L
Lexzur

Lexzur, formerly App4Legal, combines contract administration and legal practice operations through CONTRA and PRACTICE. The Dubai company supplies a shared repository, permissions and workflow engine for agreements, matters, litigation, client intake, time and billing. LEXA adds AI review and drafting within those records, using Microsoft Azure OpenAI. Teams configure specialized agents with instructions, reference files and available tools, then connect them into sequential, dependent or routing workflows.

Contract analysis identifies departures from templates, extracts obligations and presents the clauses behind findings. Matter analysis summarizes files, checks factual consistency and organizes arguments. Lawyers retain responsibility for approvals, signatures and final legal decisions. PRACTICE includes hourly, fixed fee and capped arrangements, while separate client and advisor portals restrict external participation.

Arabic review, regional invoicing and multiple interface languages support international teams. Cloud, private service and customer server options are available, although AI processing regions require a separate explanation from storage residency. Subscriptions begin with three users, and LEXA consumption uses credits. Customer accounts describe operational benefits without isolating AI results. The contractual improvement permissions are broader than the product's stated prohibition on model training.

Compared with

Lexzur, 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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

LEXA operates within CONTRA and PRACTICE, bringing contract analysis, matter summaries, translation and drafting into the same records used for daily legal administration. Teams define agents with persistent instructions, reference files and tools, then combine them into sequential, dependent or routing workflows. A workflow can call another workflow and be enabled or disabled centrally. The Knowledge Base supplies organizational templates and policies, while chat settings select jurisdiction and response preferences.

The underlying products still manage matters, agreements, permissions, billing and signatures without generating answers. AI is consequently an important working capability within a broader operational system, rather than the sole function of the platform.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

LEXA compares agreement language with the customer's templates, clause library and policies, presenting the clause or passage behind each finding. Review covers missing provisions, unusual wording, indemnities, obligations and ambiguity. Administrators can upload reference files, index selected material and apply custom instructions across responses. This gives analysis an identifiable organizational context instead of relying only on a general question.

Matter checks also use the file's correspondence and attachments. No measured citation accuracy, described legal evaluation set or error rate accompanies these features. A retrievable contract passage supports inspection of a finding but does not verify an external legal authority or its continuing validity.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Autonomy and Oversight ModelWhat the system runs alone, what constrains it, and how a lawyer checks it are all published: modes, thresholds, review surfaces, and the route a matter takes back to human judgment. A categorical limit on a named mode or tier, stating what its output may not be used for, meets the threshold limb without a number.

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.

Administrators configure each agent's task, response behavior, available tools and reference files. Workflows run sequentially, pass earlier results to later agents or route work to an appropriate agent or subworkflow; each can be disabled from settings. Users select the workflow and supporting material, with an optional buyer, seller or neutral review perspective. LEXA returns source passages for review and records AI actions against the underlying record.

Its stated boundary excludes signing, approving and making the final legal risk decision. The agreement requires human verification and approval before reliance, execution or filing, and permits binding AI action only through a separate written arrangement.

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.

Al Marbae & Partners Law Firm in Jeddah began using PRACTICE in December 2023. Its administration and business development manager, Mohammad Ali, describes improved efficiency, reduced operating effort and more accurate billing. The account identifies the firm, responsible user, product and adoption period, but supplies no numerical baseline or measurement method. CONTRA separately promotes faster contract creation, lower costs and extensive approval automation without connecting those figures to that firm's experience.

The named deployment therefore supports actual operational use of Lexzur, while the size of any improvement attributable specifically to LEXA remains undetermined. General customer totals do not establish AI performance.

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.

The agreement protects confidential information through purpose restrictions, reasonable care and obligations on authorized recipients. Lexzur separates customer databases and attachment paths, with privacy settings for individual matters and folders. LEXA follows the workspace's user permissions, while account administrators retain broad access. Product guidance states that customer files do not train Lexzur models or improve others' outputs.

The contract nevertheless permits derived anonymous statistics for development and improvement, and the data addendum includes system improvement among AI processing purposes without an express training exception. Provider retention, a complete processor schedule and privilege specific handling remain unresolved, so the marketing commitment does not supply the entire contractual boundary.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

LEXA is presented as assistance with review, extraction, summaries and drafting, with the lawyer retaining professional judgment. The agreement excludes legal and regulatory advice and requires independent verification and approval before generated material informs filings, contracts or other decisions. The product also serves procurement, sales and other business users, so this boundary extends beyond licensed lawyers.

A country selector provides jurisdictional context, and a general framework applies when no country is selected. That setting does not establish jurisdiction specific authorization, professional competence or legal correctness. No detailed allocation of supervision duties across those countries accompanies the available workflows.

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.

The security exhibit lists grounded answers, citations, estimates of certainty, approval mechanisms and monitoring as optional AI controls, applied where appropriate. General operational provisions cover development changes, testing and security procedures without a defined AI release assessment. Customer administrators can constrain agent instructions, reference files and tools, and can disable workflows; those settings govern customer use rather than establishing the vendor's own testing program.

No accountable AI governance owner, model acceptance criteria or results across legal tasks and populations are identified. Educational discussion of bias and human judgment does not supply a measurable assurance process for current LEXA agents.

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.

Lexzur combines encrypted storage and transport with user permissions, access logging and backup procedures. Its data addendum requires notice without undue delay after a confirmed personal data incident, aiming for seventy two hours where feasible. The agreement sets deletion within ninety days after termination, but the addendum preserves legal, compliance and temporary backup exceptions. Chat History retains conversations for later continuation, without a separate prompt retention window.

Subprocessors must accept protective obligations, although their full list is supplied on request and change notice is conditional on applicable law. These controls cover substantial operational ground without a complete, fixed account of every AI processing layer.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

The agreement provides a vendor defense and indemnity for infringement claims concerning the program and services, with exclusions for customer material, modifications, misuse and combinations with other products. It limits aggregate liability to fees paid during the preceding twelve months and excludes consequential losses. AI output carries no accuracy, completeness or legal sufficiency warranty, and the customer must verify its use.

Service interruption credits are a separate, limited remedy, capped at five percent of the monthly fee under the stated availability schedule. These contractual remedies address defined service and intellectual property risks, without a distinct promise to compensate for an erroneous legal conclusion.

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.

Lexzur webhooks send outbound HTTPS POST requests when matters, intellectual property records, matter containers or contracts are added or edited, and when supported workflow statuses change. Administrators configure a primary endpoint and optional second endpoint, then trigger an event to verify delivery. The receiving systems must process the event data. Microsoft connections associate Outlook mail with matter records and support Word work, Teams and external storage.

Signature integrations return signed copies and audit trails to the contract record. Google Calendar synchronization exchanges calendar, meeting, attendee and timing information in both directions. API availability and some integrations depend on the purchased plan.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail 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.

Lexzur offers cloud hosting, private service, hybrid arrangements and installation on customer servers. The cloud description identifies Microsoft Azure, while the data addendum names Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the European Union among available hosting locations. Product guidance places local residency on Business and higher plans, with the chosen arrangement defined in the order or proposal. Customer databases and attachment paths are separated.

LEXA uses Azure OpenAI, but its inference region and the treatment of remote support or other processors are not mapped to each hosting choice. Keeping the core repository in a selected country therefore does not establish identical residency for every AI operation.

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.

Lexzur identifies ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification with certificate number AE24060703. Its trust center lists ISO certification and separate SOC 2 Type II compliance entries for Saudi Arabia, France and the United Arab Emirates. It also lists resources covering encryption, backups, disaster recovery, secure development and security fixes. Detailed reports and control material require access; the open overview does not supply auditor opinions, examination periods or full service scope.

Other explanations attribute SOC certifications to the hosting provider, which is a separate assurance boundary. Encryption, authentication and role controls supplement these statements without independently proving the quality of AI answers.

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.

LEXA identifies Microsoft Azure OpenAI as its generative AI technology. The application allows agents to use Precise or Creative response behavior, but those labels do not identify foundation model names or versions. Administrators also choose reference files and available tools, shaping context without selecting a fully described provider chain. The agreement permits third party model and infrastructure services with their own technical and regional constraints.

It does not promise advance notice of particular model substitutions, and the complete subprocessor list is available on request. The provider is therefore identifiable, while model versions, processing regions and change handling remain only partly specified.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

Both PRACTICE and CONTRA use subscriptions priced per user, with cloud Basic starting at $9 per month billed annually or $11 monthly. Basic covers three to five users; Business supports up to twenty five and Enterprise up to fifty, with Enterprise Plus quoted for larger arrangements. Annual Business and Enterprise rates are $29 and $39 per user per month. LEXA includes fifty trial credits per instance, followed by purchased transaction bundles.

Portals and selected connectors add separate charges. Implementation scope and residency require a proposal. The subscription and usage structure is clear, but the full cost depends on deployment, external access and the purchased services.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

PRACTICE serves law firms and corporate legal departments handling matters, litigation, hearings, contacts, time, billing and intellectual property administration. CONTRA extends agreement workflows to procurement, sales, finance, human resources and government teams. Plan sizes range from three users to enterprise arrangements, with separate portals for clients and outside counsel. The interface includes English, Arabic, French and Spanish, and LEXA supports Arabic review and translation.

Regional features include Saudi electronic invoicing and local signature options. A jurisdiction setting gives AI additional context, but no complete matrix identifies supported legal authorities, practice specific performance or excluded uses across all offered countries and languages.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

11 public documents

The public pages on file for Lexzur, 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

From $9 per user per month, billed annually

USD, as published, never converted
  • Each product starts at $9 per person per month on an annual plan.
  • Basic requires at least three users.
  • Fifty AI credits are included for an initial trial, then extra use costs more.
  • Portal seats, setup and hosting choices can increase the total.

PRACTICE and CONTRA each offer cloud Basic at $9 per user per month billed annually or $11 monthly, for three to five users. Business is $29 annually or $36 monthly per user, supporting up to twenty five users; Enterprise is $39 per user per month billed annually, up to fifty users. Enterprise Plus requires a proposal. Each instance includes fifty LEXA credits before additional transaction bundles are purchased.

Implementation: Solution Expert service packages and tailored deployment are separate from the user subscription. Migration, configuration and residency are scoped in the commercial proposal, so the service package alone does not determine the total setup charge.

Confidentiality and data terms: The data addendum applies to personal data processing across the service. Special categories of personal data require an express written arrangement, and no healthcare BAA tier or related charge is specified.

Note: Rates shown are the public dollar amounts returned for the United States and UAE. The cloud Enterprise tiers are sold annually. Client Portal, Advisor Portal, some connectors and AI credits can add charges; a subscription to one module is not an all inclusive price for the full ecosystem. Renewal prices may change, and nonrenewal notice is due fifteen days before term end. The pricing FAQ's continued storage assurance conflicts with the agreement's deletion rules, including deletion of trial data unless a subscription follows.

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 the contract

The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.

The October agreement permits aggregated, anonymized statistics for research, system improvement and product development. The data addendum also allows AI processing of customer data for system improvement and functionality enhancement, without an express exclusion for model training. This is broader than LEXA's promise that customer files do not train models or improve others' answers. The Knowledge Base uses a Train action to index reference files; that interface label alone does not establish foundation model training. The contractual improvement permission has no stated opt out.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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.

LEXA Chat History lets users reopen and continue past conversations, confirming that the application retains exchanges. No distinct prompt or output retention period, configurable window or zero retention option is specified. The agreement's ninety day deletion period follows subscription termination rather than each AI request. Its data addendum permits legal and internal compliance retention and temporary copies in backup or recovery systems.

Those exceptions mean the termination period cannot be treated as an absolute purge deadline for all conversation material or provider records.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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.

Lexzur controls access through user groups and module permissions, with additional privacy at matter and folder level. Administrators can assign permissions for individual activities in PRACTICE, CONTRA and Billing; administrators have all permissions by default. Client and advisor portals provide separate, restricted participation, including field controls for outside counsel. LEXA follows the workspace's permissions.

These are Lexzur's own controls rather than demonstrated inheritance of an external document system's ethical walls. Knowledge Base administration also requires care because indexed reference material can influence responses across modules.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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.

The confidentiality clause requires reasonable advance notice of compelled disclosure where legally permitted and cooperation with protective measures at the customer's expense. For personal data, the data addendum promises commercially reasonable efforts to notify before disclosure where lawful and reasonably practicable. Authorities may still require production, and the commitment is subject to those legal and practical qualifications.

No transparency report describing request volumes or handling outcomes accompanies the terms. Incident notification addresses unauthorized access separately and should not be confused with notice of legal process.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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?

Jurisdictions only

Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.

LEXA lets a user select a country whose legal framework should guide the response, with a general framework used when none is chosen. It also analyzes uploaded agreements, matter files and organizational reference material. The country setting does not identify the underlying statutes, judgments or commentary, their licensing basis or their update schedule. Customer templates and policies provide a distinct source of organizational context, but they are not a complete primary law collection. No inventory maps the available jurisdiction settings to named, maintained legal corpora.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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.

LEXA can analyze legal issues, governing law and compliance questions using matter material and selected jurisdictional context. Contract findings point back to relevant clauses, supporting review of the working agreement. No integrated citator or subsequent treatment process is identified for judicial authorities, and the general requirement to verify output does not describe such a function. A country selector and an accessible source passage cannot determine whether a cited judgment was overturned or limited. That verification remains separate from the contract and matter analysis described for LEXA.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

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.

The security exhibit mentions optional confidence indicators without identifying a current display, calibration or threshold. LEXA's agents can follow precise instructions and return the clauses behind findings, but no explicit no answer path is described when source material cannot support a legal conclusion. The stated prohibition on signing or approving concerns action authority, not whether the model abstains from an unsupported answer. General warnings about mistakes and required human review therefore do not establish runtime refusal behavior.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

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 contained no entry identifying Lexzur, App4Legal or LEXA as the responsible tool as of October 16, 2026. Incidental matches involving names such as Alexander and Alexa concerned other subjects and did not identify this product. The absence of an identified case does not measure LEXA's accuracy or prove that generated legal analysis is reliable. Its internal matter and agreement work may never appear in a reported court dispute, and users retain responsibility for verifying material used in proceedings.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence
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.

Lexzur's educational material refers generally to American Bar Association guidance, competence, client interests, confidentiality and the risks of biased AI output. Its current agreement independently requires human verification and excludes professional advice. No named ethics opinion is connected to a specific LEXA control or mapped across jurisdictions. The older educational article's broad regulatory discussion does not establish the current legal position in each country.

Selecting a jurisdiction for a response also does not determine whether a firm's client consent, candor and supervision obligations have been satisfied.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

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.

PRACTICE tracks time and expenses, supports hourly, fixed fee and capped arrangements, and generates invoices from approved entries. Lexzur promotes time savings from LEXA and improved billing efficiency, including a law firm customer account. These administrative features do not establish an invoice record identifying which billable work used AI, the actual time saved or the appropriate client charge. General AI activity logs record another part of the workflow.

No fee guidance connects compressed drafting or review time to the amount a lawyer may bill or the disclosure owed to the client.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

On request only

The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.

Lexzur makes its terms, data addendum, security exhibit and Azure OpenAI identification available for diligence. The full subprocessor list is supplied on request, and the trust center requires access for detailed resources. Those materials can support an initial explanation of the platform but do not provide a complete, immediately usable client disclosure package. Model versions, AI processing locations, retention exceptions and the difference between marketing and contractual improvement rights still affect an organization's assessment. No dedicated workflow applies a client's AI restrictions across LEXA features.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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.

LEXA retains chat history and states that AI actions are logged against the relevant record. The System Audit Log spans contracts, matters and tasks, with user, time, action and changed field information; filtered results can be exported to Excel. Contract activity includes approvals, signatures and negotiations. These features preserve useful portions of the work history, but no combined export ties every generated passage to the exact model version, retrieved sources and a lawyer's independent verification. A court declaration or certification therefore requires information beyond the described activity report.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 16, 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 462 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 16, 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