J

Jusbrasil

Models do substantial work on top of a system of record that would function without them, and the vendor is explicit about which half is which. Jus IA is a generative assistant launched in March 2025 with three skills: conversational legal research, drafting of pleadings and other documents, and reference analysis, all grounded in a database the vendor states exceeds 1.2 billion documents. The vendor states it built its own foundational model on that database with Maritaca AI, alongside established third party models, and that legal specialists calibrate the assistant continuously.

A second generative assistant serves people who are not lawyers as a triage chatbot. The other half is not models and long predates them. The platform has indexed official gazettes and court systems for roughly two decades, and its search, case tracking, legislation, doctrine, pleadings and community publishing products all work without generative AI. Without the models, a very large legal database business remains.

Accuracy is measured, the method is published, and the vendor names where it loses. In a blind evaluation, Jus IA was tested on real legal tasks against ChatGPT on GPT-5 and against Gemini 2.5 Pro. The outputs were scored by 48 practicing Brazilian lawyers who did not know which system produced them; 89.58 percent hold a postgraduate qualification, with one to ten years in practice. Five task types and four scoring criteria are defined, one of them reliability, which checks whether cited sources exist and support the claim.

Results are published by criterion with means and standard deviations, and Jus IA came out ahead in 70 percent of cases. The vendor publishes that Gemini beat it on fluency when drafting documents and that it tied on completeness for summaries. In the product, every citation is checked against the database at the end of each response, unmatched references are flagged, and each reference links to its source. The 70 percent is a preference rate against general models, not an absolute error rate. The charts are images, and the full study sits behind a link shortener.

The oversight position is published in two agreements and stops short of describing behavior at the edge. Clause 4.4.2 of the terms of use states that no AI feature substitutes for a qualified lawyer and that the user must always review or consult one. Clause 5.2.1 says responses may contain errors and places verification on the user, including where outputs are used before a public body. Clause 5.6.2 makes final responsibility for Jus IA use and its content the user's alone.

The enterprise terms at clause 4.3.2 require the client to analyze and validate AI generated content. The assistant for people who are not lawyers is fenced at clause 6.2.1 as informational and educational only, never legal advice. The vendor also describes continuous calibration by legal specialists. Nothing published describes an escalation path, a point at which the system declines on substance rather than policy, or what a user sees when the model works outside the database. The product is a chat assistant with no autonomous action: nothing is filed, sent or committed without the user.

Scale is shown in the vendor's own numbers, and named customers are absent. The vendor reports more than 1.5 million searches and more than 4 million pleadings written through Jus IA, an average satisfaction score of 89 percent, and more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals. Three testimonials carry the full names of practicing lawyers. The blind study, covered under citation accuracy, used 48 evaluating lawyers recruited across regions and specialisms.

A separate survey of 1,500 respondents was run with the São Paulo section of the Brazilian bar, Trybe and ITS Rio, which shows the vendor's standing, not its outcomes. No named institutional customer, case study tied to a firm, or method behind the satisfaction and volume figures is published. The usage numbers count activity, not results: nothing says how many of the 4 million pleadings were filed, revised or discarded.

Specific published confidentiality commitments sit against an express contractual disclaimer of responsibility for professional secrecy. Clause 8.3.4 of the privacy policy says Jus IA runs separately from the platform's other databases and uses a user's inputs and outputs only within that user's environment, without giving them to a third party or another user unless the information is public. Clause 8.3 holds Jus IA material in a separate database.

Clause 5.3.2 keeps inputs and outputs confidential save under a court order, and clause 4.1.5 says data is not used to train models. The FAQ adds controls stopping one user reaching another's personal information, and clause 8.1.2 limits staff and third party access to what is necessary under contractual confidentiality. Against that, clause 5.4.3 of the terms makes the user solely responsible for what is entered into Jus IA, including information protected by professional secrecy.

It also says Jusbrasil is not responsible for any breach of professional secrecy or damage from inappropriate use. Professional secrecy is addressed in the agreement, and the whole risk is allocated to the lawyer.

The boundary is drawn expressly, by reference to the governing statute, in both published agreements and on product pages. Clause 4.7 of the terms of use says Jusbrasil never provides legal advice, consultancy or any other activity reserved to lawyers under Article 1 of Law 8.906 of 1994, the Statute of Advocacy and of the Brazilian Bar Association. The enterprise terms repeat this at clause 3.5. Clause 4.4.2 says no AI feature substitutes for a qualified lawyer.

Clause 4.8 says the platform neither encourages nor performs client or case solicitation, repeated at clause 10.1(iii). The assistant for people who are not lawyers is fenced at clause 6.2.1 as informational and educational, never an opinion or legal advice, and clause 6.3.2 disclaims any role in fee negotiation. User published content is bound at clause 10.3(iv) to the Statute and to the Brazilian Bar Association's Code of Ethics and Discipline.

Clause 2.2 requires a valid Bar registration number for users who identify as lawyers, and clause 2.2.1 gates some features on validating it. The enterprise terms gate features on the client nominating users registered with the Brazilian Bar Association.

A practice is described, and no governance framework stands behind it. Legal specialists supervise the assistant continuously, stated repeatedly and at clause 5.2 of the terms of use. The product FAQ says new features are tested and evaluated before release, and asserts internal audits and access controls. The published comparative evaluation is covered under citation accuracy. No governance framework or standard is claimed for the AI, including ISO 42001, and nobody is named as accountable for the assistant's behavior.

No bias, fairness or representativeness disclosure exists. That gap matters here: the database is built from court and official gazette material that the privacy policy says may contain sensitive personal data, including religious, political or sexual orientation, philosophical beliefs, participation in political or social movements, and health or genetic information. Nothing published addresses whether outputs drawn from that material reproduce patterns in it. No model card, evaluation protocol or red team result is published.

Substantive published policy covers most of the ground, with no named subprocessors and no breach notice. A corporate information security policy for the security management system, version 1.0 dated 20 January 2026 and issued by the GRC and Security function, is published with a downloadable PDF. It commits to risk treatment, incident management and continuity, vulnerability treatment by impact, monitoring and audit of information assets, awareness training and senior management accountability.

In the privacy policy, clause 8.1.2 limits employee and third party access to what is necessary, under instruction and contractual confidentiality. Clause 8.3 holds Jus IA inputs and outputs in a separate database, clause 8.3.1 discards voice biometrics after transcription, clause 8.3.3 deletes Jus IA data on account deletion, and clause 8.3.5 deletes a conversation from the platform and internal databases when the user deletes it.

Clause 9.1 discloses transfer abroad. No subprocessor or cloud provider is named, no breach notification to customers is committed, and encryption is not specified.

The allocation is published in full, can be read before signing, and runs almost entirely one way. Clause 4.2 provides the platform as is and reserves the right to withdraw or change it. Clause 5.6.2 gives no guarantee of the results of applying platform information in legal practice. Clause 10.2 lists seventeen exclusions of liability, including missed procedural deadlines, errors in court information, discrepancies with official bodies, the user's use of platform information and, at (xiii), all direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive and consequential loss, including lost profits and moral damages.

Clause 10.3(iii) has the user indemnify Jusbrasil, its affiliates, directors and employees for any loss from use of the platform. Clause 5.4.3 disclaims responsibility for any breach of professional secrecy. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level or insurance position is given to the customer. The enterprise terms repeat the exclusions, also with no cap. Clause 3.4.1 gives a seven day refund right, and twelve prior versions of the agreement are published. On the published terms, the lawyer bears the loss.

A developer surface exists and is documented, and no legal practice system is named. The enterprise arm sells its solutions by API, as clause 1.1 of its terms states, with a documentation link in the enterprise site navigation and footer and a separate API product line. The consumer terms at clause 2.5.2 treat unauthorized API access as illegitimate, which confirms that authorized access exists. Two lighter routes are described: browser extensions, and a WhatsApp path for sending files and audio into Jus IA.

No document management system, case management platform, word processor, email client or electronic signature product is named, no integrations page or partner directory is published, and nothing describes what moves in which direction.

Residency and tenancy are both addressed, and neither in detail. Clause 9.1 of the privacy policy states that personal data of users and of people named in proceedings may be stored on servers outside Brazil, including in the United States, under cloud storage contracts with companies operating data centers there. Clause 9.2 commits to appropriate contractual arrangements. For a Brazilian buyer handling Brazilian matters, that is an adverse disclosure, stated plainly.

On tenancy, clause 8.3 holds Jus IA information in a database separate from the platform's other bases, and clause 8.3.4 uses a user's inputs and outputs only within that user's environment. Clause 4.1.5.2 adds that public data and data entered by users are not combined into one base. No region choice, hosting only in Brazil, single tenant or self hosted arrangement, or named cloud provider is published, and nothing separates where processing happens from where data is stored beyond the transfer statement.

A real security governance document is published, and no certification is held or claimed. The enterprise site publishes a Política de Gestão Integrada for the information security management system, with a downloadable PDF, a version number, a creation date of 20 January 2026 and GRC and Security as the owning function. It states that the system is built to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and sets directives on confidentiality, integrity and availability, unauthorized access, monitored use of assets, incident management and continuity, vulnerability and risk treatment, training and senior management accountability.

It applies to employees, interns and third parties. It does not claim the certification: its opening calls ISO/IEC 27001 certification a strategic objective of the security function. No certificate, auditor, SOC report, audit period, scope statement, penetration test result or trust center is published.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, and the disclosed part is the vendor's own model, not the third party ones. The vendor's launch material says that alongside established third party models it has its own foundational model trained on its legal database, developed with Maritaca AI, a Brazilian company that adapts language models to particular domains and languages. Trade press quoting the vendor names the partner model as Sabiá.

So one supplier and its model are named. The rest are not. Clause 4.1.5 of the privacy policy refers to the third party language models behind Jus IA without naming one, clause 5.4.1 of the terms refers to partner companies providing language processing without naming one, and clause 8.4 says AI features may depend on third party models subject to their own policies. The record shows who built the specialized model, not whose general models process a user's inputs. No commitment to notify customers of changes is given, and no subprocessor list exists.

Pricing is published with the unit of charge, the figures, the limits and the terms, without a sales conversation. Three tiers have regular monthly prices: Essencial at R$78.90, Profissional at R$108.90 and Premium at R$208.90, each shown against a promotional first month rate, with monthly and annual billing and an annual saving of up to 33 percent. The unit of charge is the AI message: 30, 150 and unlimited a month.

A table sets seven further limits per tier, including document uploads of 10, 50 and unlimited a month, file sizes of 10MB, 50MB and unlimited, and doctrine access of 3 works a month then unlimited. The agreement sets the commercial terms: automatic renewal at clause 3.4, cancellation at any time with benefits to the end of the paid cycle, a seven day refund window at clause 3.4.1, and no lock in where no minimum period is set at clause 3.4.2.

An enterprise route for firms, companies and public institutions is named, with payment by boleto. The page title states a first month from R$9.90, while the body shows R$1.90 for all three tiers.

Coverage is described in real numbers across one jurisdiction, and the limits are unstated. The vendor publishes more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals, a base of more than 1.2 billion documents updated daily, and collections for case law, legislation, doctrine of more than 1,900 works, filed pleadings and community models. Practice areas are the whole of Brazilian law, not a named list. Buyers are named across two arms: individual lawyers and law students on the consumer platform, and law firms, corporate legal departments, companies and public institutions through the enterprise arm, which has pages for each.

Professional features require Bar registration. No depth or lag is given per tribunal, nothing says which courts are covered in full text rather than summary, and no practice area or matter type is named as out of scope. The jurisdiction is implied by the sources, not stated.