L
LegalBridge
LegalBridge 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. It runs a case from first contact to filing: a website evaluation that gives prospective clients a visa eligibility assessment from a résumé and books consultations, retainers, e-signature and payments, a client portal with questionnaires in several languages, AI extraction of passport and identity data into intake, AI categorisation of evidence and alerts for missing documents, AI drafting of petition, support, recommendation and RFE response letters in the firm's own style, exhibit assembly, and population of USCIS, Department of Labor and DS-160 forms for filing.
It covers employment-based, family-based and humanitarian US immigration cases. The AI runs on named providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and open-weight models through AWS Bedrock, and the agreement forbids training on customer data. A free plan is published; paid plans are quoted.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
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.
Not yet assessed.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for LegalBridge, 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.
-
legalbridge.ai/dpa2 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
legalbridge.ai/privacy-policy1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
legalbridge.ai/subprocessors1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
legalbridge.ai/terms-of-service1 signal
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
Not published; free plan availableUSD, as published, never converted
- LegalBridge has a free plan: unlimited users, one application and five evaluations, no credit card.
- Pro and Enterprise plans are listed with their features, but not their prices.
- The terms explain the charging units: each module is priced separately, AI features use credits, and cases are counted when created.
- Going over your allowance can be billed as overage, or the feature can be paused.
- AI pricing can change during your term on 60 days' notice.
Plans and units published, paid figures withheld. **Free plan**: unlimited users, one application, five evaluations, document assessment using AI, letter and exhibit drafting, forms with questionnaires, petition assembly, case tracking and client collaboration, no credit card. **Pro** (for solo practitioners) adds unlimited evaluations, premium chatbot features, cross-platform integrations, RFE cases and DS-160 e-filing. **Enterprise** (for large firms) adds user and application management, personalised branding, access to premium models and dedicated support and infrastructure. **Charging units in the Terms of Service**: priced per module, under subscription, usage, credit, transaction, per-case or hybrid models set in an order form; **credits** meter AI features; a **case** counts when created; **usage allowances** expire each period and overage may be billed, upgraded or throttled; AI unit pricing and credit ratios can change during a term on 60 days' notice, with a right to drop the affected feature. No rate, band or minimum is published for a paid plan.
Implementation: Referred to but not priced. The Terms of Service mention onboarding, implementation, configuration and migration fees and make them non-refundable; no amount is published. The home page says a website embed takes under 30 minutes, cases can be processed within days and full implementation takes two to four weeks, with data migration from any platform.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on the site, and HIPAA is not mentioned. The Data Processing Addendum acknowledges that health information required for immigration applications may be processed and places responsibility for its lawful basis on the firm.
Note: No paid figure is published at any level. The free plan is real and needs no credit card, but is capped at one application and five evaluations. The Terms of Service add that fees are non-refundable, that onboarding, implementation, configuration and migration fees are non-refundable in all circumstances, that late amounts accrue 1.5% a month, that subscriptions renew automatically unless either side gives 30 days' notice, and that promotional or pilot pricing renews at the then-current list price.
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 Data Processing Addendum, which forms part of the agreement, forbids using customer data, personal data or anything derived from them to train, fine-tune, develop or improve any AI or machine learning model, whether LegalBridge's or a third party's. The Terms of Service say more narrowly that customer data is not used to train generalized AI models and that de-identified, aggregated data may be used to improve service quality; the addendum prevails on personal data. The home page says the named AI providers may keep security logs for up to 30 days but do not train on customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
The Data Processing Addendum keeps personal data for the term of the agreement and requires deletion within 30 days after it ends, on the customer's request or automatically, with certification on request; the Terms of Service allow export for 90 days after termination, and the Privacy Policy gives users a right to delete their account and data. The home page says AI providers may keep security logs for up to 30 days.
The Privacy Policy, last updated January 2025, also says information may be kept up to seven years after account closure for legal purposes. No setting for keeping prompts or AI outputs for less than the life of the account is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
Access inside a firm is set in LegalBridge's own permission model, which the firm maintains: role management, case assignment, immediate deactivation of users and optional mandatory two-factor authentication, with outside counsel given access to specific cases only. The Terms of Service bar sharing customer data with other subscribers. Nothing describes inheriting permissions from a document management system.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
The Privacy Policy lists legal authorities, when required by law, among those LegalBridge may share information with, and the Data Processing Addendum allows processing required by applicable law. Neither document, nor the Terms of Service, says whether the firm will be told of a request for its data.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the home, product feature and case study pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Drafts draw on each case's documents and the firm's past letters, and the site says a compliance team tracks changes to USCIS forms; no body of statutes, regulations, policy guidance or decisions behind the drafting or the eligibility evaluation is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Checked the home and product feature pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. The terms warn that output may contain fabricated citations and require review; nothing describes checking authority cited in drafts for currency or subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Checked the home and product feature pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what the drafting does when a case record does not support an argument, or what the eligibility evaluation tells a prospect whose eligibility it cannot assess.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for LegalBridge, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The Terms of Service require use in compliance with court rules, professional responsibility rules and bar regulations, and leave to the firm any disclosures about AI use owed to clients under professional ethics rules. No ethics opinion is named.
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 site and case studies claim large time savings, such as about eight hours saved per case and case preparation cut by half, and value the recovered time at hourly rates. The product also issues invoices and retainers. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is charged; the terms leave any AI disclosures to clients with the firm.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A subprocessor list current as of 25 April 2026 names 17 entries with their purpose, including OpenAI and Anthropic for language model services and OpenRouter as a model gateway, and the Data Processing Addendum commits to 30 days' notice before a new one is added. No client-facing disclosure material is published.
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.
The site says all activity on a case is logged for audit trails, and drafts pass through a review and approval workflow before filing. Nothing records which parts of a filing were drafted by AI, which model produced them or who verified them, and no disclosure guidance is published.