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 operates 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 large 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.
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 AI features are the product being sold, on top of a contract and clause database that works without them. 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. Verified 22 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.
How AI output ties to sources is described only in general terms. The 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 were located, and the terms state that output may be inaccurate or inappropriate. Verified 22 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.
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. Verified 22 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.
Logos and a customer count stand in for evidence. 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 was located on the home page, the product pages or the about page, checked on 22 September 2026. Verified 22 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.
The published agreement carries real commitments. 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.
Short of the full picture: nothing addresses privilege or separation between matters, and 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 anonymised, aggregated customer content to be used to improve and develop services. Verified 22 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. 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.
A product-scoped no-legal-advice clause with a review duty attached. 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. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page, the about page, the Terms of Service, the standard terms, the data processing terms and the privacy policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located; the AI features clause in the terms warns that output may be inaccurate but describes no oversight of the models themselves. Verified 22 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.
The data processing terms publish most of the ground in reviewable form: 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. Verified 22 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.
Recourse is real but partial. The standard terms give an uncapped defence 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. Verified 22 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.
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. Verified 22 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.
Cloud only, with the hosting locations stated. The data processing terms say customer data is hosted on Google Cloud Platform in US data centres, 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. Verified 22 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.
Badges name standards without reports. 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 centre for the Word add-in; it could not be opened on 22 September 2026, so its contents are not reflected here. Verified 22 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.
The provider is named in the marketing: the 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. Verified 22 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.
Self-serve pricing is published and the enterprise tier is withheld. 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 cancelled; plans can be changed or cancelled at any time, with fees already paid kept. Enterprise pricing is available only through sales. Verified 22 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 use is clear and wide: 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
-
lawinsider.com/terms-of-service3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
lawinsider.com/dpa1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
$1,790 per user per yearUSD, 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.
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 card-backed free trial that converts automatically. Plans can be upgraded, downgraded or cancelled 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 cancelled, and fees already paid are kept on cancellation.
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 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 anonymised and aggregated with other customers' data to improve and develop services, which is not framed as model training.
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 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.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Checked the Terms of Service, the standard terms, the data processing terms, the product pages and the privacy policy on 22 September 2026. Customer data is described as logically segregated between customers in a multi-tenant system, but nothing addresses walls or permissions between matters or users within a customer's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
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 minimise 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.
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.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. 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 corpus, and no body of primary law behind the output is identified.
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.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The product works on contract language rather than legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. No confidence indicator, abstention path or behaviour for output the system is unsure of is described; the terms warn only that output may be inaccurate or inappropriate.
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 on 22 September 2026 for Law Insider and for SimpleDocs, and no recorded case was returned for either. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
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 on any surface read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The marketing claims 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.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
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 the home page names as OpenAI, does not appear on it.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Checked the home page, the add-in product page and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. No record of AI involvement in a document, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described.