L
LEGALFLY

LegalFly is a Belgian legal AI platform for in house legal teams and the business functions they serve, sold to regulated enterprises in banking, insurance, manufacturing, technology and professional services. Six products share one workspace. Discovery takes a question or task in plain language, researches it against legal sources and the team's own documents, produces Word, Excel or PowerPoint output, or routes the request to a specialist agent.

Review checks contracts against playbooks and writes redlines, and Draft builds first drafts from approved language. Multi Review reads hundreds of documents at once for diligence and audits, Legal Radar monitors regulators across more than 70 jurisdictions, and Agent Studio builds workflows that start from email, Slack or Teams. Playbooks, built from a team's guidelines or its golden contracts, carry approved clauses and fallback positions into every review.

Every document is pseudonymized before a model sees it, and the anonymization component can run inside the customer's own environment. The company was founded in Ghent by four former AI leaders at Tinder.

Compared with

LEGALFLY, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

Capability grades

All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Discovery takes a request in plain language and decides whether to research it, draft from it or route it to a specialist agent, grounding the answer in legal sources and the team's own files. It can also edit an uploaded document or generate Word, Excel and PowerPoint output.

Review, Draft, Multi Review and Legal Radar each run models over contracts, data rooms or regulatory feeds, and Agent Studio chains those agents into workflows with approval steps. Legal Radar scans regulators, national banks, official legal databases and courts around the clock, then maps each new obligation to the team's policies and playbooks with an impact summary. Playbooks themselves can be generated from a team's guidelines or golden contracts, with risk levels, thresholds and rules set per jurisdiction.

Before any of that work begins, a model pseudonymizes names, roles, company details and identifiers in text, images and handwritten notes.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

Discovery answers carry citations and reasoning a user can audit, drawn from case law, legislation and the team's own knowledge collections, and the user chooses the sources and jurisdictions behind each answer. Review explains every flagged clause with its reasoning and supporting sources, and Multi Review links each extracted field back to the document it came from.

The knowledge base combines more than 700 government and official sources with FromCounsel commentary written by UK barristers and Qistas coverage of nine or more Gulf and Arab jurisdictions, updated daily. Its stated reach is 35 jurisdictions across the EU, UK and Middle East, while product pages cite more than 130 for research and more than 110 for translation.

Sources are described as verified, and anonymization is said to keep the full legal meaning of each review. No measured accuracy accompanies those answers.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

Autonomy and Oversight Model

What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.

Agent Studio runs whole workflows from intake to approval. A workflow starts from email, Slack, Teams or a manual trigger, conditional logic routes the work and sends follow ups, and the system escalates when set thresholds are met. Teams place approval and review steps wherever a decision needs a person, who is notified when work finishes or needs attention.

Elsewhere a lawyer stays in the review seat. Review produces redlines that a user accepts, rejects, edits or applies in bulk as tracked changes, and Draft output passes through review and approval before it is shared. Through the Word and Outlook add ins, sales, procurement and HR staff handle routine contracts inside guardrails that legal sets in the playbook. The terms put the duty to check every output on the customer.

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

Operational and Outcome Evidence

Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.

Three customer stories name the company, a spokesperson and a result. ECS, a transport and logistics operator with 650 staff that screens 200 to 250 contracts a year, reports twice the legal capacity and 50% time saved. Adeera, a hotel operator in the PIF group, reports review time cut by 93% from two to four hours per contract, with its general counsel quoted. Wealins of Foyer Group, a Luxembourg life insurer, reports 20% time savings after moving regulatory monitoring onto Legal Radar, with its chief executive quoted.

The clients page adds a 2026 contract with the European Commission's HR Directorate General for complex HR legal workflows, and quotes from Gimpel Private Markets, MSIG Europe and Duvel Moortgat. Each figure is the customer's own account.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

Privilege and Confidentiality Posture

How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.

Pseudonymization is the center of the confidentiality model. Names, roles, company details and identifiers are replaced before analysis, and a team can adjust the level or whitelist terms that must stay visible. In the on premises option the anonymization component runs inside the customer's environment, so only pseudonymized data reaches the dedicated tenant. Anthropic and OpenAI, the model providers in the trust center, receive pseudonymized content only unless a customer turns that off, under zero retention and no training.

Section 5.2 of the terms says customer data will not train the service without the customer's consent, and section 5.1 leaves the customer exclusive ownership of its data. Each client's environment is isolated. Attorney client privilege and work product are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

Section 10.2 of the terms describes the service as a tool for professionals working with proper care, says it gives no legal guidance or advice, and makes the customer responsible for verifying every output. The navigation sells Discovery as legal research and advice, and the Word and Outlook add ins put routine contracts in the hands of sales, procurement and HR staff within legal's guardrails. Competence and supervision duties are not addressed, and no jurisdiction limit is set beyond the coverage counts.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Governance shows up as product controls. Agent Studio and the platform pages describe governed outputs through playbook enforcement, approval steps and role based access, and auditable actions with transparent reasoning. Its trust center controls include an information security policy, a risk assessment and treatment policy and a vendor risk management policy. A report on the AI governance gap sits among the product resources.

The controls govern who can act on output. How the models themselves are tested, and who answers for their behavior, is not described.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Documents are encrypted at rest and in transit, and every client runs in an isolated environment. Access is set through attribute based access control, multifactor authentication and session governance, with single sign on through Okta, Azure AD or Google Workspace over SAML 2.0, OIDC or OAuth. An outside firm runs penetration tests every year.

The trust center, monitored through Secureframe, lists five subprocessors: Microsoft Azure for infrastructure, Auth0 for identity, PostHog for product analytics, and Anthropic and OpenAI for AI inference. It names an incident response plan, a data retention and disposal policy and business continuity controls, without their text. The privacy policy keeps pseudonymized contract content to improve the service, and keeps personal data as long as its purpose requires.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

Section 8 of the terms caps LegalFly's total liability at the fees paid in the 12 months before the claim, and the cap also covers its indemnity. Indirect, consequential and punitive damages are excluded, and LegalFly is not responsible for losses from decisions made on generated content.

Against third party claims that the customer's use of the service infringes intellectual property, LegalFly indemnifies the customer. It can secure a license or modify the service, and pays damages from a final judgment or an approved settlement. The indemnity excludes claims arising from customer breach, outside modifications, use outside the documentation, configurations the customer specified and combinations with unapproved products.

The warranty promises professional service with reasonable skill and care. Warranties on the accuracy, completeness and reliability of output are disclaimed, and the customer verifies all output. The trust center offers cyber, liability and fraud insurance certificates on request. The terms of 24 April 2025 fall under Belgian law and the courts of Ghent.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Microsoft Word and Outlook carry most of the integration work. In Word a user reviews, redlines, drafts and compares contracts with tracked changes and formatting kept, applies playbooks and turns any contract into a template. In Outlook a user asks about a thread or attachment, drafts replies and fills templates from the details in an email.

SharePoint and Google Drive connect so documents can be imported or read by Discovery where they sit, and Multi Review pulls whole data rooms from SharePoint or a document system. Agent Studio workflows start from email, Slack or Teams. Every connection runs anonymization first. No connector for iManage or NetDocuments is named.

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

Deployment Model and Data Residency

Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.

Three deployment models are offered. SaaS is fully managed and monitored. Single tenant gives a customer a dedicated, isolated instance in its preferred Azure region, run by LegalFly. Single tenant with on premises anonymization adds an anonymization component inside the customer's environment, so only pseudonymized data travels to the dedicated tenant over private, encrypted connections, and identifiable data never leaves the customer.

The security FAQ adds private cloud, hybrid and full on premises deployment. Residency follows the Azure region the customer picks. The regions on offer are not listed.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

Security Certifications and Trust Center

Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.

ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II certification are stated, with annual independent penetration testing and a 2026 test listed. The trust center, run on Secureframe, releases the SOC 2 Type II report, a security whitepaper, the information security policy, the ISO certificate, insurance certificates and an architecture diagram through a request form. It shows monitored controls across access, network security, confidentiality, availability, vulnerability management, change management, incident response and risk.

The security page describes the framework as both aligned with and certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II. Report dates and the auditor are not shown.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

Model Supply Chain Disclosure

Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.

Two AI inference providers are named in the trust center, Anthropic and OpenAI. Each processes pseudonymized content only, unless a customer enables processing without anonymization, under zero retention and no training. Microsoft Azure hosts the platform, and the single tenant option sits in the customer's preferred Azure region.

The anonymization step runs before any provider call, and in the on premises option it runs on the customer's side. Which model handles which task is not stated, and LegalFly makes no commitment to tell customers when its providers change.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

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.

Buying starts with a demo, and no price is listed. The terms set out how the subscription works. Each order form caps the number of end users and sets the fees for that number, priced and payable in euros and invoiced annually in advance. The first term is one year and renews automatically, and a customer can lower its user count at renewal with 60 days notice.

Fees can rise in two ways, through indexation each 1 January and through an increase at renewal with 30 days written notice, after which the customer has 15 days to terminate. Users beyond the cap can be charged, and professional services such as implementation and training are quoted on a separate order form with estimated fees.

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

Firm and Practice Coverage

Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.

The product is built for in house legal and business teams in regulated industries. Industry pages cover banks, insurance, manufacturing, technology and professional services, where it pitches due diligence, regulatory research, drafting, contract review and client advisory work. Function pages cover legal, claims, compliance, HR, procurement and sales, each with its own workflows.

Coverage is set by jurisdiction. The knowledge base spans 35 jurisdictions of civil, commercial and regulatory law in the EU, UK and Middle East, Legal Radar monitors more than 70, and research reaches more than 130. Named customers range from ECS and Adeera to Wealins, MSIG Europe and the European Commission.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

8 public documents

The public pages on file for LEGALFLY, 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.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Opt in

Training occurs only where the customer has affirmatively enabled it.

Section 5.2 of the terms says customer data will not train the service without the customer's consent. The trust center adds that customer data never trains LegalFly's models, and that Anthropic and OpenAI handle pseudonymized content under zero retention and no training. The privacy policy keeps pseudonymized copies of uploaded contracts to improve the service and provide insights.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill not be used to train the SaaS Solution without Customer's consentAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Uploaded contracts are pseudonymized before storage, and the privacy policy keeps that content to improve the service, with no period given. Personal data is kept as long as its purpose requires or the law demands. The two model providers keep nothing under their zero retention terms, and a data retention and disposal policy appears among the trust center controls without its text.

Source: Vendor PublishedWe maintain the anonymized contract content in our systemsAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Own model, documented

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

Access inside a customer runs on LegalFly's own controls. Administrators set attribute based access rules, multifactor authentication and session governance, single sign on enforces the customer's identity policies, and playbooks can be shared with chosen members or teams. Each client's environment is isolated, and the single tenant option separates a customer completely. Walls between matters inside one customer are not described.

Source: Vendor Publishedisolating environments per client, and maintaining data ownership throughoutAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

Section 9.3 of the terms lets either party disclose confidential information when compelled by law, with prior notice to the other party where the law permits. The privacy policy says personal data may go to competent authorities when legally required. No transparency report is offered.

Source: Vendor Publishedgives the Disclosing Party prior notice of the compelled disclosureAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

The knowledge base joins more than 700 government and official sources for case law, regulation and legislation with two named publishers. FromCounsel supplies commentary written by UK barristers, and Qistas covers legislation and rulings across nine or more Gulf and Arab jurisdictions. Publisher content and datasets update daily, and teams add their own knowledge collections. The terms for the publisher content are not stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Answers come with citations and reasoning a user can audit, and legal datasets update daily. Whether a returned case carries a treatment flag or a note of later history is not described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

What Discovery does when its sources hold no answer is not described. Agent Studio hands work to a person when set thresholds are met, and Review gives the reasoning behind each flag it raises.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming LegalFly. Its products serve in house legal and business teams in European and Middle Eastern enterprises.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

Compliance material covers information security and data protection frameworks across the EU, UK and Middle East. No public material engages a bar opinion, law society guidance or ABA Formal Opinion 512.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Savings claims only

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.

LegalFly sells to legal, compliance, claims, HR, procurement and sales teams in regulated enterprises, and to professional services firms for due diligence, regulatory research, drafting, contract review and client advisory work. Its material is framed around speed and cost. The Wealins customer story reports one legal professional now covering several jurisdictions where coverage was once one or two countries per person, and lower external legal spend.

No per matter record of AI assisted work for fee purposes and no guidance on billing, fees or client disclosure is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

Five subprocessors appear in the trust center with their roles, Microsoft Azure, Auth0, PostHog, Anthropic and OpenAI, and the two model providers see pseudonymized content only, under zero retention and no training. The SOC 2 Type II report, security whitepaper and policies are released through a request form. No client facing disclosure template is offered.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Multi Review exports summaries, comparison tables and diligence packs, with links from each extracted field to its source. Review gives each flagged clause its reasoning and supporting sources and keeps an audit trail, and Discovery answers carry citations. The model behind an output does not appear in these exports.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 409 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 13, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746