L
LawVu

LawVu is a legal operating system for in house legal teams, built in Tauranga, New Zealand, since 2015 and marketed as LegalOS since June 2026. Its plans cover intake and triage, matters, contract lifecycle management, legal spend with electronic billing, reporting and a document repository, and LawVu says hundreds of in house teams in more than 30 countries use it. LawVu Intelligence adds an Assistant for the legal team that answers questions and updates records once a user approves, and a legal assistant for business users in the Business Portal.

It also adds an agentic workflow builder sold as an add on, and contract and invoice extraction with billing guideline review. LawVu Lens analyzes executed contracts with citations to the source, and LawVu Draft, formerly ClauseBase, drafts and redlines in Microsoft Word against the customer's playbooks. The AI runs on Microsoft Azure AI Foundry and Azure OpenAI, and each customer chooses a data region in Australia, the United States, Europe, Canada or the United Arab Emirates.

LawVu publishes its SaaS terms, AI service terms, data processing addendum and subprocessor list, and its terms bar third parties from training on customer data. A Power Platform connector, an MCP server and a REST API connect it to other systems.

Compared with

LawVu, 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

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.

LawVu sold a legal workspace for about a decade before its AI layer, and its intake, matters, contracts, spend, reporting and document modules run as workflow and record keeping without a model. The AI now reaches most of those modules. LawVu Intelligence covers an Assistant for in house legal users and a legal assistant for business users in the Business Portal. It also covers AI intake that routes requests by risk and urgency, contract extraction, bulk contract import, invoice extraction and billing guideline review.

LawVu Lens turns executed contracts into structured data on obligations and risk, and LawVu Draft, acquired as ClauseBase in December 2025, drafts and redlines inside Word. The June 2026 LegalOS launch recast the platform around these agents, and the homepage describes LegalOS as designed with AI as a foundational layer. In the help center in October 2026 the Assistant and the Business Portal assistant were in a beta open by invitation, and the workflow builder was marked coming soon. The record keeping product is still the base the AI reads from and writes to.

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.

LawVu's AI answers from the customer's own records and points back to them. LawVu Lens reviews clauses side by side with citations back to the source contracts, and the Assistant may cite the LawVu records an answer came from. The Business Portal assistant answers business users from knowledge content available to them and shows excerpts from the source where available, so the user can verify the response. It says when it cannot find a reliable answer rather than generating one.

LawVu Draft reviews contracts against the customer's own clause library, precedents and imported playbooks, so a reviewer can trace a redline to the standard behind it. LawVu's AI service terms say outputs may be incomplete or inaccurate and must be reviewed before use. The help center says the Assistant may return incomplete or incorrect information and that important information should be verified. The figures LawVu attaches to its AI measure speed, such as up to five times faster reviews in Draft, rather than accuracy, error rates or results on a test set.

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.

In LawVu the AI proposes and a person approves. The Assistant asks for approval before it creates or updates a record, and it cannot delete records, approve or reject contracts or invoices, or fully automate complex workflows. It acts only on information the user already has permission to see. Assistant supported actions are labeled in the product and recorded in a full audit trail, and actions taken through the MCP server land in the same activity log as actions taken by people.

Agentic workflows run on events, schedules or on demand inside guardrails the legal team sets, and the homepage promises human in the loop guardrails on all agentic capabilities. The AI service terms say outputs cannot be relied on for decision making without human review. The acceptable use policy bars fully automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on individuals without human oversight, testing or prior risk evaluation.

A help article describes the coming workflow builder as running autonomous workflows for the Assistant without human intervention, and states no limit on what those workflows may change.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

LawVu's customer stories name the organization and the person speaking, and several carry figures. At Sizzling Platter, LawVu bulk created more than 700 matters from the legal team's spreadsheets during a three month implementation, which corporate counsel Samuel Gray says saved up to 175 hours of data entry. Dentsu has centralized more than 10,000 contracts in LawVu across more than 40 markets. The AES legal team says its use of AI rose from 30 percent to 80 percent in 2024, with LawVu Draft a large part of that.

A healthcare legal operations lead, whose organization is not named, says the average master services agreement went from 21 business days to six. The stories carry no publication date, and each figure is the customer's own account without a stated method. The June 2026 LegalOS release names Discord, Etsy, Employment Hero, The Pokémon Company and Estée Lauder among customers. The plans page adds modeled returns, such as 344 percent a year for a team of five.

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.

LawVu states its training position in its contract and in its AI FAQ. The AI service terms bar third parties from using customer data or outputs to improve or train AI and machine learning models, including LawVu's AI services. The AI security and privacy FAQ says LawVu trains no models on customer data, directly or indirectly, and that inputs and outputs to the AI services are not used for training. LawVu operates under an exemption from Microsoft's standard Azure OpenAI monitoring, so Microsoft may not access or monitor its usage, and interactions with the AI tools are transactional and retain no data.

Each customer's data is logically segregated from other customers' data. Restricted matters are visible only to members added to them, and the Assistant, the Business Portal assistant and the MCP server all work within each user's existing permissions. The SaaS terms let LawVu collect anonymized statistical data about use, such as session data, page loads and which features are used, to improve services and develop new ones.

The SaaS terms protect customer data through a mutual confidentiality clause, which allows disclosure to a party's lawyers and other professional advisors and does not mention legal privilege.

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.

LawVu draws the advice line in its terms and in the product. The AI service terms say outputs cannot be relied on as any form of legal or other advice. The acceptable use policy, which every user of the generative AI features must acknowledge, bars using the AI services as a substitute for licensed legal advice. It also bars letting unqualified individuals generate or rely on outputs such as legal documents without appropriate professional legal supervision, and relying solely on AI output for legal or regulatory determinations without human review.

Business users reach AI directly through the Business Portal assistant, whose help article says it does not provide legal advice and that legal advice comes from the customer's legal team. LawVu sells to in house legal departments, and the legal team decides who can use the Assistant and what business users can see. The policy applies one standard everywhere LawVu sells and sets no jurisdiction specific limits.

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.

LawVu's trust center carries an AI Governance page and a set of AI Principles covering AI used inside LawVu and AI in the product. The six principles are user centric, transparent, reliable, safe and secure, trustworthy, and privacy and data governance. They commit LawVu to be transparent about its AI practices, technology, suppliers and data usage, and to monitor AI tools to reduce adverse impacts. The principles are reviewed annually.

The AI FAQ says LawVu completes privacy impact assessments for all new AI features, and that its AI systems inherit the security and privacy controls of its hosted software inside the ISO 27001 certified program. Generative AI features are switched on by opting in, and organization administrators enable or disable new features at any time. On ISO 42001, the AI product pages say LawVu is certified, while the FAQ, updated March 2026, says it is aligned and pursuing independent audit and certification.

The framework is written as principles and assessments, without a named owner of AI governance or reported testing or bias results.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

LawVu puts retention, deletion, access, subprocessor and incident terms in its published contract documents. The data processing addendum commits to breach notice without undue delay and, where feasible, within 72 hours. It gives 30 days' notice of a new subprocessor with 15 days to object on data protection grounds, and requires return and deletion of personal information at termination. The SaaS terms give the customer a month after termination to request a copy of its data and let backups hold it for up to a year.

The subprocessor list, last updated 4 August 2026, names nine entries with the activity and processing country for each, including Microsoft Azure for hosting and Azure OpenAI for AI services. AI calls are transactional and keep no data, while Assistant logs stay visible in the product for 30 days and are available from LawVu after that on request. Access runs through roles and permissions, restricted matters, SAML single sign on with SCIM provisioning and enforceable multifactor authentication.

Data is encrypted at rest with AES 256 and in transit with TLS 1.2 or higher, and LawVu keeps a 35 day point in time restore plus a daily backup to a secondary subscription.

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.

LawVu publishes the contract that allocates loss. The SaaS terms, which apply to order forms signed after 13 May 2024, cap each party's liability in a calendar year at the fees paid or payable for that year. They exclude indirect and consequential loss, lost profits and loss of data, and lift the cap only for personal injury, death or fraud. LawVu indemnifies the customer against third party claims that its use of the services or platform infringes intellectual property.

The indemnity excludes unauthorized use or modification, breach of the agreement, materials LawVu did not supply, and third party or personal data. The AI service terms, effective 30 April 2026, carve AI output out. LawVu does not warrant that outputs are complete or accurate, accepts no liability for loss relating to them, and requires the customer to review every output before use. The services are provided as is. New Zealand law governs, or Delaware law for customers in the United States, with arbitration in each.

Source: Operator Verified
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

LawVu documents its integrations at the level an implementer needs. Microsoft's own connector reference lists LawVu for Power Automate, Power Apps, Copilot Studio and Logic Apps. It documents 26 actions, such as creating a matter or uploading a file, and 14 triggers, such as a contract changing state. It also sets a limit of 100 calls per connection a minute and a separate sign in for LawVu's region for United States government customers.

The REST API uses OAuth clients, covers matters, contracts, files, users and invoices, and supports webhooks. The MCP server lets Claude, ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot read and write LawVu data within each user's access, and every action goes to the activity log. LawVu Draft is a Word add in. Outlook and Gmail sync turns email into structured requests, intake also runs through Teams and Slack, and DocuSign, Adobe Sign, Dropbox Sign and Formstack are embedded for signature and document generation.

An iManage integration, built and supported by partner Blue Car Technologies, mirrors files and folders between LawVu and iManage and syncs edits both ways. Help guides cover SharePoint, Box and Google Drive.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment options and data residency are published, including the regions available, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.

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.

LawVu runs on Microsoft Azure, with each customer's data logically segregated from other customers' data. Customers choose one of five regions, in Australia, the United States, Europe, Canada or the United Arab Emirates. LawVu contractually agrees to store data in the chosen region, with primary and secondary data centers inside its boundaries. Microsoft's connector reference also lists a LawVu region for United States government customers.

AI processing can leave the storage region, and the subprocessor list says where. Azure OpenAI processing follows the SaaS agreement for United States and European data stacks, runs in Europe for Australian and UAE customers, and runs in the United States for Canadian customers. The AI FAQ says data processed outside the region is handled only transiently to produce the output, while the AI product page says data stays in the chosen region at rest.

A 99.95 percent monthly uptime commitment sits in the service level addendum, with support around the clock through in app chat and response times set by severity.

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.

LawVu has held ISO 27001 certification since April 2019, maintained through annual internal and external audits. Its compliance page dates its first SOC 2 audit to January 2020 and its first SOC 1 audit to February 2021. It was certified in 2025 against the Dubai Electronic Security Center's standard for cloud providers serving UAE government and semi government entities, and it holds AssuranceLab seals of compliance for HIPAA, CCPA and GDPR.

The ISO statement of applicability and certificates, the SOC reports, penetration test reports and the business continuity plan sit in the LawVu security pack. A visitor gets the pack through a request form after accepting a notice of confidentiality, or by email under a nondisclosure agreement. Annual penetration tests come from CREST certified vendors, and Qualys scans the application for new vulnerabilities daily.

AssuranceLab is the only assessor named on the open pages, so the ISO and SOC auditors, report types and periods are in the pack. LawVu's AI product pages say it is certified to ISO 42001, while its AI security and privacy FAQ, updated March 2026, says it is aligned with the standard and pursuing certification.

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.

LawVu names its AI providers feature by feature. Its AI FAQ lists Microsoft Azure AI Foundry, using Azure OpenAI and Foundry models, for contract extraction, bulk import, billing guidelines and drafting and review. Azure Document Intelligence handles invoice extraction, Azure Content Understanding joins it for Workspace Intelligence, and Azure AI Search supports drafting. The Copilot integration uses the customer's own Microsoft Copilot licenses.

The subprocessor list states where Azure OpenAI processing runs for each data region, and the data processing addendum gives 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor. A help article says LawVu Draft uses Azure GPT 4 by default and lets administrators add Anthropic Claude or OpenAI GPT models with their own API keys, stored encrypted on Draft servers. The AI FAQ says customers cannot bring their own model to LawVu, which provisions and manages every model. Model versions outside Draft, and notice when a model inside Azure changes, are not part of the published terms.

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.

LawVu's plans page sets out the structure of its pricing without figures. Three LegalOS plans build on each other. Matters covers intake and matter management, Essentials adds contract management, and Ultimate adds spend management. Price depends on the plan chosen and the number of users. LawVu Draft is sold as an add on or on its own, and the agentic workflow builder is a paid add on. Each plan carries a standard onboarding fee in its first year, support and customer success are included, and a few integrations cost extra.

Spend management is priced in tiers by the number of law firms a customer works with rather than by its legal spend. Bulk contract import is included once at implementation and quoted separately after that. The Assistant is free to explore during its beta, and the help center says LawVu expects to add usage tracking and consumption based pricing tiers, with advance notice before any change.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Firm and Practice CoverageWho the product serves is documented precisely: firm segments, in house and government use, and the practice areas actually supported, with the limits stated.

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.

LawVu is built for in house legal departments. Its industry pages cover healthcare, higher education, software and technology, financial services, government, energy, manufacturing and insurance. Role pages address general counsel and chief legal officers, legal operations, IT teams and teams with no legal technology yet. Customer stories filter by Asia Pacific, North America, the United Kingdom, Europe and the United Arab Emirates.

Data regions cover Australia, the United States, Europe, Canada and the United Arab Emirates, and Microsoft's connector reference adds a LawVu region for United States government customers. LegalOS covers intake, matters, contracts, spend, reporting and documents, with contract management in the Essentials plan and spend in Ultimate. Law firms appear as outside counsel, submitting invoices and seeing their matters, invoices and billing guidelines through a self service portal.

LawVu Draft supports multilingual drafting, which the AES legal team, half of whom speak Spanish, cites as a reason for adoption. Law firm practice management, litigation support and legal research sit outside the product.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

10 public documents

The public pages on file for LawVu, 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.

What changed

Tracked changes at LawVu

Oct 6, 2026Product / capabilityPartially Verified

LawVu launched Lens, a generally available add on to LawVu LegalOS that analyses whole contract portfolios at once using obligation frameworks built by legal experts. Users ask plain language questions and get answers cited to the source contracts, and LawVu names renewal and service level risk, change of control and consent checks for M&A and audit, and incident response as uses. LawVu says customer data does not train its models.

Bears on: AI CentralitySource

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.

LawVu's AI service terms, part of the customer agreement, bar third parties from using customer data or outputs to improve or train AI and machine learning models, including LawVu's AI services. The AI security and privacy FAQ adds that LawVu trains no models on customer data, directly or indirectly, and does not let its service providers train theirs. Inputs and outputs to the AI services are not used for training. LawVu operates under an exemption from Microsoft's standard Azure OpenAI monitoring, so Microsoft may not access or monitor that usage.

The SaaS terms let LawVu collect anonymized statistical data from use of the services, such as session data, page loads and which features are used, to improve services and develop new ones.

Source: Operator VerifiedWe do not permit third parties to use your User Data or OutputsAs of Oct 9, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Calls to LawVu's AI services are transactional, and the AI FAQ says they retain no customer data. Data processed outside the customer's region is handled only transiently to produce the output. What persists sits in the product. Assistant conversations, actions and approvals are logged for audit, visible in LawVu for 30 days and available from LawVu after that on request, with no end date given. Extracted contract data and key dates become part of the customer's records.

At termination the customer has a month to request a copy of its data, and backups may hold it for up to a year. The data processing addendum requires deletion of personal information under the agreement.

Source: Operator VerifiedActivity logs are available in LawVu for 30 daysAs of Oct 9, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

LawVu keeps its own permission model. A restricted matter is visible only to people added to it as members, and for anyone else it effectively does not exist. Administrators see it in a restricted entities report with only its ID, type, state, owner and manager. Contracts created inside a restricted matter, and statements of work created inside those contracts, inherit its members, though existing contracts linked to it later do not.

Security groups such as matter administrators, contract administrators and teams set what each user sees, and legal service providers can join restricted matters but cannot restrict them. The Assistant, the Business Portal assistant and the MCP server act only within the user's existing access. The model is LawVu's own, separate from the iManage or SharePoint workspaces it syncs with.

Source: Operator Verifiedonly visible to people who have been explicitly added to the matter as membersAs of Oct 9, 2026Evidence

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.

LawVu's data processing addendum commits it to notify the customer promptly of any legally binding request for disclosure of customer personal information by a regulatory body, unless the law prohibits notice. The commitment covers requests addressed to LawVu or any of its subprocessors. The addendum also commits LawVu to tell the customer about monitoring or investigations by a regulatory body. Regulatory bodies are defined to include government departments and regulatory and statutory bodies entitled to regulate or investigate data security and privacy.

The SaaS terms add that a party required by law to disclose the other's confidential information must notify the other immediately in writing where permissible and disclose only what is required. LawVu issues no transparency report. Once a calendar year, under a nondisclosure agreement, a customer can have the latest independent audit report, with an audit at its own cost where the report is not enough.

Source: Operator Verifiedany legally binding request addressed to LawVu or any of its SubprocessorsAs of Oct 9, 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.

LawVu's AI works from the customer's own material. The Assistant draws on matters, contracts, policies, knowledge repositories and legal notes in the customer's LegalOS. LawVu Draft drafts and reviews from the customer's clause library, precedents and imported playbooks, with LawVu's base templates as a starting point. The Business Portal assistant answers business users from knowledge content the legal team makes available, and LawVu Lens reads the customer's executed contracts. No primary law collection, licensed legal content or update cadence sits behind the answers.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 9, 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.

LawVu works on contracts, matters and invoices rather than case law, so a citator sits outside the product. Draft checks contracts against the customer's playbooks and clause library, and Lens cites back to the source contract rather than to legal authority. Lens identifies risky terms and inconsistencies across a contract portfolio against the customer's own standards. Keeping playbooks, clauses and policies in step with changes in law is the work of the legal team that maintains them.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 9, 2026

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.

The Business Portal assistant has a stated path for questions it cannot answer. When it cannot find a reliable answer it suggests another way to look, recommends creating a legal request or says it could not find one. It does not generate answers that the available information cannot support, and where available it shows excerpts from the source so the user can check the response. Its help article adds that mistakes can occur and important information should be verified.

The legal team's Assistant may return incomplete or incorrect information, its own help article says, and it asks for approval before it changes any record. No confidence indicator appears on AI output in Lens, Draft or either assistant.

Source: Operator VerifiedThe assistant does not generate answers that can't be supported by available information.As of Oct 9, 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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming LawVu, LawVu Draft, LawVu Lens or ClauseBase. LawVu drafts contracts and answers questions from an in house team's own records rather than producing court filings.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 9, 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.

LawVu's acceptable use policy refers to professional duties in general terms. It bars using the AI services as a substitute for licensed legal, financial or other professional advice. It also bars letting unqualified individuals generate or rely on outputs such as legal documents without appropriate professional legal supervision, and relying solely on AI output for legal or regulatory determinations without human review.

The policy incorporates Microsoft's Enterprise AI Services Code of Conduct and forms part of the SaaS agreement. LawVu's guide to AI for in house teams covers adoption and procurement. None of these documents names a bar opinion, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512, or a professional conduct rule in New Zealand, Australia or elsewhere.

Source: Operator Verifiedwithout appropriate professional legal supervisionAs of Oct 9, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Fee record is the product

The buyer is the payer, not the biller. The product exists to review, author or benchmark legal fees, so the record of fees is the product itself rather than a byproduct of AI assisted lawyering. Typically sold to in-house teams paying outside counsel.

LawVu's spend module is the payer's record of outside counsel fees. Firms upload invoices, including LEDES files, and see their matters, invoices and billing guidelines in a self service portal. The legal team receives, adjusts and approves invoices, routes approvals through drag and drop workflows and sends approved invoices to finance. AI extracts cost details from PDF invoices and flags discrepancies with billing guidelines, such as rate or scope issues, in real time.

Reporting tracks spend by firm and matter. Legal teams send RFPs with scope and budget, compare firm proposals side by side and receive AI provider recommendations. Spend management is priced by the number of firms a customer works with rather than by its spend. The billing guidelines are the customer's own, so any rule on how firms bill AI assisted work is set by the legal team in those guidelines.

Source: Vendor Publisheddetect discrepancies between invoices and your billing guidelinesAs of Oct 9, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Disclosure pack published

A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.

LawVu's published documents answer the questions a client, auditor or regulator asks about AI and data handling. The subprocessor list names each provider with its activity and processing country, including Microsoft's Azure OpenAI service and where its processing runs for each data region. The data processing addendum, published with the SaaS terms, sets breach notice, subprocessor change notice and audit rights. The AI security and privacy FAQ maps each AI feature to the Microsoft service behind it and states the training and monitoring position.

The subprocessor list separates mandatory providers from optional ones that apply only when a customer enables a service, such as DocuSign, Formstack or Workato, and keeps a version history. The security pack adds the ISO 27001 statement of applicability, SOC reports and penetration test reports after a request form and a notice of confidentiality.

Source: Vendor PublishedProcessing of certain AI Services provided in the LawVu PlatformAs of Oct 9, 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.

LawVu records what its AI does inside the product. Assistant supported actions are labeled, changes require user approval, and activity is recorded in a full audit trail showing what was done, when and who approved it. Actions through the MCP server go to the same activity log, and Assistant conversations, actions and approvals are kept for audit. Lens answers cite the source contracts and Lens exports structured datasets of clauses and obligations for due diligence, audits or external review, while the Business Portal assistant shows source excerpts.

The log records actions on matters and contracts rather than a per document record of the model used and the human check. Assistant logs stay in the product for 30 days, with older logs from LawVu on request. LawVu's output is contracts, matter records and internal advice, which rarely go before a court.

Source: Operator VerifiedAssistant-supported actions are clearly identifiedAs of Oct 9, 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 430 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 14, 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