L
Lisia
Lisia is an AI legal research tool for Italian case law. A lawyer types a question in plain language, and Lisia returns the full judgments and maxims it ranks as most relevant, highlighting the passage in each judgment where the answer is found. The company describes the technology as natural language processing over a proprietary semantic and vector search system, refined through user ratings of each answer. The database was built for the product and holds more than 6 million full judgments and maxims, updated weekly.
About 2 million come from the Court of Cassation over 35 years, 2.2 million from tribunals and courts of appeal over 15 years, and 1.8 million from the regional administrative courts and the Council of State over 15 years. Searches can be saved in folders by client or case. Lisia is sold self serve per user to independent lawyers, law firms and in house legal teams, with a 14 day free trial, and the company reports more than 1,000 lawyer users.
No hosting location is published. Lisia is operated by Valeo Legal Solutions S.r.l. of Rome, and the project was partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Lisia's home page says a lawyer writes a question in natural language in the SMART search bar. The system analyzes millions of documents and in seconds locates the most relevant answer within the full judgments, highlighting the passage where it sits. The About page describes natural language processing, cognitive search and "a semantic/vector system" that sorts millions of legal data in a fraction of a second, with automatic text extraction and highlighting.
The FAQ calls the technology innovative and proprietary. The site presents the natural language question as the way in, with no complex keyword searches to build. Lisia describes no drafting, summarizing or chat feature. Its AI is retrieval and passage extraction over the case law database.
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.
Every result is a judgment the lawyer can open. Lisia's home page says it returns full judgments and maxims relevant to the specific case, highlights the part of the full text where the answer is found, and links maxims to the relevant ruling. The About page describes the retrieval method as natural language processing over a semantic and vector index with automatic text extraction. The home page makes two accuracy claims, and they differ.
One says that on a sample of 100 complex questions Lisia answered adequately 75 percent of the time against 15 percent on traditional platforms. The other says it gave correct answers in 75 percent of cases against 50 percent. Neither names the platforms, publishes the questions, defines a correct answer or gives a date, and no failure modes are described.
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.
Lisia finds and highlights case law for a lawyer to read. The product neither drafts nor acts on a matter. What it decides on its own is what to rank first and which passage to highlight. Each result opens as the full judgment with the relevant passage highlighted, searches can be filed in folders by client or case, and a feedback control on every answer lets the user rate it. No written account of the lawyer's role is published.
The home page sells Lisia to in house counsel as a way to get "an immediate first legal response", and nothing published says results must be verified, how many are returned or what appears when nothing fits.
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.
The home page carries a strip of fourteen logos headed Our customers and supporters, including Portolano Cavallo, Generali, Consap, Regione Campania and the Rome and Milan bar associations, with no case study behind any of them. Eight named lawyers and teachers give testimonials. Among them are Stefano Crisci, a professor of market regulation at Sapienza, and Gianfranco D'Aietti, a legal informatics teacher, who calls the results a targeted selection of documentation rather than an answer to the legal question.
None names a firm or result. The aggregate claims are more than 1,000 lawyer users, more than 50,000 questions asked, a 40 percent cut in research time and the 75 percent sample result, with no method or period stated. Lisia says it was the only Italian legal tech chosen for the 2022 ERA Accelerator Program in the United States.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Not yet assessed.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
The site's three segments are the independent lawyer, law firms working in teams across multiple workstations, and a segment headed For Entrepreneurs and Companies. That segment says Lisia gives in house lawyers "an immediate first legal response" and less dependency on outside resources. The FAQ describes the product as giving fast, accurate and relevant answers to legal questions. What the product returns is source material, judgments and maxims with the relevant passage highlighted, not advice in its own words.
No advice disclaimer appears on the home, pricing, About or FAQ pages, and nothing published addresses a lawyer's duties of competence and supervision or a duty to verify results. The Terms and Conditions of Use and the Legal Notes are linked in the site footer.
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.
Lisia's ranking decides which precedents a lawyer sees. The About page says the company relies on extensive testing with an automated evaluation process to analyze metrics, and that its algorithms continuously refine search results. It says the data from these evaluations is reviewed by experienced engineers, research analysts and lawyers, and the home page adds that each answer can be rated and that Lisia improves with that feedback.
No evaluation result beyond the 100 question sample is published, no metric is named, and nobody is identified as accountable for the models. Nothing addresses whether results differ between civil, administrative and criminal case law, or between the Court of Cassation, covered over 35 years, and the merit and administrative courts, covered over 15. No statement on the EU AI Act, Italian Law 132/2025 or any responsible AI principle is published.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Not yet assessed.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Not yet assessed.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Lisia works as a standalone web application, and no connection to other systems is published. No Word add in, document management link such as iManage or NetDocuments, or route into a matter file or practice management system is described. Searches are organized in folders by client or case and a search history is kept, but both live inside Lisia, and nothing says results can be exported, pushed to another system or opened from Word or Outlook.
The pricing page offers the possibility of customizing the product for each individual requirement through a contact form, and names no integration. The interface works the same way on PCs, smartphones and tablets. Moving a judgment from Lisia into a brief is done by copying and pasting.
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.
The pricing page calls Lisia an online SaaS platform. The same web interface works on PCs, smartphones and tablets, with login and registration at app.lisia.it. Lawyers type the facts of client matters into it as natural language questions. No hosting provider, country, region or tenancy model is named on the home, pricing or About pages, and no private, dedicated or on premises option is described beyond an offer to customize the product on request.
Those pages do not say where questions are stored under the GDPR or address any transfer outside the European Union. Card payments run through Stripe.
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.
The only security standard Lisia names is PCI DSS, which covers card payments. The product holds lawyers' search history and case folders. The FAQ answers the question Is my data protected? by saying Lisia is compliant with data protection standards under PCI regulations, and explains PCI DSS as the secure handling and storage of credit card data entered by consumers. The pricing page repeats that Lisia complies with PCI standards, including encryption, continuous monitoring and testing of protection systems.
The footer's Protection of payment data link opens Stripe's guide to PCI compliance. No assessor, compliance level, date or report is given, and no ISO 27001, SOC 2 or other attestation for the platform, security page or trust center is published. Nothing published covers how research and the facts typed into it are protected.
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.
The About page describes natural language processing in four stages, from tokenization through morphological, lexical and syntactic analysis to semantic and discourse analysis, and a cognitive search system built on "a semantic/vector system". The FAQ calls it innovative and proprietary technology on a semantic and vector basis. A company presentation dated February 2022, published on the Milan bar association's site, refers to a proprietary algorithm built by engineers and mathematicians with doctorates in natural language processing.
None of these names a model, model family, provider or where the processing runs, and nothing says whether any part of the pipeline relies on an outside service. No commitment to tell customers when the technology changes is published. Nothing published says whether questions leave Lisia's own systems.
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.
Lisia's pricing page lists a monthly plan at 89 euros a month per user and an annual plan at 890 euros a year per user, both including VAT. Directly beneath it shows 59 euros a month and 590 euros a year, each marked as instead of the higher figure, with no condition, duration or eligibility stated. The home page's Conventions button links to the same page. A 14 day free trial needs a card that is verified but not charged.
Law firms are told that multiple workstations bring significant cost savings, but no team or volume price is published, and customizing the product is priced only through a contact form. No setup fee is mentioned.
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.
Lisia is built for Italian lawyers working with Italian case law. The site describes three segments, the independent lawyer working alone, law firms sharing research across multiple workstations, and in house counsel under a heading for entrepreneurs and companies, with public administration named beside them. Coverage follows the courts in the database: all sections of the Court of Cassation over 35 years, tribunals and courts of appeal over 15 years, and the regional administrative courts and the Council of State over 15 years, updated weekly.
The example questions are civil law, on preliminary contracts, onerous terms under article 1341 of the Civil Code, trusts, condominium creditors and bankruptcy revocation. No legislation, doctrine or European court material is described, and criminal and tax work are not discussed. Lisia says the product suits all legal and business professional needs and states no limits beyond the courts its database covers.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Lisia, 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.
-
en.lisia.it3 signals
Client Data in Training, Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 2, 2026
€59/month per userEUR, as published, never converted
- Lisia costs 89 euros a month for each user, or 890 euros a year.
- The pricing page also shows a lower price of 59 euros a month or 590 euros a year, without saying who gets it.
- Prices already include VAT.
- You can try it free for 14 days, but you must enter a card.
- Custom versions are priced only if you contact the company.
The monthly plan costs 89 euros a month per user and the annual plan 890 euros a year per user, both including VAT. Directly beneath, Lisia's pricing page shows 59 euros a month and 590 euros a year, each marked as instead of the higher figure, with no condition, duration or eligibility stated. The lowest published recurring rate is 59 euros a month. A 14 day free trial requires card verification with no charge. Customizing the product for individual requirements is offered through a contact form, unpriced.
Implementation: None stated. The product is self serve, with online registration and a 14 day free trial.
Confidentiality and data terms: Not applicable in the Italian market. No data processing agreement is published on the home, pricing, About or FAQ pages.
Note: Prices include VAT. The page does not explain the reduced rates or say who qualifies for them; the home page's Conventions button links to the pricing page. No team or volume price is published, although law firms are offered multiple workstations. Cancellation is done from the subscription section of the account.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The home page invites users to rate each answer and says Lisia improves with that feedback. No published page states whether the questions lawyers type are used to train or improve the models. The Terms and Conditions of Use and the Privacy and Cookie Policy are linked in the site footer.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
This signal has not been recorded for this vendor yet. It is not a finding either way.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Law firms are offered team use across multiple workstations, and searches can be filed in folders by client or case. Nothing on the home page, the pricing page, the About page or the FAQ addresses how one user's searches and folders are kept from another's or whether matters can be walled off.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
This signal has not been recorded for this vendor yet. It is not a finding either way.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
The home page describes a purpose built database of more than 6 million full judgments and maxims, updated every 7 days. It counts 2 million from all sections of the Court of Cassation over 35 years, 2.2 million from tribunals and courts of appeal over 15 years and 1.8 million from the regional administrative courts and the Council of State over 15 years. The FAQ gives shorter spans, 15 and 12 years, and elsewhere the page cites more than 3 million documents. Where the judgments come from and the rights basis for using them are not stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Lisia returns judgments and maxims. Nothing on the home page, the pricing page, the About page or the FAQ addresses whether a returned decision has been overturned or a maxim superseded by later case law.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Lisia's FAQ says it responds only with judgments and maxims highly relevant to the specific case. Nothing on the home page, the pricing page, the About page or the FAQ describes what a user sees when no relevant judgment exists or how many results are shown.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case involving Lisia. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product is on the public record.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Nothing on the home page, the pricing page, the About page or the FAQ engages with the Italian professional code for lawyers, National Bar Council guidance, Law 132/2025 or the EU AI Act. The Terms and Conditions of Use and the Legal Notes are linked in the site footer.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The home page claims a 40 percent cut in research time, tells law firms that shared workstations bring significant cost savings and tells in house counsel they can find answers faster and cheaper than outside consultants. Lisia is sold mainly to lawyers and firms who bill for research, and nothing addresses how research done with it is billed or disclosed to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
This signal has not been recorded for this vendor yet. It is not a finding either way.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Lisia keeps a search history and folders by client or case. Nothing on the home page, the pricing page, the About page or the FAQ addresses recording or certifying AI use in a court filing, and no export of a research record is described.