Litem
Litem is a litigation intelligence platform that works across the life of a case rather than at a single stage. It begins in discovery, assists through depositions in real time, and extends into later phases with agentic features. The deposition work is where the product started and remains the clearest: transcripts and testimony are analysed so that a litigator preparing for or following a deposition can find the admissions, inconsistencies and threads that matter without reading every page. Litem Facts addresses the case record more broadly, Litem Agent covers agentic workflows in subsequent phases, and separate offerings handle integrations and the needs of court reporting agencies, which are a second buyer alongside law firms. The commitments a firm's information security reviewer will care about are unusually direct and, unusually, are in the contract rather than only on a page. The master services agreement states that Deposely will not train artificial intelligence models using customer data as training materials, and the security page points at that clause rather than away from it. The agreement also requires that attorney users be licensed and in good standing in the United States, provides that paralegal use must not constitute the practice of law, and states plainly that Deposely is solely a technology provider and offers no legal services or advice. On termination it requires immediate deletion of customer materials. The platform is SOC 2 Type II certified and has audited its practices against HIPAA, with encryption at rest and TLS with HSTS in transit, regular third-party penetration testing and two-factor authentication. Customers include Ogletree Deakins and Rutan & Tucker. Deposely, Inc. trades as Litem and is based in Bellevue, Washington; the company renamed from Deposely during 2026.
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.
The models are the product and there is no conventional substrate beneath them. The company describes itself as providing AI workflows and tools across the litigation lifecycle, starting in discovery, assisting through depositions in real time, and offering agentic features for further litigation phases, and every named product line is an inference function rather than a storage or workflow layer: analysis of transcripts and testimony, a facts capability over the case record, and an agent covering later phases. Real-time assistance during a live deposition is not something a database does. The comparator is the manual work of reading transcripts end to end, which is what the product replaces rather than accelerates, and the customer-reported outcome banked on this record is preparation time halved. Remove the models and nothing remains that a litigator would license. The agreement is consistent with that reading, defining third-party large language model providers as a term and disclaiming warranties specifically as to AI-generated content, which is a company contracting around model output rather than around software. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Accuracy is addressed candidly and only as a disclaimer, with no measurement anywhere. Clause 9.6 of the master services agreement is explicit rather than buried: no warranties are given as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of AI-generated content, the customer assumes sole responsibility for it, and the customer must verify output before use. Saying so in the contract, in those words, is more honest than most records here manage and it is why this is not lower. What is absent is everything on the other side. No accuracy figure, benchmark or evaluation is published for any feature, and nothing describes how a summary or extracted fact is grounded in the underlying transcript, which matters unusually here because deposition testimony has a natural citation form in page and line numbers and the product's own blog writes about citing transcripts correctly. Nothing addresses hallucination by name. The five solution pages were not opened on this pass and may describe grounding; that is recorded as a limit on this reading rather than as an absence. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 allocated in the agreement rather than described in the product, and the allocation is unusually complete. Clause 9.5 places vetting, output review and privilege preservation on the customer, which names three distinct obligations rather than gesturing at supervision. Clause 9.6 requires verification of AI-generated content before use. Clause 3.3 goes further than either by restricting who may operate the system at all, requiring attorney users to be licensed and in good standing in the United States and providing that paralegal use must not constitute the practice of law, so the identity and competence of the reviewer is itself contractual. Taken together a firm knows who must check the output and what they are responsible for. What is missing is the product side. Nothing published states what runs unattended, where a review checkpoint sits in the interface, what confidence or uncertainty is surfaced, or how the agentic features described for later litigation phases differ in autonomy from the analysis features. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Named firms at the top of the defence bar, with volume figures and one attributed outcome. Two customers are named on the vendor's own surfaces, Ogletree Deakins and Rutan & Tucker, both substantial defence firms whose adoption is meaningful evidence in a market where litigation data is closely held. Deployment scale is published as more than fifty Am Law 200 firms, more than 10,000 depositions handled monthly and more than 20,000 professionals using the platform. Three individuals speak on the record, including Kyre Stucklin, Director of Innovation at Rutan & Tucker, and a litigator reporting that preparation time was cut by half, which attaches a figure to a named person rather than leaving it floating. What holds this below the top band is method and dating: none of the volume figures carries a measurement basis or a period, and no case study sets out a before-and-after. One contractual fact belongs alongside any logo strip on this record: clause 12.1 permits Deposely to use customer names and logos, so a logo evidences a contract rather than an endorsement. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Two limbs are answered in the agreement about as strongly as this corpus offers, and two are not answered at all. On training, clause 5.4 closes with an express statement that Deposely will not train artificial intelligence models using customer data as training materials, which names the activity and prohibits it in the operative contract rather than on a policy page. On retention, clause 6.4 requires immediate deletion of all proprietary information including customer materials promptly after termination, subject only to legal record-keeping, and clause 5.4 separately confines usage data to anonymised collection and aggregated-only disclosure. The privacy policy does not cut against either, because it expressly excludes user-uploaded content processed for business customers from its scope and routes that to the customer agreement, so its language about improving algorithms and AI models reaches prospect and visitor personal data rather than matter material. Privilege itself is named only in clause 9.5, which places its preservation on the customer rather than describing how the platform supports it. Nothing describes segregation between customers or between matters, and no model provider is identified. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Three clauses do the work and together they cover the ground this axis asks about, in the contract rather than in a footer. Clause 9.4 states that Deposely is solely a technology provider and provides no legal services or advice, which is the plain statement of what the product is and is not. Clause 9.5 allocates the professional obligations that follow, placing vetting, output review and preservation of privilege on the customer, so the firm is told what it retains rather than merely warned off reliance. Clause 3.3 is the limb that lifts this above the records that stop at a disclaimer: it restricts attorney users to those licensed and in good standing in the United States, and expressly provides that use by paralegals must not constitute the practice of law. That addresses who may operate the system and under what supervision, engages the unauthorised practice question directly rather than by implication, and carries a jurisdictional statement in the licensure requirement. What is not present is a named authority: no bar rule, ethics opinion or guidance instrument is cited, which is recorded on the corresponding signal rather than held against the grade here. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 governance material was located on any surface. Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, the site navigation and footer and the trust centre entry point on 2 September 2026. There is no responsible AI page, no framework or set of principles, no individual or function named as accountable for model behaviour, no account of what is evaluated before a model or feature change ships, and no certification such as ISO 42001. The security page organises its content under software, governance and compliance, but every item beneath is an information security control, and this axis treats those separately. Nothing anywhere addresses uneven output, which has a specific form on this product: a system analysing spoken testimony will encounter accents, speech patterns, interpreters and varying transcription quality, and nothing states whether performance across those conditions is measured or disclosed. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
The control set is specific where it counts and two elements are missing. Encryption is stated on both sides and with detail on one: all stored data is encrypted at rest using industry-standard algorithms, and transport requires TLS with HSTS, which names the mechanism rather than asserting protection. Access controls are described as restricting data to authorised users, with two-factor authentication available on accounts. Assurance is ongoing rather than one-off: regular penetration tests are conducted by third-party security experts, and the software supply chain is regularly scanned for vulnerabilities, which is a control few vendors in this corpus mention at all. Deletion is contractual and immediate, with clause 6.4 requiring destruction of customer materials promptly after termination subject to legal record-keeping. Against that, no incident or breach notification practice was located on any surface, and no subprocessor list exists for customer content, with the agreement acknowledging third-party large language model providers as a category without naming one. Retention during the term is not stated. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
A complete allocation, published in full, with one provision that runs the customer's way more than most. Clause 10.1 caps liability at twelve months of fees, waives consequential damages in both directions rather than only the vendor's, and carves indemnification obligations out of the cap altogether, so the indemnity is not swallowed by the ceiling. Clause 8.1 is a mutual intellectual property infringement indemnity, which is genuinely unusual here: the great majority of agreements in this corpus run the indemnity provider-side only or, more often, customer-side only. Governing law is Washington with arbitration before JAMS in Bellevue. What keeps this out of the top band is the output side. Clause 9.6 expressly disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of AI-generated content and assigns sole responsibility to the customer, so there is no warranty on output to weigh, and no insurance position is stated anywhere. A reseller channel operates on distinct terms which were not reviewed. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Integration is a named product line and no system is named on any surface read. The platform navigation carries a dedicated integration offering alongside the deposition, facts, agent and agencies lines, so connectivity is sold as a distinct capability rather than mentioned in passing, and the presence of a separate offering for court reporting agencies implies a data path from the agencies producing transcripts into the firms consuming them. That page was not opened on this pass, which is recorded as a limit on this reading. What could not be established is anything concrete. No document or case management system is named, no transcript or court reporting platform, no repository, and no connector list, application programming interface or developer documentation was located. For a product whose input is transcripts produced by third parties and whose output belongs in a case file, how material arrives and where it goes afterwards is the integration question, and nothing published on the surfaces read answers it. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Nothing published addresses where the platform runs or how customers are separated within it. Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, and the site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. No cloud provider is named, no hosting region or country is stated, no residency option is offered, nothing distinguishes processing from storage, and no tenancy or isolation model is described. Cloud delivery is evident only by inference from a browser application at a login subdomain. The absence is consequential rather than formal on this product: the material processed is deposition testimony and case documents, which are among the most sensitive holdings a firm has, and a defence firm with client-imposed residency terms in its outside counsel guidelines has nothing published to assess. A Vanta-hosted trust centre exists and returned page metadata with no readable body, which is recorded as a retrieval limit rather than as an absence. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Two attestations are claimed with a trust surface behind them, and the evidence itself is not published. The security page states SOC 2 Type II certification and describes what the standard demonstrates, and separately states that the company has audited its practices for HIPAA compliance while candidly noting that Litem is not typically a business associate under those regulations, which is a more careful framing than the badge-wall approach and is worth crediting. Regular third-party penetration testing is described as ongoing rather than historical. A trust centre exists at the company's own subdomain and is signposted from the security page. What is absent is what a reviewer would test. No auditor or certifying body is named for the SOC 2 work, no report period, issue date or expiry is published, no scope statement identifies which services are covered, and no penetration test summary or date is given. The trust centre is Vanta-hosted, rendered page metadata with no body on 2 September 2026, and its access tier is therefore unestablished; that is a retrieval limit on this reading, not an absence. Verified 2 September 2026.
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 category is acknowledged in the contract, one provider is named in a document that excludes the relevant data, and the two do not meet. Clause 5.3(f) of the master services agreement defines third-party large language model providers as a term, so a reader knows external models are in the path and that the vendor contemplated saying who they are. It names none. The privacy policy does name one, listing artificial intelligence and machine learning providers with Google Cloud AI given as the example among the service providers who receive data. But that policy states at the outset that it does not apply to files, documents and other uploaded content processed on behalf of business customers, routing that to the customer agreement, so the naming reaches prospect and visitor personal data rather than deposition transcripts and case files. A firm therefore cannot tell from anything published which providers see client material. No model or version is named, nothing states where inference runs or what a provider may retain, and no change notification commitment exists. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
No pricing information is published at any level. Checked the security page, the privacy policy, the master services agreement by clause and the full site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. Under the rule that a site's own navigation establishes its page inventory, there is no pricing page to be unreachable: the platform menu carries the five solution lines plus security and contact, the resources menu carries careers, blog, help centre and onboarding, and the footer repeats those with the privacy policy and the master services agreement. Nothing names a plan, a tier, a unit of charge or a structure, and nothing states whether the product is licensed per seat, per matter, per deposition or per volume of transcript, which for a product handling more than 10,000 depositions a month is the first question a buyer would ask. Every call to action routes to a sales conversation through a scheduling link. No pricing row is written, because the rule that triggers one requires published structure and none exists. Verified 2 September 2026.
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.
Two distinct buyer segments and a lifecycle description, with the boundary left open. The company states that it serves law firms and court reporting agencies, and backs the second with its own product line rather than a mention, which is a real segmentation choice: the agencies producing transcripts and the firms consuming them are different buyers with different needs. Coverage across a case is described in phases rather than as a single capability, starting in discovery, assisting through depositions in real time and extending into further litigation phases with agentic features, and the five named solution lines map onto that. Jurisdiction is stated indirectly but bindingly, since clause 3.3 requires attorney users to be licensed in the United States, which tells a non-US firm the answer. Named customers are large defence firms. What is missing is the rest: no practice area is named anywhere, no firm size band is given, nothing distinguishes what the plaintiff and defence sides get, and nothing states where coverage stops. Verified 2 September 2026.
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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
This is the cleanest instance of the value in the pull. Clause 5.4 of the master services agreement closes with the quoted undertaking, which names the activity and prohibits it in the operative contract, so it clears the naming test outright rather than by construction. Three things reinforce it. The same clause confines usage data to anonymised collection and aggregated-only disclosure, so the derived-data carve-out that usually swallows these prohibitions is itself bounded. The security page points at the contract rather than away from it, stating that zero client data is used for AI training and adding that it is in writing in the master services agreement, which is a vendor sending a reader to its own clause instead of asking for trust. And the privacy policy does not conflict, despite containing language about improving the company's algorithms and AI models: it states at the outset that it does not apply to files, documents or other uploaded content processed on behalf of business customers such as law firms, routing that to the customer agreement, so its improvement language reaches prospect and visitor personal data rather than matter material. Marketing, policy and contract agree.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
The post-termination obligation is contractual and immediate; nothing addresses the term. Clause 6.4 requires immediate deletion of all proprietary information, expressly including customer materials, promptly after termination, subject only to retention required for legal record-keeping. The period is expressed as immediacy rather than as a number of days, which is a definite obligation rather than a reasonableness standard and is why this is not recorded as vague, but a reader should note the distinction: there is no stated window in which to retrieve data before deletion, and no export mechanism is described. Clause 5.4 separately bounds what survives in derived form, confining usage data to anonymised collection and aggregated-only disclosure. What is absent is any retention position during the term: nothing states how long transcripts, uploaded case documents, generated analyses or prompts persist while the subscription runs, and no retention setting is described as available to the firm. The privacy policy's retention language covers personal data of prospects and visitors and is expressly scoped away from user-uploaded content.
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.
Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, and the site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes segregation between customers or between matters. The security page addresses access control only in general terms, stating that strong controls ensure only authorised users can access data, without describing what the boundary follows. The question is live on this product rather than formal. A litigation platform holds deposition testimony and case documents for opposing sides of the same dispute in principle, and the company sells separately to court reporting agencies, which sit between parties and produce transcripts for both, so a path exists by which material from one matter could meet another. Nothing published states what prevents it, whether ethical walls can be represented, or whether analysis performed on one matter can draw on another. Clause 9.5 places preservation of privilege on the customer, which allocates the duty without describing any mechanism supporting it.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The commitment is in the operative agreement and is notice before the fact rather than after it. Clause 6.3 permits disclosure under judicial or governmental order provided the receiving party gives the quoted notice, which ties the notice to the customer's ability to contest rather than merely informing them once material has gone. The obligation is expressed reciprocally, applying to the receiving party whichever party that is. Two limits belong on the record. No transparency report was located: the security page, the privacy policy, the blog and the site navigation were checked on 2 September 2026 and none publishes aggregate figures on demands received or complied with, which is what would lift this to the top value. And the clause carries no express undertaking to seek a protective order itself or to narrow the disclosure to what is strictly compelled, both of which appear in the strongest formulations in this corpus; here the burden of contesting sits with the customer, which is what the notice is for.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, and the site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. Litem ships no corpus of its own and none is claimed. The material the platform works on is the customer's, being deposition transcripts, testimony and case documents supplied by the firm or by the court reporting agency acting for it, so there is no licensed database, published collection or third-party content behind any output and the provenance risks this signal tracks do not arise in their usual form. The honest record is that the question is not addressed rather than that a corpus was withheld. Nothing published describes the training data behind the underlying models either, which is a different question carried on the model supply chain axis.
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.
Checked the security page, the privacy policy, the master services agreement and the site navigation on 2 September 2026. The product analyses testimony rather than retrieving primary law, so a citator has nothing to operate on and the absence is not a criticism. The analogous question is nonetheless real and unaddressed. Deposition transcripts are corrected by errata, and testimony is superseded, clarified or struck as a case proceeds, so an analysis resting on a version of a transcript that has since been amended is wrong in the way a citator exists to catch. Nothing published describes whether the platform tracks transcript versions, surfaces errata, or revisits earlier analysis when the underlying record changes. The company's own blog writes about citing transcripts accurately and about the consequences of inaccurate citation, which makes the silence on the product side more noticeable.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, and the site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes what the system does when it cannot produce a reliable result, and no confidence indicator is described as shown to the user for any output. The agreement resolves the question by allocation rather than by design: clause 9.6 states that no warranty is given as to accuracy, completeness or reliability and that the customer must verify before use, which tells a firm to check everything rather than telling it where checking matters most. That is the opposite of an uncertainty signal, since it distributes attention evenly instead of directing it. Nothing states what happens where audio quality is poor, where a speaker is unclear or interpreted, or where the system cannot locate support in the record for a proposition it has been asked about. The five solution pages were not opened on this pass.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting drawing on it, on 2 September 2026 on both the current and former product names, Litem and Deposely, and on the corporate name Deposely, Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. One feature of this product class makes the search less reassuring than it looks and is recorded so a later reader does not over-read the value: the characteristic failure here is a misattributed or misquoted piece of testimony rather than a fabricated case citation, and a misquotation of the record surfaces as an evidentiary objection or a correction at deposition rather than as a sanctions order. The recent rename from Deposely to Litem also means any older record would sit under a name the tracker may not connect to the current one, which is why both were searched.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Professional obligations are engaged directly in the contract and no authority is named. Clause 3.3 requires that attorney users be licensed and in good standing in the United States and provides that use by paralegals must not constitute the practice of law, which is a substantive engagement with the unauthorised practice question rather than a gesture at professional standards, and it is more than most records in this corpus offer. Clause 9.5 adds preservation of privilege to the customer's obligations. But no rule, ethics opinion, bar association or guidance instrument is cited anywhere: neither the American Bar Association's opinion on generative artificial intelligence nor any state rule on competence, supervision or unauthorised practice is named, and no jurisdiction beyond the licensure requirement is identified. Checked the security page, the privacy policy, the master services agreement by clause and the site navigation on 2 September 2026.
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.
A time-savings claim is published and attributed, and nothing addresses the bill. The clearest figure on the record comes from a named litigator reporting that preparation time was cut by half, and the product is sold throughout on the compression of deposition preparation and review, which is precisely the work that used to be billed by the hour. Nothing addresses what happens to the invoice when it is not. No per matter record of AI-assisted work is described, nothing states whether analysis performed by the platform is identified as such on a bill, and no guidance is offered on fee or disclosure treatment. The gap has particular weight in this lane, because deposition preparation is classically billed time on a matter where the client often receives a detailed narrative of what was done, and a firm whose preparation now takes half as long has something to explain or to absorb. Neither is engaged on any published surface.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No provider is named for customer content, which is what decides this. Clause 5.3(f) of the master services agreement defines third-party large language model providers as a term, so the agreement contemplates external models in the path and then names none. The privacy policy does name one, citing Google Cloud AI as an example among artificial intelligence and machine learning service providers, but that policy expressly excludes files, documents and other uploaded content processed for business customers from its scope, so the naming does not reach transcripts or case material and a firm cannot rely on it to answer a client. No subprocessor list exists in any form. What a firm can forward today is real but not AI-specific: the master services agreement is published in full and contains the training prohibition at clause 5.4, the deletion obligation at 6.4 and the disclosure notice at 6.3, and the security page states SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA positions. A Vanta trust centre exists and returned no readable body, recorded as a retrieval limit.
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.
Checked the security page in full, the privacy policy in full, the master services agreement by clause, and the site navigation and footer on 2 September 2026. Nothing addresses disclosure of AI use to a court or tribunal, and no exportable record of which outputs a model produced, on what basis, or who reviewed them is described. The gap is pointed on this product because its outputs feed material that is filed and argued: an analysis of testimony informs a motion, a cross-examination outline or a summary judgment brief, and a court asking how a passage of testimony was located and characterised would be asking exactly this question. The agreement places verification on the customer at clause 9.6 and vetting and output review at 9.5, so the firm carries the duty, but nothing describes a record it could produce to show the duty was discharged. No audit trail of model use, review or approval is mentioned anywhere.