L
LEAP
LEAP is a cloud practice management platform for small and midsize law firms, sold at one subscription price. It combines case management, document automation with forms and templates for each jurisdiction, legal and trust accounting, billing and online payments, and a client portal with intake forms, scheduling and electronic signing. It has four AI features, introduced in July 2024. LawY is a legal research assistant that answers questions from a knowledge base for each jurisdiction, with the option of having an answer verified by a practicing lawyer in the user's state.
Matter AI is a chat over the emails, documents and data in a matter, including scanned and handwritten material. LEAP Generator and a prompt library draft documents, letters and forms from matter details, and AI assisted time recording logs activity for billing. Integrations include Microsoft 365, Xero, QuickBooks, InfoTrack, WealthCounsel, LawConnect, Power BI, DecisionVault and Lawmatics. LEAP Legal Software was founded in Australia and operates in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and the United States.
Its US business is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey and backed by Serent Capital, and it states more than 61,000 lawyers on the platform.
LEAP, 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.
Alternatives to LEAP
Vendors in the same categories as LEAP whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- SSmokeballSmokeball is a practice management platform for solo, small and midsize law firms, delivered as a Windows desktop application with cloud services and in the browser.
- AActionstepActionstep is a cloud practice management platform for midsize law firms.
- PParleyParley is an AI platform for legal teams, built first for immigration practice, from Parley Technologies, Inc. of San Francisco.
- LLegalBridgeLegalBridge is an immigration case management platform from LegalBridge Technologies Inc. for immigration law firms, from solo practitioners to large firms, and for corporate global mobility teams.
- CClioClio is a legal practice platform for firms of every size.
- CCARET LegalCARET Legal is a cloud practice management platform for small and mid sized law firms.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
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 drive a core capability layered on a practice management product that sold for years without them. LEAP's AI covers four jobs: LawY, a third party legal assistant built into LEAP, answers legal questions from a jurisdiction specific knowledge base and can send an answer to a practicing lawyer in the user's state for verification; Matter AI summarizes a matter in seconds with inline references to the documents behind each point, and lets the user choose between AI models and regenerate; Generator drafts letters, client emails and court forms from matter data directly in Microsoft Word; and AI time recording logs billable activity from matter work.
Clause 9.2 of the General Terms adds prompts and reminders about deadlines and due dates to the list. Remove the models and case management, a large library of jurisdiction specific forms, document automation, legal accounting, trust accounting, billing, payments and the client portal remain, which is the product LEAP sold before its July 2024 AI launch. The company says its AI supports lawyers rather than replacing them.
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.
Grounding is real for matter summaries, the legal research answers are verified by people rather than measured, and two court records name the product. Matter AI summaries carry inline references to the documents and details each point came from, so a lawyer can trace a summary back to the file. LawY answers from a jurisdiction specific knowledge base that is not published, and LEAP's answer to accuracy risk is procedural: a user can have any answer checked by a practicing lawyer in their state.
Clause 9.6 of the General Terms says the AI Services may not reflect current law or suit the firm's circumstances, may be inaccurate, and must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. No accuracy figure, test or evaluation is published. Two court records tie fabricated authorities to AI inside LEAP: in Dayal (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, 2024) a solicitor tendered non existent authorities generated in his practice software and later identified as LEAP's, and a County Court decision in Birmingham in October 2025 recorded fictitious citations produced with LEAP legal software. In the Australian matter LEAP said the lawyer had not used the verified answers.
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 human verification route LEAP built itself, and a contract that puts review on the firm, short of limits on the features that act on their own. LawY answers can be sent at the user's election to a qualified practicing lawyer in the user's jurisdiction for verification before anyone relies on them, which few vendors offer. Matter AI summaries show their sources inline and can be regenerated with a different model, and Generator drafts open in Word for the lawyer to edit.
Clause 9.6 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says a qualified lawyer should review any AI output before it is relied on, and that the firm is responsible for validating it with its own professional judgment. What is not published is where the automated features stop. AI time recording logs billable activity from matter work without saying whether each entry needs approval before it reaches an invoice, and the deadline and due date prompts listed in clause 9.2 are not described at all, including what happens if one is missed or wrong.
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 firms in number, and no outcome figures. The US testimonials page carries video reviews from more than twenty named attorneys and their firms. Among them are Watts Law, Cadicina Law, Canarick & Canarick, Broder Law Group, Davey Law, Flick Law Group, Neave Family Law, Johnson & Borenstein, Enea, Scanlan and Sirignano, Aceto Bonner & Cole and Brian D. Perskin & Associates. A written quote from Sheryl J. Seiden of Seiden Family Law sits alongside them.
LEAP also says more than 61,000 lawyers use the platform globally. Its July 2024 launch coverage described a lawyer using Matter AI to compare two parties' finances in a divorce, without naming the firm. That is a broad, verifiable base of named small and midsize firms. What is missing is any measured result: no testimonial or case study reports time saved, hours captured by AI time recording, or research time reduced with LawY, and none is dated.
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 training commitment is now in the contract, alongside a full confidentiality regime, with privilege and matter separation still unaddressed. Clause 9.3 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says LEAP will not use a firm's matter data to improve or train the AI Services, which moves the promise from the security page into the agreement. The security page adds that client data is not used to train third party foundation models without explicit consent, and that third party AI vendors are bound as sub processors to the same standards.
Clause 24 sets up mutual confidentiality. Clause 24.3 requires LEAP, where the law allows, to notify the firm promptly before disclosing its confidential information under a court order or regulator's demand, and to limit and protect any disclosure. The firm owns its client data under clauses 8 and 23. What remains unaddressed is attorney client privilege and work product by name, separation between matters inside a firm, which matters for Matter AI reading across a matter's documents, and how long AI prompts and outputs are kept.
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 clear contractual line on advice and review, framed for lawyers and aware of jurisdiction. Clause 9.6 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) says the AI Services may not have been developed or approved by legal practitioners and carry no legal or professional endorsement. It says they may not reflect applicable law or suit the firm's circumstances, do not constitute legal advice and must not be relied on as such, and should be reviewed by a qualified lawyer.
The firm is responsible for validating output through its own skill and judgment. Clause 9.5 notes that LEAP has not advised the firm on what client consents its jurisdiction requires before matter data goes through AI. LawY's verification option routes an answer to a practicing lawyer in the user's own state, and LawY's availability is stated to depend on jurisdiction and area of law. The buyer is always a law firm. No bar opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is cited.
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.
A governance statement and a data minimization design, without a published framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The security page says AI related security and privacy risks are assessed within LEAP's standard risk management process, that AI features are designed for data minimization consistent with GDPR Article 25 and lawyers' professional obligations, and that third party AI vendors are held to the same data protection standards as other sub processors.
Those statements govern data. What the models produce is left to the firm's review under clause 9.6 of the General Terms. No responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre release testing process, or finding on whether LawY answers or Matter AI summaries perform unevenly across jurisdictions or practice areas is published. For LEAP the question has a concrete edge: two courts have recorded fabricated authorities traced to AI within its software, and a published account of how research answers are tested and monitored would be the natural response.
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.
Substantive commitments, several of them now in the contract, short of a published sub processor list and a deletion commitment. The General Terms (1 August 2026) require each party to notify the other of a suspected notifiable data breach without undue delay and within 72 hours, and to cooperate on investigation and mitigation. Clause 26 commits LEAP to security controls that meet or exceed SOC 2 Type 2 standards. The security page describes encryption in transit, at rest and in use with managed key rotation, and role based access with mandatory multi factor authentication for privileged access and periodic access reviews.
It also describes continuous monitoring with documented incident procedures, and high availability across multiple AWS availability zones with defined recovery objectives, encrypted tested backups and annual disaster recovery tests. A sub processor register and a data processing agreement are available on request. At the end of a subscription, clause 20 moves the firm onto a paid single user historical license until it has extracted its data, which preserves access but sets no deletion date. Retention of AI prompts and outputs is not addressed.
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.
LEAP now publishes a full customer agreement with balanced caps and a higher cap for data breaches, and it leaves AI output errors with the firm. The General Terms, effective 1 August 2026 for new clients and 1 September 2026 for existing ones, set mutual liability caps in clause 17 at the fees paid in the prior 12 months. A mutual super cap of USD 1,000,000 in the US schedule applies to breaches of the license and intellectual property terms and to the indemnities for infringement and misuse of confidential information.
Clause 16 makes those indemnities mutual, and clause 17.3 leaves liability for gross negligence, willful misconduct and personal injury uncapped. Clause 15.2 warrants that LEAP will not knowingly introduce errors and that the service does not breach the law or infringe copyright. On AI, clause 9.6 says the AI Services may be inaccurate or out of date, are not legal advice and must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer. Clause 9.5 has the firm indemnify LEAP if it lacks the consents needed to put matter data through them. No remedy for defective AI output is offered.
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.
Real integrations, with the data flow described for some, and a contract that governs third party products. LEAP names Microsoft 365 and Word, where Generator creates documents directly, and Xero and QuickBooks for accounting. It also names InfoTrack for searches and filings, WealthCounsel for estate planning drafting and trust administration inside LEAP, FeeWise for online payments, LawConnect for client collaboration, Power BI for reporting and DecisionVault.
Its Lawmatics integration announcement describes what moves: client information entered once in Lawmatics flows into LEAP without being entered again, with both subscriptions required. LawY is itself a third party product built into LEAP with an in product button. The Third Party Terms (1 August 2026) set out the supplier terms for products such as LawY, WealthCounsel and FeeWise. Clause 4 of the General Terms sets out who is responsible for what between the firm, LEAP and the supplier. What each connection moves in each direction and what a firm configures is documented only for Lawmatics.
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.
Regions are named by country and the AI exception is stated, with the tenancy model left out. The security page says client data is hosted primarily in the firm's selected region. Firms in Australia and New Zealand are on AWS Asia Pacific in Sydney, and firms in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Canada are each on dedicated regional infrastructure, across multiple availability zones. It then says plainly that some AI features, including Matter AI, may transfer limited client data to the United States for processing by AI service providers.
Data processing agreements and standard contractual clauses are in place for UK and EU clients, and the General Terms (1 August 2026) carry country specific schedules for each market. What is not stated is whether firms share infrastructure within a region, which AI providers receive the data, or whether a firm can turn off the AI features that send data abroad.
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.
A named attestation with the report reachable through a trust center, and the in progress work stated honestly. The security page says LEAP's internal controls underwent an independent audit and that it holds SOC 2 Type 2 and SOC 3 reports, lists UK Cyber Essentials, and aligns its incident handling with NIST SP 800-61. Its FAQ says the answers it gives security reviewers are aligned with its SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, and states plainly that ISO 27001 is in progress rather than claiming it.
For due diligence it offers the SOC 2 Type 2 report and penetration test summary findings through the LEAP Trust Center or on request, completed SIG and CAIQ questionnaires, a data processing agreement, a sub processor register and a dedicated security contact for enterprise clients. Clause 26 of the General Terms (1 August 2026) commits LEAP to controls that meet or exceed SOC 2 Type 2 standards, which ties the attestation to the contract.
The auditor, report period and systems in scope, including whether the AI features are covered, are not stated on the public page.
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 AI providers are acknowledged and bound, and none is named. The security page says LEAP uses third party AI foundation models, that the vendors are contractually bound as sub processors to the same data protection standards as any other, and that Matter AI may send limited client data to the United States for processing by AI service providers. The AI page says a Matter AI user can choose between different AI models to refine a summary.
Each of those statements confirms that several outside models are in the chain, and none identifies a provider, a model, a version or where inference runs. The one AI product named is LawY, which LEAP treats as a third party product with its own supplier terms under the Third Party Terms (1 August 2026), without saying which models LawY itself uses. A sub processor register is available on request, which may list the providers, but it is not published, and no commitment to notify firms before a model or provider changes is published.
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 charging model is published and the figure is not. LEAP says case management, document automation, legal accounting, billing and its AI come in one integrated system for one price. It says LawY and the research AI are included in the subscription at no extra cost, and that Matter AI summaries are included for select matter types. The US pricing page carries no per user figure, tier or term and routes every buyer to a demo.
The General Terms (1 August 2026) fill in some mechanics. Fees follow the order form. At the end of a subscription the firm moves onto a single user historical license at its current monthly single user rate for as long as it needs to extract its data. A third party review states a figure, but it is not the vendor's own. No price or starting figure is published for a product marketed to small firms on an all in one price.
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.
Segments, practices and jurisdictions are described with substance, and some limits are named. The buyer is small and midsize law firms. The US site has pages for estate planning and probate, family, real estate, business and criminal law. The forms library covers common areas of law, and specialist estate, elder law and probate work comes through WealthCounsel. LEAP operates in six markets: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.
Each has its own forms, regional hosting and a country specific schedule in the General Terms (1 August 2026), and LEAP says more than 61,000 lawyers use the platform. The limits it states are real. LawY is available only for certain jurisdictions and areas of law, Matter AI summaries are included for select matter types, and some AI features process data in the United States regardless of the firm's region. What is not stated is which US states or practice areas LawY covers today, or where the forms library is thin.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for LEAP, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 29, 2026
-
leap.us1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 29, 2026
-
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 29, 2026
No published figure
- Everything comes in one subscription: case files, documents, accounting, billing and the AI tools.
- The AI research assistant, LawY, is included and costs nothing extra, even the option to have a real lawyer check its answer.
- The company does not publish what the subscription costs on the pages we could read.
- The price is per user and the plan is meant to grow with the firm.
Structure is published without a figure. The vendor states that case management, document automation, legal accounting, billing and AI come in one integrated system for one price. It says LawY and LawY Research AI are included in the LEAP subscription at no extra cost, including the option of lawyer verification, and that the subscription model scales with the firm. No per user figure, tier, term or pricing page was located on vendor pages on 6 September 2026.
A third party review states an Australian per user monthly figure, but it is not the vendor's own. Read 6 September 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 terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The published agreement prohibits training on matter data. Clause 9.3 of the LEAP General Terms, effective 1 August 2026 for new clients and 1 September 2026 for existing clients, states that LEAP will not use a firm's matter data to improve or train the AI Services, while allowing that matter data may be processed by those services to provide them. The US security page adds that client matter data is not used to train third party AI foundation models without the firm's explicit consent, and that third party AI vendors are bound as sub processors.
The contract term covers LEAP's AI Services; the consent qualifier on the security page concerns third party foundation models. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
Prompts to LawY or Matter AI, and their outputs, are held for no stated period. The LEAP General Terms (1 August 2026) address matter data processed by the AI Services and bar training on it, and at the end of a subscription move the firm onto a paid historical license to extract its data, but set no retention period for prompts or outputs. The US security page covers backups, encryption and incident handling without a retention period. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
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.
Matter level walls, and whether Matter AI's retrieval honors them, have no described mechanism within a firm. The product is organized around matters and Matter AI summarizes a single matter with inline references to its documents, and the security page describes role based access controls, mandatory multi factor authentication for privileged access and periodic access reviews in general terms, but nothing addresses ethical walls or whether a user restricted from a matter can reach it through the AI features. General Terms and security page read 29 September 2026.
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 published agreement commits to notice before compelled disclosure. Clause 24.2 of the LEAP General Terms (1 August 2026) allows either party to disclose the other's confidential information where required by law, a regulator's binding directive or a court order, and clause 24.3 requires the party disclosing, to the extent legally permitted, to notify the other promptly on becoming aware that disclosure may be required, to limit what it discloses to what the purpose requires, and to take reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality. No transparency report on requests actually received was located. General Terms read 29 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction without identifying the underlying corpus. LawY answers from a legal knowledge base the vendor describes as specific to each jurisdiction, available for particular jurisdictions and areas of law, and the platform's forms library is maintained by LEAP's legal experts using trusted resources; nothing states what primary sources the knowledge base holds, under what license, or how often it is refreshed. LawY page, partner page and home page read 6 September 2026.
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.
Authorities LawY cites get no described subsequent history check. The vendor's control on citation risk is human verification of an answer by a practicing lawyer at the user's election, which is a review step rather than a citator or treatment signal. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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.
LawY and Matter AI have no described behavior for an answer they cannot ground. The vendor offers verification by a practicing lawyer as the safeguard on an answer already given, and states that LawY is available only for certain jurisdictions and areas of law, which is a scope limit rather than an abstention behavior. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
A court record exists in which the product is mentioned and the court’s findings address the filer’s verification failure rather than the product.
Two court records tie fabricated citations to AI in LEAP; the vendor responded to the first. In Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found at paragraph 1 that a solicitor had tendered nonexistent authorities without verifying them. They were prepared using an AI tool in his practice management software, which the court did not name. The finding addressed the filer, who was referred to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner; it varied his practicing certificate on 19 August 2025.
In Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95, decided 31 January 2025, the court at paragraph 32 named LEAP as the software in Dayal. Legal IT Insider reported on 15 October 2024 that a LEAP spokesperson said the solicitor submitted the cases for verification, received corrected cases within four hours and did not use them. In Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University, County Court at Birmingham, 14 October 2025, the court found citations in a lawyer's application fictitious.
The AI Hallucination Cases database records the tool as LEAP legal software, a wasted costs order and referral, and no vendor dispute. Database maintained by Damien Charlotin searched 29 September 2026.
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.
Professional obligations shape the design, yet no ethics opinion, bar rule or framework is named. The security page refers to law firm professional obligations as a design consideration for data minimization and the LawY verification option is built around practicing lawyers in the user's state, but no guidance from any jurisdiction is named. Security page, LawY page and home page checked 6 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The buyer is a law firm and the product issues the client's invoice, so it sits inside the fee relationship. What it publishes on AI and the bill is a savings and capture claim rather than a disclosure record. AI assisted time recording is described as logging billable activity automatically from matter events, and the AI features are marketed as reducing time on research and drafting. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded or disclosed on the client's bill when six hours become one.
Nothing says whether answers verified through LawY carry a cost that is passed through. Home page and third party feature description checked 6 September 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The documents a firm's outside counsel guidelines would ask for are offered on request rather than published. The US security page lists what LEAP provides for due diligence: its SOC 2 Type 2 report and penetration test summary findings through the LEAP Trust Center or on request, completed SIG and CAIQ questionnaires, a data processing agreement, a sub processor register and a dedicated security contact for enterprise clients, and it states that third party AI vendors are bound to the same standards as other sub processors.
The customer agreement itself is published, with a 72 hour breach notice and a commitment to controls meeting SOC 2 Type 2 standards. The sub processor register and the list of AI providers are not published. Security page and General Terms read 29 September 2026.
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.
A filer needing to certify AI assisted work would find no exportable record. LawY's human verification produces an answer checked by a lawyer, which is a form of verification record. Nothing states that a record for each document of the model used, sources retrieved and human verification can be exported for a court. The 2024 Australian matter described in the fabricated citation record turned on the absence of verification by the filer. LawY page and launch coverage checked 6 September 2026.