I
Irys

Irys, formerly Iqidis, is a legal AI platform from Iqidis, Inc. of New York, which rebranded in March 2026; the main product, Irys One, was formerly called Iqidis. It organises legal work around matters: case-law research against retrieved sources with results linked to the opinions relied on, drafting of motions, memos, contracts and letters in a firm's voice, redlining against playbooks, analysis across a matter's documents through a knowledge graph, and Cite Check, which checks citations and flags those it cannot match.

Irys Workbench agents gather material from connected email and files and return finished documents, and an add-in brings Irys into Microsoft Word. Most processing runs on Irys's own retrieval and orchestration layers, with named third-party models called for discrete inference steps under no-training and zero-retention terms. It serves solo practitioners through large firms, in-house teams and insurance defense firms. Plans run from a free tier and $19.99 a month to $299 per seat a month for Irys One, with Enterprise priced to scope.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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 models are the product. Irys One researches case law, drafts motions, memos and contracts in a firm's voice, redlines against playbooks, analyses documents across a matter through a knowledge graph built from the matter's files, and checks citations; Workbench agents gather material from connected email and files and return finished documents. Matter management, the document library and e-signature support that work; without the models there is little left to sell. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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 and checking are real and described; the published measurement is not of citation accuracy. Research runs against retrieved legal sources, results link to the opinions and documents relied on, and Cite Check checks identified citations against legal-source databases, flags those it cannot match, and surfaces available treatment signals such as negative history. The Thorough mode checks case-law citations against source as it writes, while the Quick mode is disclosed as not cite-backed, and the Responsible AI page says plainly that no mode makes output correct and that Cite Check does not verify every citation.

The company has published a run of its research system against a public 1,251-task legal agent benchmark, with an 83.74% criteria pass rate, a 17.75% strict all-pass rate, its departures from the benchmark's method, and the code and traces released; that measures agentic legal work, not the accuracy of Irys One's citations. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Autonomy and Oversight ModelWhat the system runs alone, what constrains it, and how a lawyer checks it are all published: modes, thresholds, review surfaces, and the route a matter takes back to human judgement. A categorical limit on a named mode or tier, stating what its output may not be used for, meets the threshold limb without a number.

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.

Modes, limits and review surfaces are published. The Quick mode is stated not to retrieve or verify authority and never to be the basis for authority cited in a filing; the Standard research mode is to be paired with Cite Check before its citations are relied on; the Thorough mode checks citations as it works. Workbench agents gather material and build documents, but emails are left in drafts and never sent without the user.

Drafts arrive as tracked changes, Cite Check returns flags for an attorney to resolve, and an audit trail records what was run, when and in which mode. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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 users without measured results. The site quotes Omer Er, Partner at Michelman & Robinson, lists users at Falls Counsel, Cox O'Brien and the Law Offices of Li Yang, and says more than 300 legal teams use the platform. Its outcome figures, 41% fewer hours and turnaround cut from 3.9 to 2.3 days, are attributed to two unnamed legal teams in their first weeks on the product. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Close to the full picture, with privilege left to the user. The Data Processing Addendum and Terms of Service commit that customer content is not used to train Irys's or third-party models, is segregated per tenant and per user profile and never commingled with other customers, and is deleted within 30 days of termination or earlier on request; the terms bind Irys to confidentiality, with prompt notice before any compelled disclosure.

Third-party models are named, used for stateless inference with vendor-side retention disabled, and bound by no-training terms, and administrators cannot see a user's personal workspace unless it is shared. Held short: the security page presents the platform as designed to preserve confidentiality and support privilege, while the terms leave compliance with privilege obligations to the user, and matter-level separation is described on product pages rather than in the agreement. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureThe vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports a lawyer’s competence and supervision duties. Jurisdiction limits are named and any consumer facing surface carries a clear disclosure.

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 advice line, the audience and the supervision duties are all addressed. The Terms of Service and a separate Disclaimer state that Irys gives no legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship and is an assistive tool for legal professionals. A Professional Responsibility and Ethics section requires independent judgment, review of material output including authorities, quotations and subsequent treatment, review before anything goes to a court, client or regulator, and firm policies, training and supervision for AI tools.

A Responsible AI page explains in plain language why attorney review is not optional, and an AI Rules by State guide sets out disclosure requirements, ethics guidance, sanctions and CLE rules state by state, with sources. No consumer-facing surface was located. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Principles and product safeguards, not an internal governance framework. The Responsible AI page sets out what Irys does and does not claim, how its safeguards are layered and what strong firm practice looks like; policies name Legal & Security at Iqidis, Inc. as their owner, and the security page says the architecture was audited by Guidepost Solutions. No accountable individual, testing before release, or finding on whether output differs across matter types, jurisdictions or practice areas was located. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

Retention, deletion, access, subprocessors and incidents are all published and specific. Cancelled accounts stay exportable for up to 90 days and are then deleted within 30; the Data Processing Addendum commits to deletion within 30 days of termination or earlier on written request; users can delete data at any time. MFA is enforced for all accounts, with least-privilege roles, SSO and SCIM, idle-session expiry and an exportable audit trail.

A subprocessor policy names every service provider and subprocessor with purpose, location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of changes with a right to object. Breaches are notified within 72 hours with set contents and equivalent obligations on subprocessors, and government requests are notified where lawful and challenged if overbroad. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

A published position with scope and caps; output accuracy disclaimed. The Terms of Service cap each party's liability at twelve months' fees or $100, whichever is greater, but lift the cap for breaches of confidentiality and for gross negligence or wilful misconduct. Irys defends customers against US patent, copyright and trademark claims over the service, including output used as delivered, and the Data Processing Addendum adds an indemnity for data subject or regulator claims caused by a security incident in Irys's systems.

Irys does not warrant that output is accurate or that verification features catch every issue. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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 tools lawyers work in, short of documented depth. Irys runs inside Microsoft Word through an add-in on AppSource, and connects on the user's authorisation to Google Drive, Gmail, OneDrive, Outlook and Dropbox for import and export, as listed in its subprocessor policy. Product pages also show iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and Slack, but the FAQ says document management integrations are in development, and what syncs and what a firm must configure is not documented on the pages read. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Hosting, processing locations and tenancy are stated, short of option and tier detail. The subprocessor policy says data is processed primarily in the US and EU with regional routing on request, hosted and stored on AWS in the US, and gives each AI provider's processing location, US and EU for the main models. Product pages describe hard tenant isolation with per-tenant and per-user containers and name cloud, VPC and on-premises options.

What each deployment option involves, and which plans include which, is not described beyond Enterprise being priced to scope. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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 standards, reports on request under NDA. The security page lists SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 (the subprocessor policy specifies ISO/IEC 27001:2022), HIPAA, GDPR and CPRA compliance, and an architecture audit by Guidepost Solutions; current reports and certificates are available to customers and prospects under NDA on request. The linked trust centre could not be viewed on the date shown, and no auditor, scope or report date is published on the pages read. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe models underneath are named, their providers identified, where they run is stated, and the vendor commits to notifying customers when any of that changes.

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.

Providers, models, locations and change notice are published. The subprocessor policy names OpenAI for inference and embeddings, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini on Vertex AI for inference, Mistral AI for OCR, Perplexity AI and Linkup for research lookups and CourtListener for case-law and citation lookup, each with processing location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of any new subprocessor or material change, with a right to object.

It also describes the architecture: most requests are handled by Irys's own knowledge graph, retrieval and orchestration layers, with external models called only for discrete, stateless inference steps. Specific model versions are not listed. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

Nearly the whole range is priced; Enterprise is quoted. The pricing page publishes a free plan, Irys Lite and Irys Student at $19.99 a month, Irys One at $299 per seat a month or $3,049 a year, and Irys Teams at $329 per seat a month for 2 to 25 seats, with usage limits by plan and no metered overage on Irys One. Enterprise, for 25 or more seats, is priced to scope, and the enterprise deployment programme is not priced. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Segments and practice areas are set out with substance, short of limits. Pages address solo practitioners, small, mid-size and large firms, in-house teams and insurance defense firms, with use-case pages for litigation, corporate and contracts, insurance defense, employment, mass tort and ADA compliance, and law students have their own plan. Citation checking is described against federal and state opinions. The jurisdictions, courts and practice areas it does not support are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

7 public documents

The public pages on file for Irys, 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.

Pricing

$19.99 per month (Irys Lite)USD, as published, never converted

  • Irys has a free plan with 3 AI messages a day.
  • Irys Lite and Irys Student cost $19.99 a month, with daily message caps.
  • Irys One, the full product for one lawyer, is $299 a month, or $3,049 a year.
  • Irys Teams is $329 per seat a month for 2 to 25 seats.
  • Enterprise, for 25 seats or more, is priced to scope.
  • Every plan includes the whole product; only usage limits differ.

Published per-seat subscription prices, Enterprise quoted. **Free**: 3 AI messages a day, 10 saved chats, 25 MB storage. **Irys Lite**: $19.99 a month, 12 messages a day, 175 MB. **Irys Student**: $19.99 a month for law students, 24 messages a day, 250 MB. **Irys One**: $299 per seat a month, or $3,049 a year billed annually, unlimited messages and storage, no per-token or overage charges. **Irys Teams**: $329 per seat a month for 2 to 25 seats, adding shared workspaces, matter-level collaboration, firm-wide playbooks, role-based permissions and admin controls. **Irys Enterprise**: 25 or more seats, priced to scope, adding SSO, SAML and SCIM, custom integrations, white-labelled deployment, a dedicated success manager and an MSA, DPA and procurement package.

All plans include the full platform, including Cite Check and the Word add-in; the free, Lite, Student and One plans are single-user.

Implementation: None for the self-serve plans, which start with a free trial and no setup charge. Enterprise deployments come with an onboarding programme covering governance design, a rollout plan, billing strategy sessions and training; it is described but not priced.

Confidentiality and data terms: A Business Associate Agreement is available for customers subject to HIPAA, per the Privacy & Data Policy and the subprocessor policy; it is not tied to a named plan or price. The security page lists HIPAA compliance alongside SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001.

Note: Annual billing saves up to 15%, and the page says the rate signed is the rate at renewal. The 7-day trial needs no credit card. Every plan includes 90-day data retention with automatic deletion. The Terms of Service allow fee changes on at least 30 days' notice, taking effect at the next subscription term.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

The Data Processing Addendum states that customer content is not used to train Irys's own or third-party models, and that third-party models are used only for stateless inference with vendor caching and retention disabled under no-training commitments. The Terms of Service add that training could occur only if expressly agreed in writing. Usage data is limited to aggregated or anonymised telemetry that excludes prompts, outputs and documents.

Source: Vendor PublishedIqidis does not use Customer Content to train Iqidis or third-party models.As of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

Users can delete their data at any time; the pricing page says every plan includes 90-day retention with automatic deletion; cancelled accounts stay exportable for up to 90 days and are then deleted within 30; and a data retention policy describing settings and default periods is available on request. Model-provider inference is configured for zero retention, and telemetry excludes prompts and outputs. A setting that keeps nothing inside Irys is not described.

Source: Vendor PublishedDelete your data at any time.As of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

Access is set in Irys's own role model, maintained by the firm: organisation administrators, matter owners and contributors, with matter-level team collaboration and shared workspaces per team or practice group. The terms say administrators cannot see a user's personal workspace unless it is shared, and the agreement commits to separation per tenant and per user profile. Permissions are not inherited from a document management system; those integrations are described as in development.

Source: Vendor PublishedLeast-privilege role model (Org Admin, Matter Owner, Contributor)As of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

The Data Processing Addendum commits Irys, where legally permitted, to notify the customer promptly of a government request for customer personal data, to challenge unlawful or overbroad demands and to disclose only the minimum required; the Terms of Service commit to prompt notice and assistance before any compelled disclosure of confidential information. No transparency report was located.

Source: Vendor Publishedpromptly notify Customer, challenge unlawful or overbroad demandsAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.

The subprocessor policy names CourtListener, from the Free Law Project, for case-law and citation lookup, and Perplexity AI and Linkup for legal and web research lookups; the pricing page describes citation checking against federal and state opinions. The rights basis for each source, its coverage and how often it is updated are not stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Own treatment signal

The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.

Cite Check checks identified citations against legal-source databases, flags those it cannot match, and surfaces available treatment signals such as negative history, for attorney review. Irys states that it is not connected to, or a substitute for, any third-party citator a firm licenses, and the terms say a passing check does not establish that all subsequent treatment has been identified.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Confidence signal only

The product exposes a confidence or grounding score without an explicit abstention path.

Cite Check flags citations it cannot match against its sources, and the Quick mode is disclosed as not retrieving or verifying authority. No behaviour in which the system declines to answer, or says it found no support, is described for research or drafting.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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 Irys and for its former name, Iqidis. The database lists one matter naming the product: in a declaration filed on 11 August 2026, counsel for a defendant states that she used the product, believed it was connected to her firm's legal research subscription, and did not check the citations before filing. No court order or finding addressing the citations had been located as of 22 September 2026.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Named guidance addressed

Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.

Irys publishes an AI Rules by State guide that names the governing ethics guidance in each state covered, such as NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5, Texas Ethics Opinion 705 and WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05, alongside disclosure rules, sanctions cases and CLE requirements, with sources. It maps state rules rather than the product's features to each opinion.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Audit record and guidance

The product emits a per matter record of AI assisted work and the vendor publishes guidance on fee and disclosure treatment.

Irys publishes billing guidance covering hourly, fixed-fee, value-based and blended arrangements, including how to describe AI-assisted work on invoices and how to answer clients who ask whether AI is used, with invoice, client disclosure and engagement letter templates provided in enterprise deployments. The platform keeps an exportable audit trail of what was run, when and in which mode. The guidance frames hourly work as freed capacity rather than addressing time billed.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

A current subprocessor policy lists every service provider and model provider with purpose, location and retention, and commits to 30 days' notice of changes. Audit report summaries and certificates are offered under NDA on request. No client-facing disclosure material was located on the public site.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

An exportable audit trail records what was run, when and in which mode; research citations link to their sources, Cite Check flags are kept for review, and drafts arrive as tracked changes. No per-document export recording the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

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.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 303 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
September 22, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746