L
LegalZoom

LegalZoom is an online legal platform for small businesses and individuals, selling business formation and compliance filings, registered agent service, trademark and copyright filings, legal forms, estate planning documents and attorney plans. LegalZoom.com, Inc., listed on Nasdaq and headquartered in Mountain View, California, states that it is not a law firm; attorney services come through independent attorneys and, where authorised, its subsidiary law firm LZ Legal Services, LLC. Its AI features include Doc Assist, a free document summariser; a business name generator, grant finder and expense categoriser; AI-assisted business licence research; and a published catalogue of 24 MCP tools that let assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft 365 Copilot form LLCs, analyse documents against an attorney-curated clause framework and book attorney reviews.

Formation packages are priced publicly from $0 plus state fees. This record grades the platform and its AI features, not the attorney services.

Vendor siteMountain View, CA, United States
Last verifiedSeptember 18, 2026
Compare with other vendors

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.

CC on AI CentralityArtificial intelligence is present but peripheral: a feature layer on a product whose value stands without it.

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 AI is a feature layer on a business whose value stands without it, which is the C band. LegalZoom's AI features are Doc Assist, a free document summariser; a business name generator, NAICS code search, expense categoriser, grant finder and search summaries; and AI research that produces most business licence lists. The core products (entity formation and compliance filings, registered agent service, trademark and copyright filings, legal forms and attorney plans) run without the models. Verified 18 September 2026.

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.

Grounding is claimed without sources the reader can open or any measurement, which is the C band. The MCP catalogue says documents are analysed against an attorney-curated clause framework, and Doc Assist gives clause highlights and common questions for the document type. The Doc Assist page and FAQ say summaries may be incomplete or inaccurate because they rely on rapidly evolving generative AI, and the AI Additional Terms make no promise that output is accurate. No accuracy figure, test or source linking is published. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Autonomy and Oversight ModelAutonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a mechanism. Human in the loop appears as a phrase rather than a described control.

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.

Oversight is asserted through disclaimers and an optional attorney, without a described control on the AI, which is the C band. Doc Assist says its output is informational only and links to attorney review; the AI Additional Terms say the AI Services do not provide legal advice. A March 2026 release says AI now completes about 70 per cent of business licence research requests and the rest still go to human review, but it does not say what sends a request to a person or who that reviewer is. No lawyer reviews AI output by default. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Results are quoted without customer attribution or a customer-side method, which is the C band. The business licence release estimates about $3 million in LegalZoom's own savings in 2026 from automating licence research, and a 2023 release says 85 per cent of LegalZoom customers had not spoken to an attorney. These are the vendor's operating figures, not named customer outcomes; the Terms say published reviews carry only a first name and last initial. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms and training use is permitted by policy, which is the C band. The Terms of Service say no attorney-client relationship or privilege is created with LegalZoom; the AI Additional Terms say the AI Services are not meant for privileged or highly sensitive information; the privacy policy says LegalZoom does not intend to collect attorney information in a way that waives privilege.

The Doc Assist FAQ says uploads are stored in the user's documents centre and may be used to train LegalZoom's own models but not third-party AI tools. Nothing addresses separation between users or what an AI provider retains. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureThe vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports a lawyer’s competence and supervision duties. Jurisdiction limits are named and any consumer facing surface carries a clear disclosure.

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.

The vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it and what it requires of its attorneys, with jurisdiction statements and a disclosure on every page, which is the A band. The Terms of Service open by saying LegalZoom is not a law firm, its forms are no substitute for an attorney, the customer represents themselves and no attorney-client relationship or privilege is created, and that a customer who believes they received legal advice should not buy.

The Terms of Use say LegalZoom reviews answers only for completeness and consistency and never applies law to facts, and define network attorneys' experience as five years' practice, errors-and-omissions insurance, good standing and no recent discipline. The Terms say LegalZoom is not a registered legal document assistant under California law; the AI Additional Terms limit AI use to adults and say it is not legal advice; the footer names the subsidiary law firm, LZ Legal Services, LLC, as the only route to advice. Rocket Lawyer precedent. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

No AI governance position was located, which is the D band. The privacy policy says LegalZoom applies privacy-by-design and has privacy and security teams, and uses AI and human review in processing; the AI Additional Terms set user rules. Nothing describes how the AI features are tested before release, who is accountable for them, or how they perform across users or document types. Searched the Terms of Service, Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, AI Additional Terms, Doc Assist page, AI capabilities page and security page on 18 September 2026. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

Published policy covering much of the ground, short of a retention period, a subprocessor list and an incident practice, which is the B band. The privacy policy covers products as well as the website, lists the data collected, names payment, shipping and identity-verification vendors (WorldPay, Adyen, Stripe, Onfido, Veriff, FedEx, USPS), bars service providers from other uses, sets out access and deletion requests with an appeal route, and says multi-factor authentication is in place for all customer accounts.

The security page describes a dedicated security team, encryption of sensitive information and a responsible disclosure policy; the Doc Assist FAQ says uploads are stored in the user's documents centre. Retention is only 'at least as long as necessary', no AI provider is named, and no breach notification commitment was located. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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.

Liability is addressed only by disclaimers and a standard cap, which is the C band. The AI Additional Terms provide the AI Services as is, with no promise that output is accurate, complete or fit for use; the Terms of Service and Terms of Use exclude indirect damages and cap liability at the amount paid. The LZ Guarantee is a refund policy on purchases and does not reach the free AI features. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

Documented, verifiable integrations with the contract of each described, which is the A band. The AI capabilities page publishes 24 MCP tools in seven families, from LLC formation and business licences to document analysis and attorney booking, each with its own page, plus a catalog.json carrying schemas, annotations, versions and authentication, a text catalogue for agents, connector set-up documentation and six read-only WebMCP browser tools.

Named integrations cover ChatGPT, Claude and a Microsoft 365 Copilot agent. For a small-business buyer these assistants and Microsoft 365 are where the work happens. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

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.

Cloud delivery is implied and neither hosting location nor tenancy is stated, which is the C band. The privacy policy covers US, EU and UK users but says nothing about where data is hosted or processed, and the Doc Assist FAQ says the service is available only to US customers, which concerns eligibility rather than residency. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

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 was located, which is the D band. The security page, titled a trust page, describes a dedicated information security team, encryption, multi-factor authentication and a responsible disclosure policy, and names no SOC 2 report, ISO certification or audit. Searched the security page, privacy policy and Terms on 18 September 2026. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

Proprietary models are referred to without saying what sits underneath, which is the C band. The Doc Assist FAQ says inputs may train LegalZoom's own proprietary AI models and will not train third-party AI tools, and the AI Additional Terms say the features use generative AI. No model, version or provider is named, and nothing commits to notice of changes. The ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft 365 Copilot integrations run LegalZoom tools inside other vendors' assistants and do not disclose what powers LegalZoom's own features. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Commercial TransparencyA buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, and what implementation adds.

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.

A buyer can learn the price without a sales process, which is the A band. LegalZoom's own pages publish LLC formation at $0 (Basic), $249 (Pro) and $299 (Premium) plus state filing fees, with Premium's attorney consultations renewing at $49 a month after 30 days and bookkeeping tools at $9.99 a month after six months, and Doc Assist is free. The Terms of Service set out filing fees, a 60-day refund window and an installment plan for purchases of $200 or more. Verified 18 September 2026.

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.

Who the product serves and what it covers are documented with limits stated, which is the A band. LegalZoom serves small businesses and individuals across business formation and compliance, business licences, trademarks, copyrights and provisional patents, wills, trusts, powers of attorney, prenuptial agreements, divorce and real estate documents. Stated limits: Doc Assist is US-only and takes text-based files up to 5 MB; licence lists exclude tax registrations and professional licences; the AI features are not for privileged, highly sensitive or minors' information; the Terms say LegalZoom is not a registered legal document assistant in California.

Firm-segment and government limbs do not bite on a consumer product (R15). Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

5 public documents

The public pages on file for LegalZoom, 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.

Pricing

$249 + state filing fees (LLC Pro package)USD, as published, never converted

  • You can form an LLC for $0 plus state fees, and Doc Assist, the AI document summariser, is free.
  • The cheapest paid LLC package, Pro, costs $249 plus state fees.
  • Premium costs $299 plus state fees and adds 30 days of attorney consultations, then $49 a month.
  • You can ask for a refund within 60 days, and purchases of $200 or more can be split into three payments.

One-time packages per business formation, plus optional subscriptions. LLC Basic $0, Pro $249 and Premium $299, each plus state filing fees; Premium includes 30 days of attorney consultations renewing at $49 a month and six months of bookkeeping tools renewing at $9.99 a month. Doc Assist and Grant Finder are free. Sources: LegalZoom LLC pages (search excerpts) and Terms of Service (4 September 2026), read 18 September 2026.

Implementation: None. State filing fees are extra and charged at cost; attorney consultations on the Premium package renew at $49 a month after 30 days.

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?

Permitted, in policy only

Public material states that customer content trains, refines or personalises models, with no matching term located in the published agreement. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.

Public material states that customer inputs may train the vendor's own models, with no matching term in the agreement. The Doc Assist FAQ says information provided through Doc Assist may be used to improve the product, which may involve training LegalZoom's own proprietary AI models, and will not be used to train any third-party AI tools. The Terms of Use license personal information only to enable the service and incorporate the Privacy Policy, whose product-development purpose covers developing machine learning or AI technologies without naming training. No opt-out was located.

Source: Vendor Publishedwhich may involve training our own proprietary AI modelsAs of Sep 18, 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.

Retention is acknowledged without a period. The privacy policy says personal information is kept at least as long as needed for its purposes and legal obligations; the Doc Assist FAQ says uploaded documents are stored in the user's documents centre and summaries in a LegalZoom database. Deletion is by verified request and may be declined.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 18, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

Searched the Terms of Service, Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, AI Additional Terms, Doc Assist page and security page on 18 September 2026. Nothing addresses separation between users' matters beyond authorised-contact controls on account access.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 18, 2026

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

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.

Disclosure is addressed and notice is not. The privacy policy says personal information may be disclosed as required by law, including subpoenas and law enforcement or national security requests, and the Terms of Service say that for a disabled account no information is released outside LegalZoom absent a subpoena or court order. No commitment to tell the customer first was located.

Source: Vendor Publishedin response to a subpoena or a lawful request by a public authorityAs of Sep 18, 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 licence or rights basis.

The sources are identified as the vendor's own content, with no primary law named. The MCP catalogue says document analysis uses an attorney-curated clause framework and knowledge search draws on LegalZoom articles and approved legal education; the Terms of Use say LegalZoom strives to keep its documents current but cannot guarantee it. The statutes and cases behind that content and any update cadence are not stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 18, 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.

Searched the Doc Assist page, AI capabilities page, AI Additional Terms and Terms of Use on 18 September 2026. The AI features summarise and analyse documents and cite no legal authority; no good-law check is described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 18, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour

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.

Searched the Doc Assist page and FAQ, the AI Additional Terms, the AI capabilities page and the March 2026 business licence release on 18 September 2026. Doc Assist says its summaries may be incomplete or inaccurate and points users to attorneys, and the release says about 30 per cent of licence research requests still go to human review, but no behaviour for questions the AI cannot answer, and no confidence signal, is described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 18, 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.

Searched web and trade press reporting on court sanctions for AI-fabricated citations on 18 September 2026 for any court record addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from LegalZoom's AI features. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Sep 18, 2026
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

Professional responsibility is addressed in general terms without named guidance. The Terms set out that LegalZoom is not a law firm, is not a registered legal document assistant under California law, and define the experience standard for network attorneys; the footer names its subsidiary law firm. No ethics opinion, court AI order or bar guidance on AI is named on the surfaces read.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 18, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Outside the fee relationship

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 sits outside a lawyer-client fee relationship. Small businesses and individuals buy forms, filings and the free AI tools for their own matters and represent themselves, per the Terms of Service; attorney fees under the legal plans are governed separately and are not the product graded.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 18, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Not addressed

No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.

Searched the Privacy Policy, Terms, AI Additional Terms, Doc Assist page and security page on 18 September 2026. The privacy policy names payment, shipping and identity-verification vendors as examples, but no subprocessor or AI model provider list is published and none is offered on request.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 18, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

Searched the Terms, AI Additional Terms, Doc Assist page and AI capabilities page on 18 September 2026. Customers prepare documents they may file, such as divorce papers, but nothing addresses disclosing AI use to a court or recording which content AI produced.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 18, 2026
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 61 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
September 18, 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