AI Legal Index
Vendors · Contract Review & Drafting

L
Law Insider

Law Insider is an AI contract drafting and review product from Law Insider Inc., run together with SimpleDocs, Inc. The About page announces that SimpleDocs acquired Law Insider, and the data processing terms describe SimpleDocs as a sister company that runs the Word add in's infrastructure. The SimpleAI add in reviews contracts inside Microsoft Word against playbooks, including a library of more than 40 standard playbooks, flags missing clauses and risks, and proposes redlines and alternative language that the user accepts or ignores.

It also compares documents and answers questions about a contract through chat. A web AI Assistant drafts contracts and clauses. Suggested language is benchmarked against the company's public contract and clause database through a Law Insider Index score, and clause generation uses OpenAI models. The site also hosts the oneNDA, oneSaaS and oneDPA open contract standards. SimpleAI is sold per user, at $179 a month or $1,790 a year after a seven day trial, with enterprise pricing on request, and the company reports more than 10,000 customers worldwide.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

Law Insider, 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 Law Insider

Other products that do the same kind of work as Law Insider, and what each one does.

All Law Insider alternatives, with prices →

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.

SimpleAI reviews contracts in Word against playbooks, flags missing clauses and risks, proposes redlines and alternative language, compares documents and answers questions through chat, and the web AI Assistant drafts contracts and clauses. The public contract database, clause search and dictionary that Law Insider was built on remain usable without any model.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

Law Insider's home page says generated clauses are validated against the company's contract database and that third party and AI generated clauses can be benchmarked against the Law Insider Index, and the add in draws alternative language from the clause database, which one product page puts at 20 million clauses and another at more than 200 million. No description of how the validation works, no linked sources for a given suggestion and no accuracy figures are published, and the terms state that output may be inaccurate or inappropriate.

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.

Suggestions are proposed, not applied: in Word the user reviews, accepts or ignores each AI highlight and redline. The Terms of Service put the review duty in writing, making the customer responsible for subjecting output to quality control including human review and verification, and describing output as provided as is. What is not published is any limit on use without review, any threshold for uncertain output, or anything on what happens when a suggestion is wrong.

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.

The site reports more than 10,000 customers worldwide and shows logos including the US Army, Humana, SpaceX, Dow, Chubb, the US Air Force, Cloudflare, NYU, Casio, Wix and DuPont. No case study, named user outcome or measured result is published on the home page, the product pages or the about page.

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.

The Terms of Service, last updated 23 June 2025, state that Law Insider does not use customer content to train AI models and requires its third party providers not to; the incorporated standard terms bind both parties to confidentiality, require prompt notice before any legally compelled disclosure where permitted, and commit to breach notice within 72 hours; and the data processing terms describe customer data as logically segregated in a multi tenant system.

Nothing addresses privilege or separation between matters. The terms send content to third party AI providers, Microsoft and SimpleDocs for processing, while the add in FAQ says documents are never shared with third parties. The standard terms also allow anonymized, aggregated customer content to be used to improve and develop services.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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 Terms of Service state that output, the Word add in and all other content are not legal advice, that Law Insider does not review information for legal accuracy, draw legal conclusions or apply law to facts, that no attorney client relationship is created, that it is not a lawyer referral service, and that users needing advice should consult a qualified attorney licensed in an appropriate jurisdiction; they also make the customer responsible for human review and verification of output.

Nothing addresses a lawyer's own professional obligations when using the product, and no jurisdiction limits or ethics guidance are named.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure is published; the AI features clause in the terms warns that output may be inaccurate but describes no oversight of the models themselves.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

The data processing terms publish hosting on Google Cloud Platform in the US, with the Word add in run by SimpleDocs on AWS in the US and Ireland; least privilege access with multifactor authentication and monitored logs; encryption in transit and at rest; annual third party penetration testing; a documented incident response plan with breach notice without undue delay; a named subprocessor list with advance notice of changes and a right to object; and deletion of customer content on request.

The retention period is stated only as long as necessary, and the subprocessor list, which covers marketing, analytics and support tools and SimpleDocs, does not name the AI model provider the product uses.

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.

The standard terms give an uncapped defense against third party intellectual property infringement claims over the service, a warranty that the service performs substantially to its documentation with repair, replacement or refund as the remedy, and a liability cap of fees paid in the preceding 12 months. AI output is excluded from all of it: the Terms of Service provide it as is and with all faults, with no warranty of accuracy, and place decisions made in reliance on it at the customer's own risk. Disputes go to individual arbitration in Delaware with a one year limitation period.

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.

The integration is Microsoft Word, and it is the main product surface. SimpleAI runs as a Word add in on Mac and Windows, showing highlights, redlines and alternative language inside the document for the user to accept or ignore, with the web AI Assistant available alongside. No other integration is named, and there is no connection to a document management, contract management or matter system.

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.

The service is cloud only. The data processing terms say customer data is hosted on Google Cloud Platform in US data centers, that the Word add in runs on SimpleDocs's AWS infrastructure in the US and Ireland, and that customer data is logically segregated in a multi tenant architecture. No residency choice is offered, and where AI processing happens is not stated separately from storage.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Security Certifications and Trust CenterBadges appear on the site with no scope, no date, and no report available.

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.

Every page carries SOC 2 Type II, TX-RAMP and GDPR compliance badges, and the add in FAQ calls SimpleAI SOC 2 certified; no auditor, scope, date or report is given. The data processing terms describe annual third party penetration testing and give customers audit rights. The Terms of Service point to a SimpleDocs trust center for the Word add in.

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 provider is named in the marketing: Law Insider's home page says clauses are generated using OpenAI, and the add in page describes review with Law Insider OpenAI. The Terms of Service say AI features use third party providers bound not to train on customer content. The specific models, where they run and any notice of model changes are not published, and OpenAI does not appear on the published subprocessor list.

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.

SimpleAI costs $179 per user per month, or $1,790 per user per year on annual billing, after a seven day free trial that requires a card and converts automatically unless canceled; plans can be changed or canceled at any time, with fees already paid kept. Enterprise pricing is available only through sales.

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 use covers contract drafting, review, redlining and comparison for legal teams and business users, in nearly any language, in Word on Mac or Windows. One boundary is stated in the terms: the service must not be used in high risk environments or to process sensitive personal data unless Law Insider agrees in writing. Firm sizes, work beyond contracts and jurisdictions are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for Law Insider, 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

$1,790 per user per year

USD, as published, never converted
  • SimpleAI costs $1,790 per user each year if you pay annually.
  • If you pay monthly it is $179 per user each month.
  • There is a seven day free trial, but you must enter a card and it turns into a paid plan unless you cancel.
  • You can change or cancel your plan at any time, but you do not get back money already paid.
  • Bigger companies must ask sales for an enterprise price.
Source: Vendor PublishedLaw Insider pricing in full →Which legal AI vendors publish their pricing →

Per user subscription for SimpleAI, the Word add in and AI Assistant: $1,790 per user per year on annual billing, or $179 per user per month on monthly billing, after a seven day free trial, backed by a card, that converts automatically. Plans can be upgraded, downgraded or canceled from the account page. An Enterprise plan is priced only through sales. The public contract and clause database is also browsable on the site.

Implementation: None published. The self serve plan starts from checkout; enterprise onboarding is arranged through sales.

Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to. The terms bar use of the service to process sensitive personal data unless Law Insider agrees in writing.

Note: Prices are shown in US dollars with a currency selector for other currencies. The trial converts to a paid subscription automatically unless canceled, and fees already paid are kept on cancellation.

Change log

Product updates

Sep 25, 2026Product / capabilityPartially Verified

SimpleDocs, Law Insider's parent, launched Risk Review 2.0 in SimpleAI, the engine inside the Law Insider Word Add in. It adds a lightweight review profile, a configurable Primary issues checklist (auto renewal, choice of law, use of data for AI training, unlimited liability and more) with custom checks, and a Market review powered by the Law Insider database that flags nonstandard or aggressive terms outside the checklist. Each flagged issue gets a risk level and a Fix action that generates a suggested redline the user can modify, dismiss or apply.

Bears on: AI CentralitySource
All Law Insider updates →

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 Terms of Service, last updated 23 June 2025, state that Law Insider does not use customer content to train artificial intelligence or machine learning models and requires its third party AI providers not to either. The incorporated standard terms separately allow customer content to be anonymized and aggregated with other customers' data to improve and develop services, which is not framed as model training.

Source: Vendor Publishedrequires that its third-party providers do not, use Customer Content to trainAs 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.

The Terms of Service let the customer request deletion of its content, and the data processing terms commit to returning or deleting personal data on request or by the end of the term, keeping it only as long as necessary. No fixed period, no zero retention setting and no retention terms for the AI providers are stated, and data cannot be exported after the agreement ends unless an order form provides otherwise.

Source: Vendor PublishedCustomer may request deletion of Customer Content.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?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

Customer data is described as logically segregated between customers in a multi tenant system, but nothing in the Terms of Service, the standard terms, the data processing terms, the product pages or the privacy policy addresses walls or permissions between matters or users within a customer's account.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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 standard terms incorporated into the Terms of Service allow confidential information to be disclosed only where required by law, provided the disclosing party is promptly notified where permitted and the receiving party cooperates to minimize the disclosure. The data processing terms add that a public authority's request for personal data will, where legally allowed, be challenged and promptly notified. The privacy policy separately reserves disclosure in response to law enforcement or public authority requests.

Source: Vendor Publishedprovided it promptly notifies the disclosing party (if permitted)As 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?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

The product draws on a database of publicly sourced contracts and clauses, with third party clauses and templates held under their creators' rights; it is a contract collection, and the home page, the add in product page and the Terms of Service identify no body of primary law behind the output.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Good Law Verification

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

The product works on contract language rather than legal authority, and nothing on the home page, the add in product page or in the Terms of Service addresses checking authority for later history.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

The home page, the add in product page and the Terms of Service describe no confidence indicator, abstention path or behavior for output the system is unsure of; the terms warn only that output may be inaccurate or inappropriate.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case naming Law Insider or SimpleDocs, and no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product is on the public record. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

The Terms of Service carry a no legal advice clause: output and all content are not legal advice, no attorney client relationship is created, and users needing advice should consult a qualified attorney licensed in an appropriate jurisdiction. No bar or ethics opinion is named.

Source: Vendor Publisheddoes not constitute legal adviceAs 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?

Not addressed

The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.

The home page, the add in product page and the Terms of Service claim speed without cost or time figures, and nothing addresses how work done with the product is billed or disclosed to a law firm's clients.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

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 data processing terms publish a subprocessor list with each vendor's purpose, data categories and location, name the hosting providers, Google Cloud Platform and AWS, and commit to notice before a new subprocessor gains access, with a right to object. The list covers marketing, analytics, support and SimpleDocs; the AI model provider, which Law Insider's home page names as OpenAI, does not appear on it.

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?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

The home page, the add in product page and the Terms of Service describe no record of AI involvement in a document, no export of that record and no disclosure guidance.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026
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 465 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
November 10, 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