L

Legau

Generative AI drives all five product functions: research, planning, creation, review and translation. The vendor brands the underlying system Legau.AI and offers no conventional mode of the product alongside it. The clearest evidence is commercial rather than editorial: AI Assistant requests are the metered unit on every pricing tier, at 10, 50 and unlimited per user per month, so the machine learning is literally what the buyer is charged for.

Grounding is documented at feature level. The product retrieves from a court decisions database, an enriched layer carrying similar decisions and mentions, a legal papers engine and the firm's own document management system, and an Automatic Quoting feature places retrieved authority into the draft. No accuracy rate, hallucination rate, benchmark or evaluation is published on any located surface. The band is the no published number case; documented grounding is what separates it from C.

The vendor positions the product as assistance with the attorney retaining oversight of drafting, which is a general assurance of human review rather than a stated boundary. No named plan or mode carries a limit on what its output may be used for, and no review checkpoint is described in the product flow. A general assurance is the B shape.

Three figures are published: 22.1 percent of time gained back per attorney on average, 91 percent of attorneys who used the product saved time, and 75 percent reporting more satisfaction at work. All three are attributed to attorneys who used Legau, with no sample size, measurement period or method published. Five law firm customers are displayed by logo, including PLMJ and Morais Leitao. Named customers are customer evidence rather than outcome evidence, and a figure with no method behind it holds the row at B.

The security page documents real architecture. Each customer has its own storage container, external access is restricted to Legau's compute infrastructure, access keys are rotated, and access runs on a need to know basis. The data page states that data is never sold or used beyond providing the service, and marketing surfaces state that client documents are never used to train any AI. Neither attorney client privilege nor work product appears anywhere on the located estate, and no matter level segregation is described.

This is confidentiality architecture without the two terms of art that attach a professional duty to it, which holds the row at B.

Checked 15 September 2026: homepage, the five product pages, both solutions pages, the AI legal assistant page, security, data, pricing, try, and all four documents linked in the footer, being the privacy policy, terms of use, cookies policy and data processing agreement. No statement that the product supplies a tool rather than legal advice, no reference to ABA Formal Opinion 512 or to any bar or ethics guidance, and no jurisdiction limitation located.

The published terms of use disclaim accuracy of website content, which is a website disclaimer and not a professional responsibility posture. The audience is attorneys and legal departments throughout, which is recorded here as the mitigating fact rather than credited as a posture.

Checked 15 September 2026 across the marketing estate, both trust pages and the four footer legal documents. No governance owner, no pre release testing description, no evaluation practice and no statement on output variation across document types, jurisdictions or parties. Nothing located either way.

Substantive for the band. Encryption in transit at TLS 1.2 or above with forward secrecy and at rest, per customer storage containers, rotating access keys, zero trust firewall, SSO, injection and cross site prevention, plus published deletion and data portability on request. The gaps that hold it below A are a subprocessor list, an incident response practice and any retention statement covering customer documents, none of which is located.

The architecture detail is credited here rather than on Security Certifications, where the question is independent attestation.

Checked 15 September 2026. The only published agreement is a website terms of use, which excludes liability to the fullest extent permissible for use of the website and says nothing about product output. The pricing page names the governing agreement for each tier as Legau Standard for the two lower tiers and Custom for enterprise, and no document under either name is published anywhere on the estate. So no indemnity, no cap, no carve out and no insurance position is reachable, and the agreement that would carry them is named but not published.

Among the strongest in the lane. The product is a Word and Outlook add in rather than a separate application, so drafting, research, planning, review and translation all run in the client's existing environment, and every function has a stated Outlook variant. Document management support covers SharePoint, OneDrive, iManage, NetDocuments, Google Drive and Dropbox, and the pricing table states which systems each tier reaches, with SharePoint and OneDrive at Starter and the full set from Business upward.

A DMS Advanced Layer Sync is published with volume limits of 5,000 and 10,000 documents. Publishing integration depth by tier rather than as a logo wall is what earns the A.

Two deployment shapes are published with named regions. The hosted product runs on Microsoft Azure in East US or the EU, and the data page states that data is stored in the United States or Europe depending on the client's jurisdiction, so region follows the buyer rather than being an enterprise negotiation. The Advanced AI Layer add on runs inside the firm's own infrastructure with the firm owning the model. Published option plus named region plus a customer infrastructure path is the A shape.

Checked 15 September 2026. The security page is substantive and describes architecture at length, but it names no certification at all: no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no penetration test summary, no trust portal and no audit of any kind, claimed or attested. There is also no self serve request route, so the three tier treatment does not reach even its middle tier. This axis measures independent attestation a buyer can pull, and none exists.

The architecture the page does publish is credited on AI Safety and Data Stewardship so that it is not lost. Worth noting for context that the vendor is deployed at two of the largest firms in Portugal, which means procurement has asked these questions and the answers are simply not public.

Checked 15 September 2026 across the marketing estate, the security and data pages and the data processing agreement. No model is named, no model provider is named, and no subprocessor list is published. Legau.AI and Advanced AI Layer are product brand names rather than disclosure. The data processing agreement defines a sub subcontractor category and governs their appointment but publishes no list of who they are. A legal buyer cannot learn from any public surface whose model reads its drafts.

Three tiers carry published monthly rates of 79, 99 and 139 US dollars, with a full feature comparison matrix across research, creation, review, planning, translation and support. The unit of charge is published rather than implied: AI Assistant credits at 10, 50 and unlimited requests per user per month, documents segmented at 300 and 600, and DMS sync at 5,000 and 10,000 documents. SSO type, interface languages, support channel, onboarding format and reporting cadence are all stated by tier.

Two add ons, the Advanced Layer and electronic signature, are request only and that is stated plainly. The one qualifier recorded rather than penalised is that every tier reads From, and the page says pricing is tailored to setup complexity, adoption and organisation size, so the published figure is a floor.

Practice coverage is enumerated rather than claimed: twelve areas across a transactional page covering corporate and M&A, commercial, banking and finance, real estate, capital markets and securities and intellectual property, and a non transactional page covering litigation, tax, regulatory and compliance, labour and employment, antitrust and competition, and government and public. The buyer is stated as a law firm or legal department.

What holds the row below A is firm size: no band is stated anywhere, and the three pricing tiers are the only proxy for whether this is sold to solos, midlaw or the large firms whose logos appear on the homepage.