disclaimer, not a measurement.
The statement also says it is not legally binding and does not form a contract, so the governance is posture rather than obligation.
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.
Published policy covers every element, with attestations independently audited and reachable. Certifications are named: ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018 and ISO 27701, SOC 1 and SOC 2, CSA STAR registration, and a Global Privacy Recognition for Processors certification. The auditor, Schellman, is named, and the certificates are linked directly from the compliance page, with the CSA STAR entry pointing to the Cloud Security Alliance's own registry.
A Shared Assessments SIG 2024 Lite questionnaire is published for download. The subprocessor list names each subprocessor by product, processing activity and location, with routing rules where they differ, a subscription feed for changes and prior versions kept. Unless agreed otherwise with a customer, uploaded customer data is not used to train the AI products. Security measures listed include encryption in transit and at rest, access controls and role based permissions, data minimization and retention limits, audit logging and monitoring, and secure development and testing.
Two gaps remain: no incident or breach notification commitment is published, and retention limits have no stated period.
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.
Nothing that could be read on this date says who bears the loss when an AI output is wrong, for three reasons. First, the customer agreement is not published. The AI transparency statement refers throughout to a Governing Agreement with the customer, but no such document appears on the site. So no indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level, exclusive remedy or insurance position can be read before a commercial conversation.
Second, the legal policy, the one document on the site with warranty and liability language, covers the website, not the products. Third, an AI Disclaimer published in the product terms could not be retrieved, and the published data processing addendum was not opened; both may say more. What can be read points one way. The transparency statement says it is not legally binding and does not form a contract. Within it, the vendor says no specific accuracy level is guaranteed unless stated, outputs are not guaranteed to be error free, accurate, complete or free from bias, and the customer and user are ultimately responsible for decisions taken.
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.
Integration is central to the product, and the named connections run deep into the practice stack. Microsoft is the backbone. Ask Intapp is delivered as a Microsoft Teams app, so AI answers arrive where the firm already works. Intapp Workspaces delivers matter workspaces and content management inside Microsoft 365. A Microsoft Copilot offering applies the firm's business structure and security rules to firm, client and engagement data in Microsoft 365 and beyond, and Microsoft Azure is the hosting layer.
A separate integration product, the Intapp Integration Service, runs on Boomi as its cloud integration platform, with customer data processed in the customer's chosen region. Third party data providers are named as subprocessors: Dun and Bradstreet, S&P Global Market Intelligence, Grata and ESRI for content and mapping, and Plaid and Gresham for financial data feeds. A partner ecosystem of more than 100 organizations is published, with directories for data, technology and integration, channel and services partners.
The depth of any single connector is not established, because no API or developer documentation is published and the integrations page was not opened.
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.
Residency is published in detail, and tenancy is not stated. Hosting regions are named for each product across the United States, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Australia and Canada, depending on the customer's hosting location. Routing exceptions are published: traffic from the United Arab Emirates for one email service goes via the European Union, and from Singapore via Australia. AI processing is located separately: AI features run in the United States or the European Union depending on the customer's hosting location, and customers outside both are processed in the European Union.
Where a subprocessor's data location is fixed regardless of region, the list says so. DealCloud has four regional instances with separate login endpoints for the United States, Europe, the United Arab Emirates and Asia Pacific, and the integration layer processes data in the customer's chosen region. Tenancy is not described: nothing says whether customers are single tenant or multitenant, whether isolation is logical or physical, or what changes between tiers. A published Tenant Access Policy was not opened and may say more.
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.
Certifications are named, the auditor is named, and the certificates are reachable without a request. The set is ISO 27001, ISO 27017, ISO 27018 and ISO 27701; SOC 1 and SOC 2; CSA STAR registration; and a Global Privacy Recognition for Processors certification. The auditor is Schellman. The ISO and privacy processor certificates link to Schellman's own certificate service. The CSA STAR entry links to the Cloud Security Alliance registry entry for Integration Appliance, Inc., so a reader can check the claims at the source.
No nondisclosure agreement, email address or sales conversation stands in the way. A Shared Assessments SIG 2024 Lite questionnaire and a DORA customer guide are published, and a public cloud status site runs alongside individually published cloud policies. The vendor states its GovRAMP position honestly as membership while it pursues verified status. The only gap is that the compliance page itself gives no audit period or scope, so a reader must open the linked certificates to see what was covered and when. No SOC report can be downloaded from the page.
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.
Models are named, providers identified, change notice works, and the customer chooses between models. The subprocessor list is organized by product. For Intapp Celeste it names Amazon AWS Bedrock as a generative AI provider hosting Anthropic models across six named regions, and states that the customer can choose Anthropic or Azure OpenAI models. It names Microsoft Azure AI Services for text generation and extraction, and Exa Labs for web grounding.
For Intapp Assist it names Microsoft Azure AI Services for text generation and summarization, and Anthropic PBC is named separately as a generative AI provider for other products. A reader can see which model families process their content, which provider serves them, in which region, for which product, and that the choice of family is theirs. Change notice is a working mechanism: the page carries an effective date, a subscription form for updates and kept prior versions, with updates posted under the terms of the agreement. Not published: the specific model version in each family, and what happens to work in progress when a model is retired.
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 pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, and the site navigation shows no pricing page exists. The header lists fourteen products, seven industries, and a section on the company, data foundation, cloud infrastructure, partners, client resources, services and trust; the footer repeats these with cloud, partner, learning, client and company sections. No pricing link appears anywhere, including on the trust, compliance and product pages read.
Every page ends at scheduling a demo or contacting the company. No tier, edition or unit (seat, user, matter, timekeeper or module) is named, no band, range, minimum or term appears, and nothing says whether the fourteen products are priced separately or together. As a NASDAQ listed company, Intapp publishes revenue in its financial reports, but that tells an individual buyer nothing about price.
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.
Buyer and workflow coverage is detailed, and no boundary is stated. Seven industries have their own solution sets: legal, accounting, consulting, corporate, investment banking and advisory, private capital, and real assets. Legal alone has twelve published solutions, covering client intelligence, the Activator program, Microsoft Copilot enablement, Microsoft 365 collaboration, compliant timekeeping, compliant prebilling, compliant time and billing, new business intake, conflicts management, outside counsel guideline compliance, AML and know your client, ethical walls, lateral hire onboarding and partner attestation management.
In house legal departments get matter management and relationship management, so both sides of the legal market have named products. Private capital is split into ten named markets. Geographic reach is shown by offices in the United States, United Kingdom and Asia Pacific and seven named hosting regions. No firm size, practice area, matter type or jurisdiction is named as in or out of scope, and no minimum deployment is stated.
Nothing says which of the fourteen products carry AI features, which matters when the AI reaches only part of the estate.
The public pages on file for Intapp, 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.
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Good Law Verification and 3 more
Read Sep 7, 2026
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 7, 2026
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 27, 2026
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 7, 2026
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 7, 2026
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 7, 2026
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 7, 2026
Intapp launched a Celeste plugin for ChatGPT as part of OpenAI's Astra for Law launch. Lawyers can search, create and update records across the Intapp Celeste portfolio from ChatGPT, including surfacing activities that may need a time entry. Intapp says every result respects the firm's existing ethical walls and need to know access rules.
Intapp released a DealCloud with Celeste plug in for ChatGPT for Financial Services, available to eligible Intapp clients from 10 September. The plug in lets a professional query the firm's own client, deal, investor and relationship records from inside ChatGPT, with Intapp's information barriers, material non public information rules and independence obligations enforced on every answer, so a user sees only what they could already see in DealCloud. This first release is scoped to financial services firms on ChatGPT for Financial Services; Intapp has not said when, or whether, the same plug in reaches DealCloud for Legal.
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.
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
A clear public commitment that the vendor expressly declines to make binding. The AI transparency statement of 2 August 2026 says that, unless agreed otherwise with a customer, customer data uploaded into the AI products is not used to train them. Two features are worth noting. First, the document says it is not legally binding and does not form a contract, so the statement is posture, not obligation. The Governing Agreement it refers to is not published, so no contract term either way could be located, and the published data processing addendum was not opened.
Second, the same paragraph says the vendor does use data about the administration, configuration, support, use or performance of its products, including the AI products, to operate and improve them. So usage data feeds improvement while uploaded customer content is excluded from training, and a buyer should read the two together. The words unless agreed otherwise also leave the position open to negotiation per customer. AI transparency statement read in full and site legal inventory checked 7 September 2026.
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.
Retention is addressed, with no period attached. The AI transparency statement lists data minimization and retention limits among the safeguards for the AI products, alongside encryption, access controls, audit logging and secure development. That acknowledges limits exist. But nothing a buyer could hold is supplied: no retention period for prompts, uploaded content or generated outputs; no distinction between the AI products and the underlying platform; nothing on the end of a subscription; and no customer control, setting or deletion mechanism.
Nothing says whether a firm can shorten the window, reach zero, or export before deletion. The data processing addendum and privacy policy would bear on this directly; neither was opened, and they may say more. This matters because the material at issue is a firm's timekeeping, intake, conflicts and client obligation records, not a chat history. AI transparency statement read in full and site legal inventory checked 7 September 2026.
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Retrieval enforces the source system access model at query time, per user, and the vendor documents it.
For Celeste, the firm wide AI layer, Intapp documents how walls are enforced. Its Celeste security and governance page says reads run within each user's own permissions, that permissions are enforced at the connector level and carried through every step, and that ethical walls, insider lists and information barriers are enforced through Intapp Walls for AI and checked each time a playbook runs. That includes playbooks offered to other AI tools through MCP, checked before data reaches an outside interface.
Firm document collections used as knowledge sources keep their existing access controls. The Celeste plugin for ChatGPT Enterprise, released 17 September 2026, takes the same position: a lawyer reaches only what the firm has allowed them to reach. Two limits matter. Wall enforcement requires Intapp Walls for AI, so a firm should confirm it holds that product. And nothing published says whether Intapp Assist, the assistant built into Time, Terms and DealCloud, applies the same walls.
The DealCloud plugin for ChatGPT, released 10 September 2026, is limited to financial services firms and says nothing about the legal product. Verified 27 September 2026.
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
A compelled demand for customer data has no stated response from the vendor. The AI transparency statement, trust page, cloud compliance page and subprocessor list were each read in full. None has a compelled disclosure position, notice commitment, reservation of discretion over notice, or promise to seek protective relief. No transparency report, law enforcement guidelines page or government request policy appears anywhere on the site.
The two documents that would usually carry this position, the privacy policy and the data processing addendum, are both published, but neither was opened, so they may say more. The customer agreement, which the transparency statement calls the Governing Agreement, is not published at all. Trust page, compliance page, AI transparency statement, subprocessor list and full site navigation checked 7 September 2026.
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
The corpus is identified precisely, and most of the usual questions do not apply. The AI answers come from the firm's own records: Ask Intapp answers only from the firm's Intapp Terms data, and Intapp Assist is described as analyzing firm data. No body of law assembled by the vendor sits behind the outputs, and no case law or legislation is licensed in. Coverage depends on what the firm loaded, and there is no legal publishing to clear.
Where third party content does enter the platform, it is named: the subprocessor list identifies Dun and Bradstreet, S&P Global Market Intelligence and Grata as content providers and ESRI and Mapbox for mapping, each with its processing location. Not stated for any of them is the license or rights basis on which their content reaches a firm, and nothing addresses the rights position over the firm's own data beyond the statement on training. Terms AI page, subprocessor list and AI transparency statement read 7 September 2026.
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.
Later history is a question this product never faces. Nothing the platform produces cites legal authority. The AI features answer questions about a firm's own client obligations, time records, conflicts data and relationship information, and outputs cite the firm's own records, not decisions, statutes or secondary sources. So there is no authority to check and nothing a citator could cover. The nearest equivalent is whether an outside counsel guideline held in Intapp Terms is the version now in force.
Nothing published addresses that, though the product's stated purpose as a single source of truth for client obligations implies the firm manages it. A compliance and billing platform has no citator, and that is neither a strength nor a weakness. Terms AI page, Assist page, AI transparency statement and product navigation checked 7 September 2026.
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.
When a supported answer is out of reach, the system's behavior goes undescribed, though a document beside it lists the problem. The AI transparency statement says outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or context dependent, that performance depends on the quality and context of input data, and that no specific accuracy level is guaranteed unless stated. It adds that outputs are not guaranteed to be error free, consistent, up to date, complete or free from bias.
Each describes the risk; none says what the product does about it. Nothing says Assist or Celeste declines a question it cannot ground in the firm's data, reports that no responsive record was found instead of composing a plausible answer, shows a confidence or coverage signal, or flags incomplete records. The statement's answer to uncertainty is to assign it: users must check all outputs before relying on them and report unexpected or incorrect behavior to support.
Those are instructions to the customer, not a description of system behavior. AI transparency statement, Assist and Terms AI pages checked 7 September 2026.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Intapp or Integration Appliance, Inc. was located as of 7 September 2026. The company and product names were searched against the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and the secondary sanction trackers that summarize it. That database does name legal products as well as general assistants; published analyses of it identify CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI and vLex among tools whose outputs courts found fabricated.
So it can name a vendor of this kind, and it does not name this one. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product. The exposure also differs from a research tool's. The AI features answer questions about a firm's own obligations, time records and conflicts data rather than producing citations for filing, and the vendor's transparency statement warns that outputs may be inaccurate or incomplete.
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.
Professional judgment is mentioned in general terms, and no bar or regulatory guidance on AI is named. The AI transparency statement says outputs are no substitute for professional judgment or expertise, that users must check all outputs before relying on them, and that the customer and user are ultimately responsible for decisions taken. The ethical walls solution page presents its product as fulfilling a firm's ethical duty to its clients and profession.
No rule of professional conduct, bar guidance on generative AI, ethics opinion or court practice direction is cited. The gap stands out because the vendor engages named regimes in detail elsewhere. The same statement addresses EU AI Act transparency duties, states a risk classification under the Act and bans uses that would reclassify the system, and a DORA customer guide covers the EU financial sector regime. Its regulatory engagement points at data and AI regulation, not at the conduct rules that govern the lawyers using the products. AI transparency statement, trust page and legal solution pages read 7 September 2026.
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.
Time savings are claimed inside a product family built to govern the bill, and the two are never connected. The launch announcement for Intapp Assist for Terms says Ask Intapp greatly reduces the time lawyers, billing analysts and other staff spend researching, answering or waiting for answers to questions about client obligations. Around that claim, Intapp Time captures time and checks draft entries against firm and client requirements before submission.
Intapp Billstream runs prebilling and billing to the same requirements, and Intapp Terms holds client obligations, including the outside counsel guidelines where billing rules live. Intapp runs the compliance layer between the timekeeper and the client invoice, and Assist is built into both Time and Terms. Yet nothing published addresses what happens to the bill when AI compresses the work. No guidance on fee or disclosure treatment of AI assisted time was located, no per matter record of AI assisted work is offered, and nothing says whether a compressed research task should be billed differently or disclosed. Launch announcement, Assist, Time, Billstream and Terms pages checked 7 September 2026.
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
A firm can answer a client's AI clause from published material without asking the vendor for anything. The subprocessor list is current, dated 11 August 2026, ungated, and organized by product, processing activity and location, with prior versions kept and a subscription form for change notices. The AI entries name providers and models: Amazon AWS Bedrock hosting Anthropic models for Intapp Celeste, with the customer able to choose Anthropic or Azure OpenAI models; Microsoft Azure AI Services for text generation and summarization in Intapp Assist; Exa Labs for web grounding; and Anthropic PBC named directly for other products.
So a firm can tell its client whose model processes its content, where, for which product, and that the choice is the firm's. Forwardable documents are published: a data processing addendum, a dated AI transparency statement, a Shared Assessments SIG 2024 Lite questionnaire, and a DORA customer guide. Certifications can be checked at the source, with certificates linked to the auditor and a CSA STAR registry entry. The data processing addendum and SIG questionnaire were not opened, so their contents are not established. Subprocessor list, compliance page and trust page read 7 September 2026.
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.
AI assisted work leaves no record a lawyer could produce to a court or client. What exists is a security control: the AI transparency statement lists audit logging and monitoring among its safeguards, which records access and system activity, not what the model did. The statement also says users are told when they are dealing with an AI system and that outputs are AI generated, in line with EU AI Act transparency duties, so AI involvement is disclosed at the point of use.
The customer is told to check outputs and is responsible for decisions. Neither supplies a record. Nothing says the platform records which model produced an output, what it retrieved, or what a person checked before the result was used, and no export, certification or template for a court, regulator or client is offered. The source links in Ask Intapp show what an answer rests on, not what the system did to produce it. AI transparency statement, Assist and Terms AI pages and trust page checked 7 September 2026.
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.