AI Legal Index
Vendors · Legal Research

J
Jus Mundi

Jus Mundi is a research platform for international law and arbitration. It is built on a database of awards, orders, decisions, judgments, treaties, laws and case materials. The company says the database is updated daily and drawn from more than twenty institutional partnerships, and primary documents are open through a free light version of its search. Its AI layer, Jus AI, launched in June 2023. It answers research questions with citations to the database, assesses arguments, compares cases across jurisdictions, and drafts, translates and analyzes.

Each reasoning step is shown so a user can trace every citation to its source. CiteMap maps citation links between documents, and the AI Enterprise plan connects Jus AI to a firm's own documents. The company also runs Jus Connect, a directory and conflict check tool. Jus Mundi is a French company based in Paris, which closed a twenty million euro Series B in August 2024. Pricing is published per user, from twenty nine euros a month for individual academics to one hundred and twenty nine euros for practitioners. It states ISO 27001, ISO 42001 and SOC 2 certifications, with models served through Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

Jus Mundi, 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.

Build your own comparison

Alternatives

Alternatives to Jus Mundi

Vendors in the same categories as Jus Mundi 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.

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

Jus AI answers, assesses, compares, drafts and translates over the database, and Jus Mundi states it has trained models on its corpus since 2019. The research database around it offers search, filters, interactive documents, CiteMap, Wiki notes and analytics. The company sold that database before Jus AI launched in June 2023 and still sells it on the Academic and Essentials plans without the assistant.

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.

Every answer from Jus AI is fully cited from exclusive Jus Mundi data, the home page states, and every reasoning step can be verified, each citation checked and each source traced to its origin. The primary documents are the company's own database of awards, decisions, treaties and laws, kept open in a free light version so a reader can open what is cited. No accuracy figure, test set, benchmark or hallucination rate is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Agentic legal reasoning, as Jus Mundi describes it, guides research with clarity and structure and exposes every reasoning step so a user can check it, with citations traceable to source. The assistant answers and drafts for a practitioner to check. No threshold at which an agentic step acts without review, and no route back after a wrong answer beyond the user's verification, is published.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Clients' experiences are the strongest signal, Jus Mundi's home page says, pointing to case stories about winning strategies and time saved, and the site has a Meet Our Clients section. An unnamed customer is quoted on the security page about confidence in uploading documents given ISO 27001 certification. Freshfields and White & Case have been reported as customers in press coverage, not on Jus Mundi's own pages.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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.

The help center states that assistant interactions are hosted on a separate locked database, and Jus Mundi says confidentiality is the foundation for sensitive casework. The security page names Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service, and the enterprise plan connects Jus AI to a firm's own documents. The help center addresses storage, not training use, retention, or privilege and work product. The subscription agreement that governs firms is separate and not published.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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 user terms describe the service as a research platform providing know how and resources to international law and arbitration practitioners, and the product is sold to practitioners, firms, states and academics. No advice line or supervision statement appears on Jus Mundi's product, pricing or help pages. No jurisdiction limit beyond the subject matter scope is named.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner.

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.

The security page states that with ISO 42001 the company went further than security certification to show its AI is built responsibly and to the highest ethical standards, alongside ISO 27001 and SOC 2. ISO 42001 is an audited standard for AI management systems. The home page describes exposing every reasoning step as transparency. No test results, bias findings or accountable owner are published.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Safety and Data StewardshipA generic privacy policy covers the product without addressing what happens to documents and prompts after processing.

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.

Assistant interactions are held on a separate locked database, data is encrypted, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certification is claimed, and Azure OpenAI is the model service. No retention period, deletion commitment, subprocessor list or incident notification practice is published. The site has a security page, a trust center and a privacy charter.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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.

No liability position is published. The user terms define the services, materials and subscription structure, and no indemnity, cap, warranty or insurance position appears in them. The Jus Connect terms say the subscription agreement that governs firms is a separate document, and it is not published.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Practice Systems Integration DepthIntegrations are listed as logos or marked as coming, with no documentation an implementer could use.

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 help center headline describes an agent to agent integration bringing arbitration AI to where users already work, and the AI Enterprise plan connects Jus AI to a firm's own document database. No system is named, nothing says what syncs or in which direction, and no document management system is named.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

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.

Jus AI is delivered as a cloud service. The security page names Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service as the model service, and the help center describes a separate locked database for assistant interactions. No region, residency option or tenancy model is stated.

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.

The security page states ISO 27001 and SOC 2 as proof of security and confidentiality by design, and ISO 42001 for responsible AI, and points to a trust center for the measures and certifications. A customer is quoted on the ISO 27001 certification. No certifying body, coverage period or route to a report is stated on the security page.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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 security page states that Azure OpenAI Service enables Jus Mundi to offer its data security and that Microsoft makes AI available to the user community under its security and privacy controls, which names the provider and hosting arrangement. The 2023 launch release describes in house machine learning models trained on the company's database and an assistant powered by GPT. No specific model, inference region or commitment to notify customers of changes is stated.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Commercial TransparencyA buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, and what implementation adds.

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.

Jus Mundi's pricing page lists individual academic access at twenty nine euros a month excluding tax, academic institutions at two hundred and fifty euros a month on a yearly subscription, and practitioners at one hundred and twenty nine euros a month. Each is limited to one subscriber, with monthly or yearly billing. Law firms, chambers and states are on quotation, a seven day free trial is offered, and the features of each tier are itemized. Jus Mundi also uses a newer plan structure of Academic, Essentials, AI Premium and AI Enterprise.

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.

The buyers are international law and arbitration practitioners, law firms, chambers, states, public bodies and academics. The database is stated to cover all areas of international law and arbitration on any subscription, updated daily, with institutional partnerships and publisher content such as the ICC collection as add ons. Jus Mundi states its scope as international law and arbitration. No jurisdiction or matter type within that scope is named as unsupported.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

6 public documents

The public pages on file for Jus Mundi, 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

From €129 per month

EUR, as published, never converted
  • A working lawyer pays 129 euros a month for one person, monthly or yearly.
  • Students and academics pay 29 euros a month, and a whole university pays 250 euros a month on a yearly deal.
  • Law firms, chambers and governments have to ask for a quote.
  • There is a free 7 day trial, and the original documents stay free to read in a light version.
  • The AI assistant sits on higher plans, AI Premium and AI Enterprise.
Source: Vendor PublishedWhich legal AI vendors publish their pricing →

Prices are per subscriber, in euros and excluding tax. An individual academic pays 29 a month, an academic institution 250 a month on a yearly subscription, and a practitioner 129 a month. Each is limited to one subscriber, with monthly or yearly billing. Law firms, chambers and states are on quotation, there is a seven day free trial, and primary source documents remain free in a light search version. A newer tier structure of Academic, Essentials, AI Premium and AI Enterprise is also in use. No US dollar figure is published, and the practitioner rate in euros is the entry price shown.

What changed

Tracked changes at Jus Mundi

Oct 14, 2026Model / architectureVerified

Jus Mundi released Jus AI 3, a new generation of the research engine behind every Jus AI mode, built on its own model stack for international arbitration. Before answering, the engine now checks what it has found, identifies gaps and runs follow up research or verification, while skipping extra reasoning on simple questions. On an internal set of 114 prompts against Jus AI 2, Jus Mundi reports a 19% faster first answer and 8% more answers scoring perfect on faithfulness to the cited sources.

Bears on: Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureSource
Sep 23, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

Jus Mundi added 35 publications (17 titles plus the 18 volume Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law set) to its JURIS Arbitration Law Library add on, covering US practice such as 28 U.S.C. 1782 discovery, interim measures in US courts and FINRA securities arbitration, plus award enforcement, ISDS jurisprudence, EU law and Asia-Pacific force majeure. The titles are live for existing JURIS and Jus AI Max subscribers at no extra charge and can be queried in Jus AI alongside awards and treaties, with each answer traceable to the source text.

Bears on: Firm and Practice CoverageSource
Every tracked change for Jus Mundi →

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?

Terms silent

A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.

Whether customer content trains models is left unsettled. The help center states that assistant interactions are hosted on a separate locked database for privacy, which addresses storage, not training. The security page and the full user terms were not available to read, and the subscription agreement governing firms is not published.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Not addressed

No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.

Retention of prompts to Jus AI and of its outputs has no stated period. The help center states interactions are held on a separate locked database, without a period.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

The help center states that assistant interactions are hosted on a separate and locked database for additional privacy and security. That separates assistant data from the public research database rather than one customer's or matter's data from another's. The AI Enterprise plan connects a firm's own documents, and nothing describes how access within a firm is walled.

Source: Vendor Publishedwe host interactions with the Assistant on a separate and locked databaseAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Not addressed

No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.

A customer whose data is demanded by a third party has no stated right to be told. The subscription agreement is not published.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026
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 license or rights basis.

The database is described as awards, orders, decisions, judgments, treaties, laws and case materials in international law and arbitration, updated daily and drawn from more than twenty institutional partnerships. Publisher content such as the ICC dispute resolution collection is offered as an add on, and primary documents are kept open in a free light version. The rights basis for the institutional and publisher content is not stated on the pricing page, the home page or the 2023 launch release.

Source: Vendor PublishedThe Jus Mundi database is updated daily with new awards, judgments, treaties and other documentsAs of Sep 6, 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.

CiteMap, described in the user terms as part of the materials and in the launch release as a proprietary legal citation links creator, maps how awards and decisions cite one another across the database. Jus Mundi's home page states that Jus AI's citations can be checked and traced to source. Jus Mundi does not say whether CiteMap flags subsequent negative treatment. It is the vendor's own signal, not a licensed citator.

Source: Vendor PublishedCiteMap, our legal citation links creatorAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.

Jus Mundi documents how a user checks an answer rather than what the model does when it cannot answer. Its home page states that every reasoning step is exposed and every citation traceable. No abstention path or confidence signal for questions the database cannot support is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedVerify every reasoning step, check each citation, and trace sources back to their origin with nothing and nothing assumedAs of Sep 6, 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.

No court order, opinion, arbitral decision or disciplinary record naming Jus Mundi or Jus AI is on the public record, including the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin. In April 2026 the Quebec Superior Court set aside an award in ARIHQ c. Santé Québec because the arbitrator's own award relied on fabricated authorities, and no product was named.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

No ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework is tied to the product. The pricing page offers expert advice and practical steps to guide teams through the AI shift, which is training rather than guidance on professional duties.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Savings claims only

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.

Law firms and chambers are named buyer segments. The home page frames client results as winning strategies and time saved, with research, drafting, translation and analysis completed in a fraction of the time. Nothing addresses how AI assisted research is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill.

Source: Vendor PublishedFrom winning strategies to time savedAs of Sep 6, 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.

The model provider is named on a public page. The security page names Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service as the service behind Jus AI and points to a trust center for measures and certifications.

Source: Vendor PublishedAzure OpenAI Service enables Jus Mundi to offer uncompromising data securityAs of Sep 6, 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.

Every answer is cited to the database with reasoning steps exposed, so a practitioner can show the sources behind a research result. Nothing states that a record of the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification can be exported for a tribunal or court.

Source: Vendor Publishedcheck each citation, and trace sources back to their originAs of Sep 6, 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 462 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
October 19, 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