L
Litera
Litera is a Chicago-based legal technology company whose drafting, document comparison, proofing, metadata cleaning, contract review, transaction management, knowledge management and business development products run inside Microsoft Word and Outlook, Google Workspace, a web app, Apple iOS and a Windows and Mac desktop client. Lito, the AI legal agent Litera introduced in 2025, is included at no additional charge with the Draft Base, Draft Pro and Draft Advanced subscriptions and with Kira, the contract review and due diligence product, and routes each task either to Litera's rules-based comparison, document analysis and metadata removal engines, which the company says return the same result every time, or to generative models grounded in the firm's own templates, clauses, playbooks, precedents and matter data; a firm can switch the generative features off entirely and keep the rules-based engines. Litera's published subprocessor list for the Litera One platform names Anthropic and Amazon Bedrock for model inference and You.com for web search, its generative AI terms state that neither Litera nor its providers will train models on customer data, prompts or outputs, and the software is offered either as a cloud service hosted on Microsoft Azure in United States, Canadian or European regions or as on-premise software. Litera sells to law firms from small practices to global firms and to corporate legal departments, states that more than a million daily users at over 15,000 firms, including 99 per cent of the Am Law 100, work on its products, and lets firms with fewer than ten lawyers buy Draft Base and Draft Pro from an online store while larger firms buy through its sales team.
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 engine of a core capability layered on a product that stands without them, and the vendor says so in its own words. The Lito site describes an agentic layer that routes high-stakes work to Litera's deterministic comparison, document analysis and metadata removal engines, which return the same result every time, and flexible work to skills built on frontier models, and states that generative AI can be switched off entirely while the rules-based engines keep working. Draft Base, the entry package sold from the store, is document comparison; Lito was added to existing subscriptions at no charge in October 2025 rather than sold as the product. The published agreement suite treats the generative features as additional terms layered on the SaaS or on-premise software. Remove the models and a thirty-year drafting, comparison and metadata estate remains, which is the B band exactly. lito.app, litera.com home page, GenAI Terms (Version April 2026) and the October 2025 press release read 7 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.
Grounding is claimed and accuracy is stated to be unmeasured, by the vendor itself. The Lito site says every recommendation shows its reasoning and its source, and that the agent is grounded in the firm's own templates, clauses, playbooks, precedents and matter data, with web search over public material supplied by You.com per the subprocessor register; no retrieval method is described and no accuracy figure or test set is published. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 3(c), state that outputs may be inaccurate or misleading and are not tested, verified, endorsed or guaranteed to be complete or current by Litera, and that the customer is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying any output before use. Two limbs of the band do not bite for this product class and are named rather than penalised: Lito drafts and reviews against firm documents and does not cite primary legal authority, so there is no citator and no authority link to check. What is graded is that grounding to the firm's own sources is asserted with the source shown, while measurement is expressly absent, which is the C band. lito.app, GenAI Terms and the Litera One / Lito subprocessor register read 7 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.
A written commitment that the lawyer keeps judgement, with real controls, short of the full structure. The Lito site states that the lawyer keeps judgement either way, that firms can switch generative AI off entirely while the rules-based engines keep working, and that MCP connectors are governed centrally and enabled firm-wide; the Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, place sole responsibility for reviewing and verifying output on the customer (3(c)) and prohibit deploying autonomous agents, recursive prompt chains or usage automation outside intended user flows (4(c)), which is a published boundary on what the system may run alone. What is not published is the threshold at which Lito acts without a lawyer in the loop when it chains deterministic engines at workflow milestones, what review surface a chained action presents, or what happens after an output is wrong beyond the customer's verification duty. That is the limb the B band names as commonly absent. lito.app and GenAI Terms read 7 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 customers without figures, and figures without named customers. The Lito site carries attributed testimonials from Brian Corbett, partner at Poyner Spruill LLP, and Joshua Tan, partner at Delta Law Corporation, plus quotes attributed to CCA Law Firm and to unnamed Am Law firm associates; none carries a measured result. The figures on the same page are hero counters with no basis stated: 99 per cent of the Am Law 100, more than 15,000 firms, more than a million daily users and a 90 per cent efficiency gain, and the home page adds 74 per cent of the Fortune 100 for corporate legal. The October 2025 press release states that Litera One was used by roughly 40 per cent of the customer base and that early access firms shaped Lito, with no named firm and no figure. A dated, named deployment with a measured change and a method was not located, which is the limb between B and A. lito.app, litera.com home page and the October 2025 press release read 7 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.
Substantive published commitments on training and the model providers, short of segregation and privilege. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 2(c), state that Litera will not and will not permit its third-party providers to develop, train or fine-tune any generative or foundational model with Customer Data, End User Prompts or Outputs unless agreed separately in writing; the Master Terms, Version November 2025, section 5.1, make Customer Data the customer's Confidential Information and section 6.2 leaves ownership with the customer with a licence limited to providing the Services; the SaaS Terms, section 3.2, commit to prompt deletion after termination; and the Litera One / Lito subprocessor register states the position on each model provider, including that Anthropic retains inputs and outputs for up to thirty days for trust and safety and that Amazon Bedrock does not pass inputs to third-party model providers. Two limbs of the A band are not met: no located surface addresses segregation between users, matters or clients inside a firm's tenant, and no located surface addresses privilege or work product handling directly, which R33 makes a required limb. The trust centre's Firm AI Search FAQ and security FAQ sit behind a Get access request and may address segregation; no request was submitted. GenAI Terms, Master Terms, SaaS Terms, subprocessor register and trust.litera.com read 7 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.
A real published position on advice versus tooling, short of jurisdiction limits and the supervision dimension. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 3(d), state that the generative features are not intended as professional advice, cannot replace advice from a qualified professional and do not form any such relationship, naming the attorney-client relationship as the example; section 3(c) places sole responsibility for reviewing and verifying output on the customer. The intended audience is unambiguous: every segment page addresses lawyers, law firms of every size and corporate legal departments, and the Master Terms restrict use to the customer's internal business purposes with no consumer surface located. What is absent is any named jurisdiction limit and any treatment of how the product supports a lawyer's competence and supervision duties beyond the marketing line that the lawyer keeps judgement; a Litera CLE programme is advertised but was not read. GenAI Terms, Master Terms, lito.app and litera.com read 7 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.
A position on training data and acceptable use is published; a governance framework, an owner and a testing regime are not readable. What was located: the Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, commit that no generative or foundational model is trained on customer content and prohibit a listed set of abusive uses (2(b)); the Lito site names a security and governance layer that consists of ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, SOC 3, GDPR, NIS 2 and DORA, which are security and regulatory attestations rather than AI governance; and the SafeBase trust centre inventories an item titled AI Training Data and Bias under an AI section, alongside a Firm AI Search FAQ, both behind a Get access request whose tier the portal does not state. No request was submitted and the document's contents are not credited by its title. Nothing readable names who inside Litera is accountable for AI output, what is tested before a skill ships, or any finding about uneven output. The gated bias document is the rebuttal route and would move this grade on a read. GenAI Terms, lito.app and trust.litera.com read 7 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.
Retention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published in binding instruments a buyer can read before signing. The Security Addendum 2023, incorporated by Master Terms section 5.3, commits to notifying the customer of a security incident without undue delay and within seventy-two hours of determining that Customer Data is affected, describes least-privilege access with multi-factor authentication and quarterly access reviews, AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or above in transit, annual third-party penetration testing with an executive summary on request, and deletion of remaining Customer Data after termination and any retrieval period. The SaaS Terms, Version March 2025, section 3.2, commit to prompt deletion after termination with backup copies removed on their normal cycle. The subprocessor register is published per product with hosting locations, and the Litera One / Lito entry names Microsoft Azure, Amazon Bedrock, Anthropic and You.com with what each processes and retains, with a registration link for change notices. The one limb not fully specific is in-term retention: no period is stated for prompts and outputs held on the platform during the subscription, only the provider's thirty-day window and the post-termination deletion. Security Addendum, SaaS Terms, Master Terms and subprocessor register read 7 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.
What the vendor stands behind is published and specific, including insurance, and including that on wrong output it stands behind nothing. The Master Terms, Version November 2025, section 7.4, give a defence and indemnity for third-party intellectual property claims in WIPO Copyright Treaty countries with five named exclusions and the modify, licence or terminate-and-refund remedies; section 7.8 caps Litera's direct-damages liability at fees paid under the ordering document in the preceding twelve months with the indemnity carved out of the cap; section 7.7 excludes consequential loss for both parties except under the indemnities; section 7.3 disclaims accuracy and results. The SaaS Terms, section 2, warrant substantial conformance with the documentation with a repair-or-refund remedy. The Security Addendum commits Litera to maintain cyber and technology errors and omissions insurance with an A.M. Best rating of at least A- and financial size of at least VII. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 3(a), disclaim any liabilities, warranties or representations on output, notwithstanding the Master Terms, so a buyer can read before signing that the recourse for a wrong AI output is the customer's own verification. All documents read in full 7 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.
Real integrations are named and documented, short of what moves in which direction. The Lito site states that Litera is delivered inside Microsoft Word and Outlook, Google Workspace, a web app, Apple iOS and a Windows and Mac desktop client, names iManage and NetDocuments as connected document management systems, lists documents, emails, timecards, financial data, HR data and legal research as sources Lito reads from and writes back to, and states that MCP connectors are governed centrally by the firm; the October 2025 press release adds that Lito connects with Kira and NetDocuments. The Master Terms, section 3.2, record that the software is intended to be used with third-party office software and document management systems the customer procures. What is not published on any surface read is an implementer's description of what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure; the integrations page at litera.com/integration was not read and is the route to A. lito.app, Master Terms and the October 2025 press release read 7 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.
Deployment options, regions and the processing location as distinct from storage are all published. The Master Terms, Version November 2025, section 2.1, define two deployment types, SaaS and on-premise, each under its own incorporated terms, and the Lito site adds a Windows and Mac desktop client for firms whose most sensitive work cannot move to the cloud. The Litera One / Lito subprocessor register states that the application is hosted on Microsoft Azure in United States, Canadian or European geographic regions; that Amazon Bedrock model inference runs in the same regions as the platform and inputs are not transmitted to third-party model providers; and that Anthropic model inference is hosted in the United States with inputs and outputs retained up to thirty days, so a European-hosted customer can read that generative processing may leave the storage region. The Generative AI Terms, section 2(d), commit to hosting models in the same jurisdiction as the SaaS software where commercially and technically feasible and otherwise in a jurisdiction with comparable standards, and direct the customer to the subprocessor disclosures for the location. Single- versus multi-tenant is not stated on any surface read, and the residency options do not differ by Draft package on anything read. Master Terms, GenAI Terms, subprocessor register and lito.app read 7 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.
Certification is real and stated on a rendering trust centre, short of scope, dates and a report reachable without a request. The SafeBase portal at trust.litera.com lists SOC 2 Type 2, SOC 3, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with a statement of applicability, GDPR, DORA and NIS 2, and inventories the reports, a penetration test report, a security whitepaper, cyber insurance, a CAIQ and SIG Lite behind a Get access flow that offers to start a security review without stating whether fulfilment is self-serve on an email or click-through or runs through a sales conversation; the lower tier is graded and no request was submitted. The Security Addendum states that independent auditor reports are made available to the customer on request, that Litera's ISO 27001 certification covers its corporate offices, and that cloud providers are audited under SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001. No auditor, audit period or scope statement was readable on any surface, which is what separates this from A; the trust centre overview describes the Litera Platform and Lito, so the scope connector to the product graded is present. trust.litera.com and Security Addendum read 7 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.
Providers are named, where they run is stated and a change-notice channel exists; the models themselves are not named, and three surfaces give three different provider lists. The Litera One / Lito subprocessor register, which is the binding disclosure, names Anthropic for model inference, hosted in the United States, possibly via Amazon Bedrock or Microsoft Azure Foundry, and Amazon Bedrock for inference in the platform's own region, plus You.com for web search, and offers a registration link for notice of subprocessor changes. The Lito site describes model-agnostic routing across OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, refer to the terms of Azure OpenAI as terms Litera must abide by and to GPT-4 as an example in the fair usage clause. OpenAI and Google appear on the marketing page and in the agreement and not on the Lito register; a buyer reading the register alone would not learn that OpenAI models may process prompts. No specific model version is named on any surface beyond that one example, so the A band's models-named limb is not met. Subprocessor register, lito.app and GenAI Terms read 7 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.
Real pricing is published for part of the range and the unit and structure are stated; the figure sits on a page this channel could not render. The Litera Store at litera.com/store offers Draft Base, Draft Pro, Clean (Metadact) and pdfDocs with a purchase button each, and the packages page as indexed by search states that firms with ten or more lawyers request a demo and talk to sales; the product detail pages on store.litera.com are rendered client-side and returned no body on 7 September 2026, so the published figure was not read and is recorded as a retrieval limit rather than an absence. The unit is published in the Master Terms: each licence is for a single named individual (3.1), fees and currency are set in the order form, terms auto-renew for twelve months with thirty days' notice (8.2), and overages on end users, lawyers or documents are invoiced (4.2). Lito is included with Draft Base, Pro and Advanced and with Kira at no additional charge, per the site and the October 2025 press release, and a store promotion offered twenty per cent off during ILTACON. Enterprise pricing is sales-gated, which is the B band as written. Store index, Master Terms, lito.app and press release read 7 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.
Segment and role coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries. The site carries separate solution pages for small law firms, large law firms, global law firms and corporate legal, and role pages for lawyers, knowledge management, marketing and business development, CIO and IT, finance, and talent and HR; the Lito site walks through the associate, partner, transactional lawyer, knowledge manager, COO and marketing seats. Practice coverage is stated by skill rather than by practice area: the October 2025 press release names a launch library of eleven skills with planned additions for capital markets, M&A, business development, litigation and compliance, and the Lito site names contract review and redlining, deal management, precedent surfacing and pitch drafting. Store purchases are scoped to firms under ten lawyers with larger firms routed to sales. What is not stated is what is unsupported: no practice area, jurisdiction or language is named as out of scope, and the home page claims 99 per cent of the Am Law 100 and 74 per cent of the Fortune 100 without a basis. litera.com, lito.app and the October 2025 press release read 7 September 2026.
No published figure
- Litera charges per person, per year, for its drafting packages.
- The AI agent, Lito, comes free with the packages instead of costing extra.
- Small firms with under ten lawyers can buy Draft Base or Draft Pro from an online store.
- Bigger firms have to ask for a demo and get a quote from sales.
- The store shows a price, but the page did not load for this check, so no number is recorded here.
Per named user, annual subscription that auto-renews for twelve months unless either party gives thirty days' notice. Three drafting packages, Draft Base (comparison), Draft Pro (proofing, review, comparison with Litera AI+) and Draft Advanced (end-to-end drafting with generative AI); Lito, the AI legal agent, is included with all three and with Kira at no additional charge. Firms with fewer than ten lawyers can buy Draft Base, Draft Pro, Clean (Metadact) and pdfDocs directly from the Litera Store; firms with ten or more lawyers request a demo and buy through sales. Overages on named users, lawyers or documents beyond the order form are invoiced. Fees and currency are set in the order form.
Implementation: Professional services are sold under a separate statement of work with fees set in the SOW (Master Terms 2.5, 4.2); no implementation figure is published.
Note: A published figure exists: the Litera Store at litera.com/store links to purchase pages for Draft Base and Draft Pro on store.litera.com. Those product pages are rendered client-side and returned no body when fetched on 7 September 2026, so the figure was not read and is not recorded. This is a retrieval limit, not an absence, and the store page is the route to a figure. Third-party price listings were seen and are not used. A store promotion offered twenty per cent off all products during ILTACON 2026. Master Terms (Version November 2025) sections 3.1, 4.2 and 8.2, the store index page, lito.app and the October 2025 press release read 7 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.
The published agreement prohibits training. The Additional Terms for Software with Generative AI Features, Version April 2026, incorporated into the Master Terms by section 2.4, state at section 2(c) that neither Litera nor its third-party providers will develop, train or fine-tune any generative or foundational model with Customer Data, End User Prompts or Outputs, with one qualifier carried here: the prohibition lifts only where agreed separately in writing, so any training would require the customer's own signature. The Litera One / Lito subprocessor register repeats the position for each provider, stating that Amazon Bedrock and Anthropic do not use customer inputs to train underlying models. The Lito marketing site says recommendations are trained on the firm's comparison data, precedents and matter data; that sentence describes grounding within the firm's own tenant and the agreement governs. GenAI Terms and subprocessor register read 7 September 2026.
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.
Retention is published as fixed periods the customer does not set. The Litera One / Lito subprocessor register states that Anthropic retains inputs and outputs for up to thirty days for trust and safety monitoring and then deletes them, that Amazon Bedrock processes inputs transiently, and that You.com does not retain search queries or results. The SaaS Terms, Version March 2025, section 3.2, commit Litera to delete all Customer Data promptly after termination of a subscription term, with backup copies removed on their normal schedule; the Master Terms define Customer Data to include material generated or processed using the software, so outputs are covered. No retention period is stated for prompts and outputs held on the platform during the subscription term and no zero-retention setting is offered on any surface read, which is why this is recorded as fixed rather than configurable. Subprocessor register, SaaS Terms and Master Terms read 7 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses ethical walls or matter-level segregation within a firm's tenant, and the surface most likely to carry it could not be read. The Lito site states that the agent reads from iManage, NetDocuments, documents, emails, timecards and financial data and that MCP connectors are governed centrally, without stating whether retrieval enforces the source system's permissions per user; the Security Addendum addresses separation of Litera's environments and personnel access, not separation between a customer's matters. The trust centre lists a Firm AI Search FAQ and a security FAQ behind a Get access request, and no request was submitted; those documents are the rebuttal route. A customer testimonial describing a closed system is a customer's statement, not the vendor's. Surfaces checked 7 September 2026.
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 published terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted; no transparency report is published. The Master Terms, Version November 2025, section 5.1, make Customer Data the customer's Confidential Information and permit disclosure required by law, court order, subpoena or regulatory demand only to the extent required and after due notice to the other party unless notice is prohibited by law. The commitment is mutual and general rather than specific to law enforcement requests for customer data, and no transparency report or request statistics were located on any surface. Master Terms read 7 September 2026.
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 licence or rights basis.
The sources behind the product's answers are identified and no licence basis is stated for the public material. Litera ships no corpus of law: the Lito site describes a knowledge layer of the firm's own templates, clauses, playbooks and precedent and a data layer of the firm's documents, emails, timecards and financial data, and the subprocessor register states that You.com supplies web search over publicly available information to support AI-generated responses. The firm's own content is the customer's under Master Terms section 6.2; no rights basis or update cadence is stated for the web results, and no legal research corpus is named even though legal research appears as a data source on the Lito site. The signal's law-corpus limbs bite only partly for a drafting and review product and are recorded as such. lito.app, subprocessor register and Master Terms read 7 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses whether cited authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product is not built to cite authority. Lito drafts, compares and reviews against the firm's own documents and playbooks and searches the public web through You.com; no surface read describes a citator, a treatment signal or a verification prompt for legal citations. A firm using Lito to draft a brief would be relying on its research tool, not on Litera, for good-law status, and the record says so rather than penalising a product class the signal was not written for. lito.app, GenAI Terms and subprocessor register checked 7 September 2026.
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.
No located public material describes what the generative features do when an answer cannot be grounded. The Lito site states that every recommendation shows its reasoning and its source, which is a provenance display rather than an abstention path, and the Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 3(c), warn that outputs may be inaccurate or misleading and place verification on the customer without describing a refusal, a confidence score or a no-answer state. The deterministic engines are described as returning the same result every time, which is a statement about the rules-based layer, not about generative uncertainty. lito.app and GenAI Terms checked 7 September 2026.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Litera, Lito or Kira was located as of 7 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on all three names together with a general search for sanctions coverage; the results name general-purpose chatbots and other legal research products, and the single match on Kira is a judge's forename in a California appellate decision, not the product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; a drafting and review tool that does not generate legal authority citations carries a remote exposure on this signal.
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 responsibility is engaged in general terms and no ethics opinion or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI is named. The Generative AI Terms, Version April 2026, section 3(d), state that the generative features are not professional advice, cannot replace a qualified professional and form no attorney-client relationship, and section 3(c) places verification on the customer; the Lito site says the lawyer keeps judgement. Litera advertises a CLE programme, which was not read. No surface read names ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or any court's standing order. GenAI Terms, lito.app and litera.com checked 7 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, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The product sits inside law firms' fee relationships with their clients and the published position on the bill is a savings claim. The Lito site leads with reviewing and redlining contracts in minutes rather than hours, a ninety per cent efficiency gain counter, and a framing that saved time should become better work, stronger relationships and profitable growth, and the home page says firms that bought AI to save time rarely know what the time returned. Nothing on any surface read addresses how AI-assisted drafting or review is recorded on a client matter or disclosed on a bill; the products are sold to law firms that bill clients as well as to in-house teams. lito.app and litera.com checked 7 September 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
A subprocessor and model provider list and forwardable client-facing material are published without an agreement in place. The subprocessor register is public and organised per product, and the Litera One / Lito entry names Microsoft Azure with its regions, Amazon Bedrock and Anthropic for model inference with what each retains, and You.com for web search, with a registration link for change notices. The Master Data Protection Addendum is published on the website, the Generative AI Terms and Security Addendum are published as standalone documents, and together they state the training prohibition, the retention position and the incident notice a firm needs to answer a client's AI clause. What a firm cannot forward is the SOC 2 report, which sits behind a Get access request on the trust centre. Subprocessor register, DPA page, GenAI Terms and Security Addendum read 7 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses court disclosure of AI use or a verification certification. The Lito site states that recommendations display their reasoning and source inside the product and that the deterministic engines return repeatable results; no surface describes an exportable per-document record of the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification performed, and no disclosure template or guidance for standing orders was located. lito.app, GenAI Terms and litera.com resources checked 7 September 2026.