L
Litify
Litify is a legal operating platform built on Salesforce that runs a firm's work end to end. It covers client intake with dynamic questionnaires and voice agents, matter management, document generation and PDF editing, timekeeping and billing, legal spend management with budgets and invoice review, and reporting without code. Four solution lines cover personal injury, insurance defense, immigration and corporate legal departments.
Named customers include Brooklyn Defenders, Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer, AmTrust, Cole Scott & Kissane and the United States Postal Service. Litify AI centers on the Agentic Case Expert, or ACE, which works across a firm's cases and documents, alongside eight named agents running from intake qualification to deposition preparation. Some AI features come from partners: Supio powers the Damages Assistant and Instant Demands, Billables.ai powers AI Time Capture, and Salesforce Agentforce handles conflict checking and invoice review.
The vendor says its AI runs in a closed, isolated environment on Anthropic models through Amazon Bedrock, and that customer data is never retained by or used to train the model. Litify is a Salesforce managed package that needs a Salesforce platform license on top of its own subscription, which the vendor lists from $200 per user per month.
Litify, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to Litify
Vendors in the same categories as Litify whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- CCovalyntCovalynt, formerly ClaimScore, is a data science platform for class actions, mass torts and mass arbitrations operated by ClaimScore LLC.
- CCodes HealthCodes Health retrieves and reviews medical records for plaintiff personal injury and mass tort firms.
- SSuperinsightSuperinsight reads medical records and produces chronologies, summaries and case reports for lawyers and medical experts working claims that turn on medical evidence.
- LLaw Practice AILaw Practice AI is AI software for plaintiff law firms, founded in 2019 and based in Woodland Hills, California.
- AAnytime AIAnytime AI is an agentic AI platform sold only to plaintiff law firms, covering a case from intake through settlement.
- PParambilParambil is an AI platform for reading medical records at litigation scale.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
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.
Litify's home page calls it the only AI native platform of action, while the Taylor King Law case study describes a 2021 deployment whose measured gains came from the analytics engine, phone tree routing and matter plans, with no AI in the account at all. Litify ACE is positioned as the AI nerve center, eight further named agents run from intake qualification through deposition preparation, and machine learning is embedded in document generation, time capture and line item invoice review.
Without the models, a working intake, matter, billing and reporting platform remains, the shape of a legacy system that added an AI layer rather than one built around it.
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.
The Litify AI page says being fully native to the platform ensures greater accuracy than standalone AI tools, and the Damages Assistant is described as reconciling bills against records for total accuracy. No test set, benchmark, error rate or failure mode is published. The product does not retrieve primary law, so checking citations against authority does not arise. It does draft demand letters and interrogatory responses from a firm's own medical records and matter data, and no grounding mechanism is described for that output; nothing published lets a reader trace a drafted assertion to the source page it came from.
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.
ACE is described as a proactive, autonomous partner that anticipates risk and executes tasks in the background, and the platform page describes autonomous AI agents that do the same. The Demand Agent drafts demand letters automatically as damages approach policy limits, and the Discovery Agent drafts interrogatory responses automatically. The only oversight position published is in the Pillars of Responsible AI Development post of 9 July 2024, which says AI is not a replacement for legal professionals and is not well positioned to engage in the art of case strategy.
The product, platform and AI pages show no review point, approval step or threshold at which an agent stops, and nothing on what happens when an agent is wrong.
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 Taylor King Law study names the firm, its size at more than 75 employees, its states and its COO, Emily Merryman, and a 2021 launch that migrated from Needles. It gives a baseline: intake conversion rose from 30 percent to 50 percent, and average attorney fees rose 46 percent. The method is described step by step. The firm identified its highest performing intake agents from captured workflow data, routed calls on existing cases away from them through a phone tree, replaced uniform follow up with conditional timing logic, and added an automated quality of life questionnaire to surface noneconomic damages.
Other named studies carry their own figures: EllisDon at 100 percent faster reporting, McFarlane Law at a 10 percent lift in billing collection, and Cesar Ornelas at 33 percent more case production without added headcount. No study carries a publication date or measurement window, and none of the figures is attributed to an AI capability, so the evidence is for the platform rather than for Litify AI.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The Litify AI page says customer data is never retained or used to train the model. The Pillars post of 9 July 2024 describes single tenant architecture giving each client a walled off cloud environment. The security post says customer data sits in Salesforce data centers where Litify is not an authorized administrator, and support access requires the customer to run a Grant Litify Support Team Access process. It also says third parties, including Litify employees, investors, shareholders and board members, may not access customer information.
No customer agreement is published, so none of these commitments is contractual. Separation is described between customers, not between matters inside a firm. Nothing addresses what Anthropic or AWS may keep when a prompt reaches Bedrock. Privilege and work product are not mentioned, and the only published legal document, the privacy policy, expressly excludes data held for customers.
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.
No disclaimer, statement of what the product is and is not, supervision or competence discussion, jurisdiction limit, or engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar guidance is published on Litify's home page, Litify AI page, platform page, privacy policy, CA notice, responsible AI post, security post, customers section or Salesforce AppExchange listing. There is no terms of service on the property to carry a disclaimer.
The shipped agents draft demand letters and interrogatory responses, and the platform is sold to firms whose staff include case managers and intake agents who are not lawyers.
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.
A governance post, Our Pillars of Responsible AI Development, dated 9 July 2024, is signed by VP of Engineering Andrew Heffernan. Most of its substance concerns the supply chain and deployment: the Claude 3 selection, Amazon Bedrock and single tenant storage, plus a value first pillar about not replacing lawyering. No accountable owner for AI governance is named, no testing before release is described, no evaluation results are disclosed, and nothing is published on bias or uneven output across matter types, claimant populations or case values, though the Case Value Agent and Policy Agent make value judgments about individual injury claims.
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.
Customer data sits in Salesforce data centers where Litify is not an authorized administrator, according to the security post of 30 June 2022, and documents are held on AWS behind a strict internal approval process, the support team must be granted access through a named process the customer runs, and employees, investors, shareholders and board members may not access customer information. No retention period, deletion route, subprocessor list or incident or breach notification practice is published.
The privacy policy states in its opening that it does not apply to personal information held on behalf of users of the services, which removes matter data from its scope entirely. The access control material is four years old and has no current counterpart.
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.
No customer agreement of any kind is published. The footer of every Litify page carries only a Privacy Policy and a CA Notice at Collection, and the Salesforce AppExchange listing carries Salesforce's own Terms of Use rather than Litify's. No master subscription agreement, order form, indemnity, liability cap, warranty on output or insurance position is published, and there is no trust portal or documents page from which to request one. Who bears the loss when an agent drafts a wrong demand is not published.
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.
Roughly thirty integration logos appear on the platform page, among them iManage, NetDocuments, Outlook, DocuSign, Aderant, Epiq, QuickBooks, Chrometa, Time by Ping, RingCentral, Vonage and Case Status. The See All Integrations link on that page leads to no page, and no integrations directory, developer index or connector documentation is published elsewhere. The page shows that a NetDocuments or iManage connection exists, but not what it moves, in which direction, or what a firm must configure.
As a Salesforce managed package, Litify gains broad API reach, but that is the platform's extensibility rather than a documented Litify integration.
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.
Single tenant architecture gives each client its own cloud environment walled off from other organizations, extended to single tenant storage for the AI features, according to the Pillars post of 9 July 2024. The product is delivered as a Salesforce managed package that requires a Salesforce platform license. No region list, residency option, distinction between where data is stored and where it is processed, or statement of which Salesforce or AWS regions hold a firm's matter data is published.
The privacy policy says servers are in the United States, but it covers only the marketing site and expressly excludes data held for customers. The tenancy claim rests on a blog post from July 2024 with no current specification page behind it.
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.
Litify names its auditor. The security post states that Litify has completed SOC 2 Type I and Type II audits, both performed by Sensiba, and undergoes annual independent security audits. No scope, trust services categories, coverage period or report date is published, there is no trust portal, and no way to request the report short of a demo is offered. The post is dated 30 June 2022 and no current attestation is published, so whether the annual audits continued is not stated.
Separately, the Litify AI page claims the product is fully configurable to meet HIPAA, GDPR and SOC II standards, a statement about configuration rather than an attestation.
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.
Litify names its model provider on its home page, which describes the platform as built on the infrastructure of Salesforce, AWS and Anthropic, identified as its closed AI model. The Pillars post of 9 July 2024 names the model family, Claude 3 from Anthropic, reached through Amazon Bedrock and run inside closed AWS services, so client data is not exposed to the wider internet or to open models. No commitment to notify customers when the model or provider changes is published.
The version named is two generations old, and the current AI page names Anthropic but no model. The supply chain reaches further than the model pages: Supio powers the Damages Assistant and Instant Demands, Billables.ai powers AI Time Capture and Salesforce Agentforce handles conflict checking, and no subprocessor list ties those parties to the customer data they see.
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.
There is no pricing page on litify.com and no pricing entry in its navigation, but Litify's own Salesforce AppExchange storefront publishes a figure and a unit: a default plan at $200 USD per user per month, marked as the lowest starting price, with discounts noted for nonprofits. The listing also states that the package requires Platform Cloud, so a Salesforce license sits on top of the Litify subscription, though the size of that addition is not given.
No tier names, feature splits between packages, price for the AI capabilities, or implementation cost is published, and implementation is substantial for a deployment native to Salesforce. The floor and the unit of charge are published; nothing above the floor is.
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.
Four solution lines each have their own page and named buyer: personal injury firms handling high volume intake, firms doing high volume defense work for insurance carriers, consumer and business immigration practices, and corporate legal departments managing internal matters and outside counsel. The AppExchange listing adds government agencies and nonprofits, and the customer list bears out the range, from Brooklyn Defenders to the United States Postal Service.
The claim of more than fifteen practice areas is not itemized. Nothing says where the product stops: no firm size limits, no unsupported practice areas, and no jurisdictions outside the United States. The platform framing and the Salesforce license requirement both point away from very small firms.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Litify, 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.
-
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Aug 31, 2026
-
litify.com/litify-ai1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Aug 31, 2026
From $200
- Litify costs at least $200 per person per month.
- That is the cheapest plan, so most firms pay more than this.
- You also have to buy Salesforce separately, and Litify does not say what that costs.
- The price is not on Litify's own website. It is on the Salesforce app store page.
- Charities and nonprofits can get a discount.
Per user per month, published by Litify on its own Salesforce AppExchange storefront rather than on litify.com, which has no pricing page and no pricing entry in its navigation. The listing shows a default plan at $200 USD per user per month and marks it as the lowest starting price, so this is a floor rather than a typical rate. Discounts are noted for nonprofits. The listing also records that the package requires Platform Cloud, meaning a Salesforce license is needed in addition to the Litify subscription, with no figure given for that addition. No tier names, feature splits, AI add on pricing or implementation costs are published at any level.
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 public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The Litify AI page states the position twice, in a Zero Model Training panel and again in the FAQ, where it says the closed and secure model ensures customer data is never used to train the model. The Pillars of Responsible AI Development post of 9 July 2024 says the same of the single tenant AI architecture. No customer agreement, master subscription agreement or data processing addendum is published anywhere on the property, so the commitment is a policy statement on a product page rather than a term a firm could hold Litify to.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
What Litify publishes covers the model, not the platform: the quoted line and the Zero Model Training panel both address whether the AI model persists customer data, and say it does not. Nothing published states how long prompts and generated outputs are kept inside the Litify application itself, whether a firm can configure that window, or whether zero retention is available. The privacy policy states a general standard of keeping data as long as necessary but scopes itself out of data held on behalf of customers.
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.
The segregation Litify describes is between customers rather than within a firm: the responsible AI post of 9 July 2024 says each client has a unique cloud environment walled off from other organizations. Nothing on the home page, the Litify AI page, the platform page, the security post, the responsible AI post or the privacy policy addresses ethical walls, matter level access restriction, or whether retrieval enforces a firm's own permissions at query time, although the ACE agent is described as working natively across all of a firm's cases and documents and the conflict checker searches an entire case history.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Litify's privacy policy of 3 June 2026 says Litify may disclose personal information to law enforcement and government authorities and in response to valid requests by public authorities. It makes no commitment to notify the affected party, and there is no transparency report. The policy states at the outset that it does not apply to personal information held for users of the services, which puts a firm's matter data outside its scope, and no customer agreement exists to cover the question instead.
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.
The product does not retrieve primary law. Litify AI works on a firm's own matter data, medical records and documents, so there is no case law or statutory corpus behind its output and no licensing question of that kind. The Litify AI and platform pages refer to no primary law source.
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 citator function exists, and none would apply in the ordinary way, because the product does not return authority to be checked for later history. The nearest adjacent behavior is drafting: the Demand Agent produces demand letters and the Discovery Agent drafts interrogatory responses, neither of which is described as citing or verifying 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.
No published material describes what any Litify agent does when it cannot support an answer from the matter file. No way to abstain, confidence or grounding score, or behavior on missing data is described, although the Record Retrieval Agent is described as identifying missing medical records, which is gap detection in the case file rather than uncertainty about its own output.
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 at HEC Paris, along with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Litify; the product name and the company name are the same word. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The shipped agents draft demand letters and interrogatory responses.
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.
No engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or with any state bar opinion on generative AI is published on Litify's home page, Litify AI page, responsible AI post, resources index or privacy policy. Litify publishes material on AI for buyers, including a Legal AI Buyer's Guide and a 2025 State of AI in Legal report, and a responsible AI post that names NIST, the Global Partnership on AI and the Partnership on AI as bodies its model providers engage with, none of which is ethics guidance binding its customers.
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.
Litify markets efficiency and realization gains without addressing the client's side of the invoice. Litify's home page says configurable workflows and autonomous agents let a firm handle twice as many matters with the same staff, and the platform page describes AI Time Capture as recommending time entries so that work such as quick emails is never left off the bill. Nothing published addresses how AI assisted work should be billed or disclosed to a client, and no record of what the AI itself did on each matter is described, though AI Time Capture is said to generate entries ready for review.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
Litify names providers on current pages: its home page names Salesforce, AWS and Anthropic, the responsible AI post names the Claude 3 family reached through Amazon Bedrock, and the Litify AI page names Supio, Billables.ai and Salesforce Agentforce as the parties behind specific features. That is a model provider disclosure rather than a subprocessor list. No formal subprocessor register, data processing addendum or consent or notification pack for clients is published, and there is no trust portal from which to request one.
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.
Nothing on Litify's AI page, platform page or responsible AI post addresses producing a disclosure of AI use or a verification certification for a court. No export of which model produced which passage, what was retrieved, or who reviewed it is described for any of the nine named agents. The conflict checker is said to create a permanent report, but that is a conflicts artifact rather than an AI disclosure record.