J
JusticeText
JusticeText is an evidence review platform for criminal defense attorneys, built mainly for public defender offices by JusticeText Inc. It transcribes body-worn camera footage, interrogation videos, jail calls, dashcam and courtroom recordings into searchable transcripts synced to the media, in more than 100 languages, and flags passages where transcription confidence is low. Its AI assistant, MirandaAI, answers questions across a case's evidence to build timelines and spot inconsistencies, and the platform produces summaries and key moments, reads PDF discovery, and cross-references documents against video.
It supports proprietary evidence formats such as GTL jail calls and WatchGuard cameras, syncs multiple camera angles, and provides clipping, redaction and captioning for courtroom exhibits. Named users include the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy and public defender offices in Harris County, Travis County, Santa Cruz County and Montana, as well as private defense firms. JusticeText's terms state that its AI transcripts are review aids that must be checked and must not be relied on directly as evidence. It does not publish pricing.
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 models are the engine of the core capability, on an evidence platform with substantial non-AI functions, which is the B band. Speech recognition produces the searchable, media-synced transcripts in more than 100 languages that the product leads with, and the MirandaAI assistant, summaries, key moments and PDF analysis are model work. Around them sits conventional evidence tooling that works without models: conversion of proprietary formats such as GTL jail calls and WatchGuard video, multi-camera syncing by capture time, and clipping, redaction and captioning for courtroom exhibits. Verified 18 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.
Output is grounded in the source media and a failure condition is named with a visible behaviour, short of any measurement, which is the B band. Transcripts are time-synced to the original audio and video so any passage can be checked against the recording, and the product FAQ names the conditions under which transcription degrades, overlapping voices, static and background noise, and says the transcript clearly identifies areas of lower confidence so reviewers focus there.
No accuracy figure is published, nothing describes how MirandaAI answers are grounded or cited, and the terms disclaim any warranty of transcript accuracy. Verified 18 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.
A named output carries a categorical constraint on use, with a review surface built in, which meets the A band on the categorical-constraint reading. The Terms of Service state that machine-generated transcriptions are tools to aid review, not authoritative records of events, that every transcription must be checked for accuracy by the user, and that users agree not to rely directly on system transcriptions as evidence in a court, arbitration, mediation or other formal proceeding or settlement negotiation.
The product supports that check by flagging low-confidence passages and syncing text to the original media, and exhibits are clipped from the original video rather than the transcript. The constraint is specific to transcriptions: MirandaAI's timelines and inconsistency findings carry no equivalent stated limit, which is recorded so the grade is read correctly. Verified 18 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 deployments with figures, short of any method, which is the B band. The vendor publishes case studies and rollout stories naming the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, the Santa Cruz County, Lane County, Travis County, Lehigh County and Siskiyou County defenders, Kansas Holistic Defenders, and private firms including Rossen Law and Nicholson Goetz & Otis, with attributed quotes from chief defenders in Harris County and Montana.
Rossen Law says the product cut video review and trial preparation time by at least two-thirds. No figure states how it was measured, over what caseload or period. Verified 18 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.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms while the agreement permits model tuning from customer content, which places this at C. The product page says data remains confidential, the customer controls access and deletion, content is encrypted on U.S. servers, and evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models. The Terms of Service contain no confidentiality clause protecting customer content; the content licence is limited to providing the service, but a separate Machine Learning clause authorises calibrating data models and improving algorithms in the course of processing user content.
The privacy policy permits sharing de-identified aggregate data with research partners and funders. Nothing addresses privilege or defense work product, which is what public defenders' notes, tags and clips are. Verified 18 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.
A clear position on what the output is and is not, with a defined audience, short of the supervision dimension, which is the B band. The terms state that transcriptions are review aids and not authoritative records, must be checked, and must not be relied on directly as evidence, and both the terms and privacy policy say JusticeText cannot answer requests for legal advice. The audience is attorneys, and the privacy policy collects each user's law licensing state.
The terms disclaim any representation that the service is appropriate or lawful in a given location, including under court orders. Nothing addresses an attorney's competence or supervision duties when relying on MirandaAI analysis. Verified 18 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.
No governance position published on the vendor's own estate. Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. The product's Built for responsible review section covers data security only, and no responsible AI policy, testing regime or accountable owner was located. A vendor-authored submission hosted by MIT Solve acknowledges that speech recognition engines are less accurate on African American Vernacular English, which is the kind of uneven-output disclosure this axis looks for, but it is not on the vendor's estate and is not dated, so it is recorded and not credited. Verified 18 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.
A substantive published position covering most of the ground, short of a subprocessor list and a concrete incident commitment, which is the B band. The privacy policy states that information is stored encrypted on AWS servers in the United States and encrypted in transit, gives users a right to deletion completed in most cases within 30 days, and names categories of providers (hosting, transcoding, storage, databases, crash monitoring, payments) with AWS and Stripe named.
The product page adds multi-factor authentication and single sign-on and says customers control access and deletion. Breach notification is promised only as required by law, the terms reserve retention and destruction under internal policies that are not published, and no full subprocessor list, including any AI or speech recognition provider, is given. Verified 18 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.
Liability is addressed only through limitations that disclaim the exposure the product creates, which is the C band. The terms provide the system as is, disclaim any warranty of transcript accuracy, disclaim liability for any legal action or court decision resulting from transcripts or machine learning output, cap liability at the amount paid or $100, and require users to indemnify JusticeText. No vendor indemnity or insurance position is published. Verified 18 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.
Named connections exist, short of documented depth, which is the B band. The product page shows imports from Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box and the Clio practice management system, and the privacy policy describes the cloud storage integrations and Google API use. The platform also ingests the proprietary formats defense discovery arrives in, including GTL jail calls, For The Record courtroom recordings, AV Viewer and WatchGuard.
What each connection moves, and whether results flow back to Clio or case management, is not documented. Verified 18 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.
The hosting model and region are stated, with no options and no tenancy detail, which is the B band. The privacy policy states that information is stored in encrypted form on servers in the United States operated by Amazon Web Services, and the product page repeats that content is stored on encrypted U.S. servers. No tenancy model, deployment option or separate processing location for speech recognition or AI providers is stated. Verified 18 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.
No independent security attestation located. Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy, and ran a targeted search for a JusticeText SOC 2 or CJIS statement, on 18 September 2026. The vendor describes encryption, multi-factor authentication and single sign-on but names no audit or standard, which matters for a product holding criminal discovery. Verified 18 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.
Third-party models are acknowledged without being identified, which is the C band. The product page says evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models, and the terms say third-party tools execute some functionality and may access user content. No speech recognition engine, language model or provider is named on any surface read, and no change notification is described. Verified 18 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.
The pricing structure is described without figures, which places this at C. The Terms of Service describe monthly and annual subscriptions that renew automatically, usage limits on processing time that can block further processing until the next term, free initial access for a period or amount of usage, and no refunds. No price, rate or plan is published; access starts through an interest form. Verified 18 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.
The segment and evidence types are described with substance, short of the boundaries, which is the B band. The vendor serves public defender offices and private criminal defense attorneys, and covers body-worn camera footage, interrogations, jail calls, dashcam, courtroom recordings and written discovery, with transcription and translation in more than 100 languages and support for named proprietary formats. It does not state which jurisdictions it serves, which evidence types it handles poorly beyond noisy audio, or whether it is suitable for civil or prosecution use. Verified 18 September 2026.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for JusticeText, 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.
-
justicetext.com/product3 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour, Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
justicetext.com/privacy-policy2 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
justicetext.com1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
justicetext.com/terms-of-service1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 18, 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 agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The published Terms of Service reserve a right to tune the vendor's own models using customer content, with no opt out located. The Machine Learning clause authorises JusticeText to use machine learning to generate statistics, calibrate data models and improve algorithms in the course of processing uploaded content and usage data, and to test, tune, optimise, validate or otherwise enhance the models underlying the system.
The product page states that evidence is never used to train third-party machine learning models; that statement is limited to third parties and does not address the vendor's own models.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
The customer controls deletion of uploaded evidence. The product page says customers control access and deletion, and the privacy policy gives a right to deletion completed in most cases within 30 days, subject to legal retention and to de-identified usage data the vendor may keep. The terms also reserve retention and destruction under internal policies that are not published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Sharing is controlled by the user, with no published detail on how separation is enforced. The privacy policy says data and work product are shared with other users only on request or according to account preferences, such as with another member of the same office. Nothing documents how cases, attorneys or co-defendant matters are walled off within an office.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Disclosure under legal compulsion is limited to what the law requires, and customer notice is not addressed. The privacy policy permits disclosure for compliance with law enforcement and court orders only to the extent required, and the terms allow disclosure to law enforcement on breach. Neither commits to telling the customer before or after disclosure, which matters for a product holding defense discovery and work product.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. The AI works over the customer's own discovery rather than a legal research corpus, and no external legal source is 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.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The product does not cite legal authority, so no subsequent-history check arises and none is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The product exposes a confidence or grounding score without an explicit abstention path.
The transcript marks low-confidence passages, with no documented abstention path. The product FAQ says that for poor audio, overlapping voices and background noise the AI transcript clearly identifies areas of lower confidence so reviewers can focus there. Nothing describes what MirandaAI does when the evidence does not answer a question.
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 and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from JusticeText. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Searched the home and product pages, the terms and the privacy policy on 18 September 2026. No bar ethics opinion or court rule on AI is named or engaged in connection with the product.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The product is bought mainly by public defender offices, where no client is billed for the work. Time savings are claimed as capacity for the office's own caseload. Private criminal defense firms also use it, where a fee relationship would arise, and nothing addresses billing or disclosure for that use.
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.
Searched the terms, privacy policy and product pages on 18 September 2026. The privacy policy names AWS and Stripe and lists other provider categories, but no speech recognition or AI provider is named and no data processing agreement is published.
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.
Some elements of a record exist, short of a disclosure export. Transcripts are time-synced to the original media with low-confidence passages marked, and courtroom exhibits are clipped from the original video with captions. The terms bar relying on the transcript itself as evidence. Nothing records which model produced a transcript, summary or MirandaAI answer, or who verified it.