L
Learned Hand
Learned Hand is a case preparation platform 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. The software extracts the facts, maps the disputed issues and structures the parties' arguments. It analyzes them against the procedural standard for the motion type, such as summary judgment or postconviction 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. It tests 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. It says its technology is used by the Michigan Supreme Court and trial courts in ten states, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County began a pilot in 2026. No parent company is named on the company's own materials.
Learned Hand, 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 Learned Hand
Vendors in the same categories as Learned Hand 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.
- OOrbitalOrbital is an AI platform for commercial real estate legal work, sold to the real estate practices of law firms, to real estate businesses such as investors, developers and REITs, and to…
- PPaxton AISelf serve legal AI assistant aimed at solo attorneys, small and midsize firms and in house teams, covering research, drafting, document analysis, medical chronologies and medical billing summaries.
- NNewcodeNewcode is a workspace that sits across the systems a legal team already uses and adds AI on top of all of them.
- QQanooniQanooni is a legal AI platform for law firms from Qanooni AI Ltd, a company registered in Dubai's DIFC free zone and sold mainly to firms in the United Kingdom and the UAE.
- JJurisphereJurisphere is a legal AI workspace for law firms and in house legal teams, operated by Coresphere100 Technologies Pvt.
- QQanuQanu is a legal AI workspace built around Arabic for law firms and in house legal teams in the Gulf.
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.
Learned Hand extracts facts, maps disputed issues, structures arguments and runs analysis against the procedural standard for the motion type. It generates a first draft order with its citations and checks every statement and citation against its source. The companion product, The Red Pen, reads filed briefs and tests each citation for existence, pinpoint and whether the holding supports the proposition. Beside the models, the product has an upload screen, a case management connection and an editor with a Word export.
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.
Learned Hand's 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 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. The Red Pen's citation checks test other parties' citations in filed briefs.
No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, and no failure mode is named. The retrieval method and the legal sources behind the analysis are not described, and nothing states what the system does when it cannot support a proposition. The home page carries an FAQ entry on how Learned Hand prevents hallucinations.
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.
Each stage of the published workflow ends with a human step. 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. Nothing is published on a threshold or mode at which the system acts without review, on any categorical limit on what a draft may be used for, or on what happens when an analysis is wrong. The home page FAQ includes an entry on what to do when a user disagrees with its analysis.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
The 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. The site 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.
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 Red Pen page states that filed briefs are not retained and not used to train, and that the court's data is never stored, logged or used to train models. Those statements cover a citation checker that reads briefs as they are docketed. The main workbench syncs a court's cases and holds them, and no published confidentiality statement covers it apart from a home page FAQ entry titled Is my case data safe?. No terms of service, customer agreement, privacy policy or security page exists on the site.
Nothing is published on segregation between courts or users, on deliberative confidentiality, or on the position of any model provider.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
The product is sold only to courts. Learned Hand states it is built for the judiciary and contrasts itself with tools designed for lawyers and private practice. Its release quotes its chief executive that judges make the final decisions, and the home page describes the product as decision support. Nothing addresses a judge's or clerk's duties of competence and supervision when relying on a draft, and no court rule or judicial ethics standard on generative AI is named.
No jurisdictional limit is stated beyond a claim that the software is jurisdiction specific. The home page FAQ includes an entry titled Does Learned Hand replace me or my clerks?.
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.
The product is built for impartiality and designed for the bench from the first line of code, Learned Hand says, and it is contrasted with tools built for advocacy. Nothing published says who inside the company is accountable for model behavior, what is tested before a release, or what has been found about uneven output across case types or parties. No responsible AI page, policy or evaluation exists on the site. Press reporting says the company tests for bias and accuracy and has not published results. The vendor itself publishes nothing on it.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The 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 is published. No privacy policy, security page or trust center exists on the site, which lists two pages in its own search results.
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 is published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong. The home page, The Red Pen page and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 carry no terms of service, customer agreement, warranty, indemnity, limitation of liability or insurance statement, and the site's own search results list no other pages. Court agreements are reported in the press, and none is published.
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 a court's case management system is the home page's promise: sync once and the cases are there. Documents can be uploaded or connected directly from the case management system, and The Red Pen page says every filing is checked automatically the moment it is docketed. Drafts can be exported to Word. 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.
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 is published on where the software runs or where court data sits. No tenancy model, hosting provider, region or deployment option is stated anywhere on the site.
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 is published. No SOC 2, CJIS or other attestation appears on the vendor's site, which has no security or trust page, or in the vendor's release of 18 March 2026, and none is attributed to the vendor elsewhere.
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 is published by the vendor about the models underneath. The site contrasts the product with generic AI and with ChatGPT but names no model, provider or architecture, and a home page FAQ entry asks how Learned Hand is different from ChatGPT. Press reporting attributes to the company the use of models from Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, which is not the vendor's own published material.
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 is published at any level. The site's own search results list no pricing page, and the home page, The Red Pen page and the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 give no price, tier, unit or term. 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 give court contract values. Neither is the vendor's own publication.
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.
Learned Hand 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. The work is described by motion rather than practice area: summary judgment and postconviction 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. 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.
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.
The Red Pen page says filed briefs are not used to train and that data is never stored, logged or used to train models. The statement is scoped to The Red Pen, and no published statement covers the workbench that holds a court's cases. The site publishes no terms of service, customer agreement or privacy policy, so no published term binds the vendor.
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.
The Red Pen page states zero data retention and that data is never stored or logged. The workbench, which Learned Hand's 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. 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.
Nothing on the home page, The Red Pen page, the site's own search results or the vendor's release of 18 March 2026 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.
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.
The product performs legal research and analysis, and Learned Hand's home page says it is built on local rules and is jurisdiction specific. No source of case law, statutes or rules is named, and no jurisdiction list is given. A home page FAQ entry asks how Learned Hand is different from Westlaw or Lexis.
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.
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, which is a check on other people's citations rather than on the product's own authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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.
Neither the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin nor trade press reporting records a court finding of fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from Learned Hand.
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.
No bar opinion, judicial ethics opinion or court rule on generative AI is named or engaged on the site or in the vendor's release, and professional responsibility is not discussed in general terms either. The product is sold to judges, and no judicial conduct rule or court AI policy 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.
No subprocessor list, model provider statement or forwardable disclosure material is published. The buyer is a court rather than a firm answering a client's AI clause, and nothing on the site would answer a court's procurement or public records questions on these points.
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.
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.