I
Intelligize+ AI
Intelligize+ AI is the AI-enabled version of Intelligize, a LexisNexis platform for SEC disclosure, reporting and transactional research, run from New York. It combines search across more than 17 million SEC filings, SEC comment letters, ESG reports, M&A data, accounting standards from FASB, PCAOB, AICPA and IFRS, and law and accounting firm guidance with Protégé, the LexisNexis AI assistant, which answers questions over several turns, benchmarks disclosures across peer groups, builds comparison tables and produces grounded first drafts, with links to the filings behind each result and a view of the search logic used.
Traditional Boolean and conceptual search remain available. It is sold to public and private companies, law firms and accounting and consulting firms, with an API for bringing the data into internal systems and a customer research team that can help validate findings. The platform operates under the LexisNexis general terms and trust centre and the RELX Responsible AI Principles. Pricing is not published; trials are available on request.
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 is a core layer on a research platform that still works without it. Protégé carries the product's new capabilities: multi-turn questions across SEC filings, peer benchmarking, structured comparison tables and grounded first drafts. The AI page states that traditional Boolean and conceptual search remain available, and the filings database, tagging, filters and redlining that Intelligize was built on function without the models. 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.
Grounding is described and checkable. The AI page states that the product uses a proprietary retrieval-augmented approach to ground responses in authoritative sources, with links to supporting citations, and that users can review the specific SEC filings behind each result and examine the search logic used to build the analysis. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published, and the LexisNexis general terms state that AI systems may not be accurate or error-free. 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 placed on the user in writing and supported by real surfaces. The LexisNexis general terms that govern the product make users responsible for verifying any information the AI provides; the AI page shows the sources and search logic behind each result, describes output as first drafts, and offers a customer research team to help validate findings; and the product states its AI is developed with human oversight.
No threshold, categorical limit on use without review, or account of what happens when an answer is wrong is published. 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.
Named customers without measured results. The case studies page carries five named, dated studies from January and February 2024, covering Uniqus, Lightbridge, Accel Entertainment, Compensation Advisory Partners and Cohen & Company, describing how they use the research platform; all predate the AI and state no figures. Named testimonials run across the site, including one from Resideo recommending Intelligize+ AI itself, and the company claims to serve nearly 60 per cent of the Fortune 500, 87 per cent of the Am Law 100 and all of the Big Four accounting firms, without a basis. No outcome of the AI features is measured anywhere. 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.
Contractual commitments on the points that matter most. The LexisNexis general terms, effective 5 June 2026, warrant that prompts and files submitted to the AI services will not be used to train any large language model and will be treated at least to the standard of confidential information, and the confidentiality clause requires advance notice before any disclosure compelled by law so the customer can seek a protective order.
The AI page adds that the generative AI runs in a privately hosted environment and is never shared with third parties. Nothing addresses privilege or work product by name, or separation between matters or users. 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.
A product-wide disclaimer with a verification duty attached. The LexisNexis general terms state that the online services are not legal, accounting, financial or other professional advice or a substitute for an attorney or accountant, and the AI services clause adds that AI is not a substitute for independent professional advice and that users are responsible for verifying what it provides. Nothing addresses a lawyer's own professional obligations when relying on the output, and no jurisdiction or ethics guidance is named. 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.
A published framework connected to the product. The AI page links the RELX Responsible AI Principles and restates them for Intelligize+ AI: development with transparency, accountability and human oversight, prioritising privacy, reducing bias and maintaining data governance throughout development. The LexisNexis trust centre adds AI entries on training data and bias, AI monitoring, the EU AI Act and an AI system development and evaluation policy.
No accountable owner for this product, pre-release test results or bias findings are published. 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.
Most of the ground is covered through the parent. The LexisNexis trust centre, linked from the product footer, publishes controls for encryption, access monitoring, data erasure, breach notification, designated incident responders, penetration testing and business continuity; the general terms warrant no training on AI inputs, allow a file of customer data to be returned on request up to 60 days after termination, and then permit its deletion.
Two gaps remain: no retention period is stated for prompts or files during the subscription, and the LexisNexis Legal & Professional subprocessor list, last updated 17 September 2026, names subprocessors for many LexisNexis products but not for Intelligize. 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.
Recourse is real but partial. The LexisNexis general terms give an indemnity and defence against third-party patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret claims arising from use of the service, which sits outside the liability cap; otherwise liability is capped at the lesser of direct damages or the fees paid in the preceding 12 months. AI output is left to the user: the terms say AI systems may not be accurate, make users responsible for verifying what they receive, and disclaim accuracy of reports generated from customer files. 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.
A real data API, documented for customers. The API page describes delivering SEC filings, comment letters, ESG reports and M&A data into customer portals, dashboards, internal websites, CRM products and matter management tools, with API documentation and a developer advocate team for implementation. No named connector to a specific document, matter or reporting system is listed, and the documentation itself is not public. 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.
Cloud, with little else stated. The product is delivered online through a customer login, the AI page says the generative AI runs in a privately hosted environment, and the LexisNexis trust centre lists Amazon Web Services as infrastructure. No region, residency option, tenancy model or processing location for Intelligize 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.
Named attestations through the parent's trust centre, with the product's coverage unstated. The product footer links the LexisNexis Trust Center, which lists SOC 2 Type 2, SOC 3, ISO/IEC 27001 with its statement of applicability, ISO 22301, SOC 1 Type 2, a HIPAA attestation and a penetration test report, with reports available by secure download. Its 2026 announcement of SOC 2 Type 2 and SOC 3 reports names Lexis, Lexis+ AI, Lexis+ with Protégé and CaseMap+, not Intelligize, so whether the product falls within scope is not stated.
The trust centre also publishes the company's own notice of a security matter affecting legacy, mostly pre-2020 customer contact and support data, stating that no customer client or matter information was involved. 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.
Placement is described; the model is not. The AI page says the generative AI runs in a privately hosted environment, is never shared with third parties, and uses a proprietary retrieval approach. No model, version or provider is named for Intelligize+ AI, the LexisNexis general terms say AI services may be proprietary or supplied by a third-party provider, and no commitment to notify customers of a model change is published. 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 page, the AI, API and solution pages and the request-a-trial route on 22 September 2026. No price, tier or unit of charge is published; access starts with a trial or 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.
Four buyer segments each have their own page: public companies, private companies preparing for an IPO, law firms advising on SEC compliance, disclosure drafting and transactions, and accounting and consulting firms. The scope is set by the corpus, which covers SEC filings and correspondence, US and international accounting standards, ESG reporting and M&A data. What the product does not cover is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Intelligize+ AI, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 1 more
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
intelligize.com1 signal
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The LexisNexis general terms that govern Intelligize, effective 5 June 2026, warrant that prompts and files submitted to the AI services will not be used to train any large language model and will be treated at least as confidential information. The LexisNexis trust centre states the same position as a policy.
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 general terms let the customer request a file of its data before or within 60 days after termination, after which LexisNexis may delete it; the trust centre lists a data erasure control. No retention period for prompts, outputs or files during the subscription, and no zero-retention setting, is stated for Intelligize.
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 Intelligize home, AI and API pages, the LexisNexis general terms and the LexisNexis trust centre on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses separation between matters, clients or users within a customer's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The confidentiality clause of the LexisNexis general terms allows disclosure required by law, regulation or court order only with advance notice to the other party so that it can seek a protective order, and the terms apply that confidentiality standard to prompts and files submitted to the AI services.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
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 licence or rights basis.
The sources are named: more than 17 million SEC filings, over 450,000 SEC comment letters and responses, more than 28,000 ESG reports, M&A data, FASB, PCAOB, AICPA and IFRS accounting standards, SEC regulations and guidance, news, earnings call transcripts and law and accounting firm guidance. How the licensed material is licensed, and how current each source is kept, is not described.
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 Intelligize home, AI and API pages on 22 September 2026. The product cites SEC filings and accounting and regulatory guidance; nothing addresses whether a cited rule, standard or piece of guidance has been superseded or amended.
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 Intelligize home and AI pages and the LexisNexis general terms on 22 September 2026. Results show their sources and search logic, but no confidence indicator or path in which the assistant declines a question the filings do not answer is described.
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 Intelligize, 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?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The LexisNexis general terms state that the services are not legal or other professional advice or a substitute for an attorney, and that AI is not a substitute for independent professional advice. No bar or ethics opinion is named on the Intelligize estate.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.
Checked the Intelligize home, AI, API and law firm pages on 22 September 2026. No savings figures are claimed for the AI, and nothing addresses how law or accounting firms bill or disclose AI-assisted research to their 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.
The LexisNexis Legal & Professional subprocessor list, last updated 17 September 2026, names subprocessors product by product, including AI providers for several LexisNexis products, but has no entry for Intelligize, and no Intelligize-specific list or disclosure pack was located on the product site or in the trust centre on 22 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
For work that ends in an SEC filing, the product shows the specific filings behind each result and the search logic used, and describes its research as traceable and suited to audit-ready and compliance-driven standards. No export of a record of AI involvement, model, sources and human check is described, and no disclosure guidance is published.