L
Learned Hand
Learned Hand is a case preparation platform built for judges, law clerks, staff attorneys and court staff, developed by Learned Hand, Inc. of New York. A judge or clerk uploads a case, or connects the platform to the court's case management system, and the software extracts the facts, maps the disputed issues, structures the parties' arguments and analyses them against the procedural standard for the motion type, such as summary judgment or post-conviction relief.
It then produces a first draft order whose citations link back to the record; every statement can be clicked through to its source, and the draft can be edited in the platform or exported to Word. A companion product, The Red Pen, checks the citations in filed briefs, testing whether each cited case exists, whether the pinpoint is right and whether the holding supports the proposition, and marks every citation red, yellow or green.
The company describes itself as built exclusively for the judiciary and says its technology is used by the Michigan Supreme Court and trial courts in ten states; the Superior Court of Los Angeles County began a pilot in 2026. No parent company is named on the company's own materials.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the product, which is the A band. Everything the vendor describes is model work: facts extracted, disputed issues mapped, arguments structured, analysis run against the procedural standard for the motion type, a first draft order generated with its citations, and every statement and citation checked against its source. The companion product, The Red Pen, is a model reading filed briefs and testing each citation for existence, pinpoint and whether the holding supports the proposition.
Take the models away and what remains is an upload screen, a case management connection and an editor with a Word export; there is no conventional document or research product underneath that a court would buy on its own. Verified 18 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Grounding is real and described at the level of the sentence, with no measurement published, which is the B band. The home page states that every citation links to its source, every claim traces to the record, any statement can be clicked through to its source, and every citation is checked against its source automatically; the vendor's own release of 18 March 2026 adds that all outputs are hyperlinked to source material in the case file and that the platform runs multiple verification passes.
That is the product checking its own output, and it is credited as such. The Red Pen's citation checks on filed briefs are not credited here: they test other parties' citations, and a tool's purpose is not evidence about its own accuracy. What keeps this off A is everything a reader would use to test the claim. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, no failure mode is named, the retrieval method and the corpus behind the legal analysis are not described, and nothing states what the system does when it cannot support a proposition.
The home page answer to How does Learned Hand prevent hallucinations? is published but does not render to automated retrieval and could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
A written position that the judge decides, with real review surfaces, short of a published control structure, which is the B band. The workflow the vendor publishes ends with a human step at each stage: the user reviews the analysis, clicks any statement to see its source, asks questions to refine the analysis, and edits the first draft in the platform or exports it to Word. The vendor's release quotes its chief executive that the product will assist with preparation but that judges make the final decisions.
What the A band asks for is not published: no threshold or mode at which the system acts without review, no categorical constraint on what a draft may be used for, and nothing on what happens when an analysis is wrong. The home page answer to What if I disagree with its analysis? could not be read on this date and is the surface most likely to move this row. Verified 18 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Named customers without figures, which is the B band. The vendor's release of 18 March 2026 names the Superior Court of Los Angeles County as a partner, carries statements from its Presiding Judge and its Executive Officer, and states that the technology is used by the Michigan Supreme Court and by trial courts in ten states. Those are named deployments at identifiable courts, confirmed in the customer's own words in the Los Angeles case.
The estate adds an unattributed testimonial from a federal judge described as a user since 2024 and an unattributed Red Pen testimonial saying the platform takes minutes to do what would take a staff attorney several days. No figure for what changed at any named court is published, the ten states are not identified, and nothing describes how any result was measured. Verified 18 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Specific commitments exist for one product and none can be read for the one that holds case files, and no agreement is published, which places this at C. The Red Pen page states that filed briefs are not retained, are not used to train, and that the court's data is never stored, logged or used to train models. Those are real statements, but they describe a citation checker that reads briefs as they are docketed. The main workbench, which syncs a court's cases and holds them, carries no readable confidentiality statement: the home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date, and it is the surface most likely to move this row.
No terms of service, customer agreement, privacy policy or security page exists on the estate, so nothing on segregation between courts or users, on deliberative confidentiality, or on the position of any model provider can be read before signing. Verified 18 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point.
A clear position on tool versus decision-maker and a precisely stated audience, short of the supervision dimension, which is the B band. This axis is written for the line between tooling and legal advice; for a product sold only to courts the equivalent question is whether the vendor is clear that the output supports and does not make a judicial decision, and that is how it is graded here. The vendor states it is built for the judiciary and contrasts itself with tools designed for lawyers and private practice, and its release quotes its chief executive that judges make the final decisions.
The home page describes the product as decision support. What is missing is the rest of the treatment: nothing addresses a judge's or clerk's duties of competence and supervision when relying on a draft, no court rule or judicial ethics standard on generative AI is named, and no jurisdictional limit is stated beyond a claim that the software is jurisdiction-specific. The home page answer to Does Learned Hand replace me or my clerks? could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
An impartiality principle is stated without any mechanism behind it, which is the C band. The vendor says the product is built for impartiality and designed for the bench from the first line of code, and contrasts itself with tools built for advocacy. Nothing published says who inside the company is accountable for model behaviour, what is tested before a release, or what has been found about uneven output across case types or parties, which matters more for a product that drafts judicial orders than for almost any other in the index.
No responsible AI page, policy or evaluation exists on the estate. Press reporting says the company tests for bias and accuracy and has not published results; that is recorded as located and not credited, since the index grades what the vendor publishes. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
One product carries a specific retention position and nothing else in the stewardship set is published, which places this at C. The Red Pen page states zero data retention: filed briefs are not retained, and data is never stored, logged or used to train models. For the workbench, which syncs a court's case management system and holds its cases, no retention period, deletion commitment, access control description, subprocessor list or incident practice was located.
No privacy policy, security page or trust centre exists on the estate; the site's own search index lists two pages. The home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date and is the surface most likely to move this row. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Nothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no other pages, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026, and searched for a published court contract, on 18 September 2026. No terms of service, customer agreement, warranty, indemnity, limitation of liability or insurance statement exists on the estate. Court agreements are reported in the press but none was located in published form. Verified 18 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Integration with court case management systems is claimed and described in outcome terms, with no system named and no documentation, which is nearest the C band. The home page says the product integrates with a court's case management system, sync once and the cases are there, and that documents can be uploaded or connected directly from the case management system; The Red Pen page says every filing is checked automatically the moment it is docketed.
Drafts can be exported to Word. That describes what the connection does, which is more than a logo, but no case management system is named, nothing states which direction data moves or what a court must configure, and no API or implementation documentation is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Nothing published on where the software runs or where court data sits. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026. No tenancy model, hosting provider, region or deployment option is stated anywhere on the estate. The home page answer to Is my case data safe? could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation located. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no security or trust page, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026, and ran a targeted search for a SOC 2, CJIS or other attestation, on 18 September 2026. None was found on the vendor's estate or attributed to it elsewhere. Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Nothing published by the vendor about the models underneath. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026. The estate contrasts the product with generic AI and with ChatGPT but names no model, provider or architecture; the home page answer to How is Learned Hand different from ChatGPT? could not be read on this date. Press reporting attributes to the company the use of models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google; that is located and not credited, because it is not the vendor's own published material. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
No pricing information published at any level. Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index, which lists no pricing page, and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026; the only route offered is a demo request. A public sector reseller lists the product on the NASPO ValuePoint and SEWP V contract vehicles without a price, and press reports court contract values; neither is the vendor's own publication and neither is credited. No pricing row is written. Verified 18 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The segment is stated precisely and the work is described by motion type, short of the boundaries, which is the B band. The vendor says it serves the judiciary only, naming judges, clerks, staff attorneys and court staff, and positions itself against tools built for lawyers and private practice, which is a stated boundary on segment. The work is described by motion rather than practice area: summary judgment and post-conviction relief on the home page, pro se filings on The Red Pen page, and analysis that follows the procedural standard for the motion and the court's local rules.
Its release names the Michigan Supreme Court and says trial courts in ten states use it. What is left open: the ten states are not named, the supported motion types are not listed in full, and nothing says which courts, case types or jurisdictions the product does not handle. Verified 18 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Learned Hand, 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.
-
learned-hand.ai2 signals
Billing and Fee Posture, Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
learned-hand.ai/the-red-pen2 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
A public product page states no training on customer content, and no agreement is published anywhere on the estate. The statement is on The Red Pen page, which says filed briefs are not used to train and that data is never stored, logged or used to train models. It is scoped to The Red Pen; no readable statement covers the workbench that holds a court's cases, whose FAQ answer on data safety could not be read on this date.
The site publishes no terms of service, customer agreement or privacy policy, so a court has no published term to hold the vendor to.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
A fixed retention position of zero is published for The Red Pen only. That page states zero data retention and that data is never stored or logged. The workbench, which the home page says syncs once with a court's case management system so the cases are there, has no published retention period, deletion commitment or customer setting, and its FAQ answer on data safety could not be read on this date. No privacy policy or agreement is published.
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.
Searched the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search index and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 on 18 September 2026. No located material addresses separation between courts, chambers, users or cases, or whether access follows the court's case management permissions after sync.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. No terms, privacy policy or other published document addresses requests from third parties or government for data the vendor holds, or whether the court would be told.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The product performs legal research and analysis and the home page says it is built on local rules and is jurisdiction-specific, but no source of case law, statutes or rules is named and no jurisdiction list is given. The home page answer to How is Learned Hand different from Westlaw or Lexis? could not be read on this date.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Nothing states whether authority the workbench itself cites or relies on is checked for subsequent history. The Red Pen flags reversed holdings and other defects in citations made by parties in filed briefs; that is a check on other people's citations and is not recorded here as treatment of the product's own authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
This signal has not been recorded for this vendor yet. It is not a finding either way.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from Learned Hand. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. No bar opinion, judicial ethics opinion or court rule on generative AI is named or engaged anywhere on the estate, and professional responsibility is not discussed in general terms either. For a product sold to judges the relevant guidance would be judicial conduct rules and court AI policies; none is referenced.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It is sold only to courts, for use by judges, clerks, staff attorneys and court staff, and no client bill is in the loop. The time savings it claims, such as minutes instead of a staff attorney's several days, fall on the court's own workload.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. No subprocessor list, model provider statement or forwardable disclosure material is published. The buyer here is a court rather than a firm answering a client's AI clause, but the same artifacts would answer a court's procurement or public records questions, and none exists on the estate.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Some elements of a record exist, short of a document-level export. Every statement in the analysis and draft links to its source in the record, and the draft is exported to Word with citations intact, so the sources behind a draft can be shown. Nothing states which model produced a passage, no record of human verification is described, and no disclosure export is offered for a judge who chooses or is required to disclose AI use in an order.