L
Litmas AI
Litmas AI is a litigation platform from Litmas, Inc. for trial and appellate lawyers, including personal injury, commercial, insurance defense and criminal defense practices. Working from the documents uploaded to a case, it answers case-specific research questions with inline pincites to the record and to U.S. court opinions, breaks each cause of action into its elements and maps the evidence to each one to show what is supported and what is missing, visualises parties, witnesses and facts in a graph, drafts discovery requests and deposition outlines, and drafts motions, pleadings and demand letters in guided steps.
Every case, statute and pincite is checked against verified U.S. court opinions by what it calls dual-layer validation, and citations that cannot be validated are removed. Pricing is published: $125 per case per month or $999 per attorney per month for unlimited cases, with a separate drafting service in which its own legal team prepares documents on the platform.
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. Litmas AI answers case-specific research questions, extracts causes of action and maps evidence to their elements, builds a relationship graph of the case, drafts discovery and deposition questions, and drafts motions and pleadings from the case file and validated case law. The case library that holds the documents supports that work; without the models there is little left to sell. Verified 22 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.
The validation method is described; accuracy is claimed, not measured. The FAQ says every case, statute and pincite is checked against verified U.S. court opinions through a dual-layer validation system before it reaches the user, that a citation which cannot be validated is removed rather than shown, and that every citation that remains is linked inline so the lawyer can open it and judge its applicability. Facts are cited to the record at the pincite level.
The pricing page promises zero fabricated case law, but no error rate, test set or independent evaluation is published, and case law is updated at a cadence that varies by court and is given on request. Verified 22 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.
Guided workflows with the lawyer in the loop, short of stated limits. Drafting runs step by step, with verified facts assigned to a motion and elements marked as proven by the user, and the FAQ says the lawyer keeps full editorial control and can review every section before submission, and that the platform supports the duty to supervise rather than substituting for it. Nothing states what the product may not be used for or what happens when its output is wrong, and output is marketed as file-ready. Verified 22 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 users without measured results. The site quotes Kristina Ducos of The Ducos Law Firm, George G. Leynaud of the Law Offices of Leynaud & Leynaud, and Richard R. Kennedy of the Law Offices of Richard R. Kennedy. The FAQ's claim that users typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent gives no basis or source. Verified 22 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.
Commitments on public pages, with no agreement behind them. The Trust Center and FAQ say case data is encrypted, isolated to the firm's workspace, never shared with other users, stored on U.S. servers and never used to train AI models, and the pricing table lists attorney-client privilege as protected. No terms of service, customer agreement or data processing addendum is published, nothing says which model providers process case data, and deletion after cancellation follows an unstated retention period. Verified 22 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. 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.
A clear position in the FAQ, with no terms behind it. The FAQ says Litmas AI does not provide legal advice or replace professional judgment, that the filing is the attorney's whatever tool produced it, that verifying output before filing remains the lawyer's responsibility, and that the platform is designed to support the duty to supervise. The product is built for litigators, and coverage is U.S. federal and state law.
That position is not repeated in any published agreement, and the same pages describe output as file-ready and court-ready. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, FAQ, how it works, pricing, about and Trust Center pages and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how research or drafting performs across jurisdictions, practice areas or case types was located. Verified 22 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.
Security claims are published; the policies behind them are not. The Trust Center says data is encrypted with AES-256 at rest on U.S.-based servers, isolated to each workspace, protected by access controls and never used for training, and that after cancellation data stays exportable for a limited period and is then permanently deleted. The Privacy Policy keeps personal information as long as necessary and names categories of service providers, including those that provide AI functions. No retention period, subprocessor list or incident notification commitment was located. Verified 22 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.
Checked the home, FAQ, pricing, about and Trust Center pages and the Privacy Policy, and tried the /terms and /terms-of-service addresses, on 22 September 2026. No terms of service or customer agreement is published, so nothing states what Litmas stands behind when its output is wrong, its liability limits or any indemnity. Verified 22 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 claimed, not documented. The FAQ says Litmas AI can integrate with most case or practice management systems through APIs, naming Clio, Filevine and MyCase, and the Unlimited plan includes case management integration support; drafts export to Word, with PDF export described as coming. What connects, what syncs and how it is configured is not described. Verified 22 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.
A single cloud service with its region stated. The Trust Center and FAQ say the platform is browser-based, that all data is stored on U.S.-based servers, and that each firm's data is isolated to its workspace on a privately housed server. Where AI processing takes place, and whether infrastructure is dedicated or shared, is not stated, and no other deployment option is offered. Verified 22 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.
Named examinations, reports on request under NDA. The Trust Center says Litmas has completed a SOC 2 examination and an independent HIPAA compliance audit, and offers both reports to customers and prospective customers under NDA through a request form. The SOC 2 report type, auditor and period are not stated. Verified 22 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.
A proprietary layer is described without what sits underneath. The FAQ says answers are combined through Litmas AI's proprietary legal reasoning layer from the case file and verified U.S. court opinions, and the Privacy Policy lists service providers that provide AI functions. No model, model provider, inference location or change notification is published. Verified 22 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.
A buyer can price it without a sales call. The pricing page publishes a per-case plan at $125 per case per month, pausable at any time, and an Unlimited plan at $999 per attorney per month with a free paralegal seat, personalised onboarding and pre-suit drafting; each case includes 5,000 pages, with additional pages at $0.01 each. A drafting service by Litmas's own legal team is priced at $1,499 per case per month per attorney. A free trial is offered. Verified 22 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.
Litigation work and practice areas are named, short of limits. The site covers solo practitioners to larger firms and in-house teams, names personal injury, commercial litigation, insurance defense and criminal defense, lists the motions and documents it drafts, and claims 50-state and federal case law coverage with local rule formatting. Where case law currency varies by court, the cadence is given only on request, and what it does not handle is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Litmas AI, 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.
-
litmas.ai/faq5 signals
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour, Bar Guidance Alignment and 2 more
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
litmas.ai/trust3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
litmas.ai/privacy-policy1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
$125 per case per monthUSD, as published, never converted
- Litmas AI charges $125 per case per month, and you can pause or close cases at any time.
- The Unlimited plan is $999 per attorney per month and covers every case, with a free paralegal seat.
- Each case includes 5,000 pages; extra pages cost one cent each.
- Litmas's own legal team can draft documents for you on the platform for $1,499 per case per month.
- A free trial is available.
Published per-case and per-attorney pricing. **Per-Case Plan**: $125 per case per month, pay only for active cases, pause or close anytime; unlimited research and drafting, dual citation validation, 50-state and federal case law, 5,000 pages per case. **Unlimited Plan**: $999 per attorney per month, all cases, adding pre-suit intake, demand and complaint drafting, a free paralegal seat, case management integration support, personalised onboarding and early access. **Pages**: additional pages beyond 5,000 per case at $0.01 each, a one-time charge. **Litigation Drafting Services**: $1,499 per case per month per attorney, in which Litmas's legal team drafts on the platform and the attorney reviews and finalises; a service beside the software.
Implementation: None published. The Unlimited plan includes personalised onboarding and case management integration support, and the FAQ says every client gets a dedicated Customer Success Manager with no lengthy implementation.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on the site. The Trust Center says Litmas has completed an independent HIPAA compliance audit, with the report available under NDA, and the FAQ lists medical records among the documents users upload.
Note: A free trial is offered on the user's own case. The Unlimited plan is sold through a demo. No terms of service are published, so renewal, cancellation and refund terms are not stated.
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 Trust Center and FAQ state that workspace data remains private, is never used to retrain AI models, and is used only to power the firm's case analysis. No customer agreement is published, so the statement is not matched by a contractual term. Which model providers process case data is not stated.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
The Trust Center says that after cancellation data stays available for a limited retention period for export and is then permanently deleted, without stating the period. The Privacy Policy keeps personal information as long as necessary for its stated purposes. Nothing states how long prompts and AI outputs are kept during a subscription.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
The Trust Center says each firm's data is isolated to its workspace and not shared with other users. It does not describe how access is controlled within a firm, whether cases can be walled off from particular users, or how isolation is enforced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
The Privacy Policy says Litmas may disclose personal information in response to valid requests by courts or government agencies, or to comply with a legal obligation. Nothing addresses whether the firm will be told, and no customer agreement is published to address requests for case documents.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
The FAQ and pricing page describe the corpus as verified U.S. court opinions with 50-state and federal coverage, updated on an ongoing basis at a frequency that varies by court and is given on request. The source of those opinions and the basis on which they are used are not identified.
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 FAQ, pricing, how it works and home pages on 22 September 2026. Dual-layer validation is described as checking each citation for existence and accuracy against U.S. court opinions; nothing addresses whether cited authority is checked for later negative treatment, and the FAQ leaves weight and applicability to the lawyer.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.
The FAQ says that a citation which cannot be validated against a source is removed rather than shown, and the how-it-works page says the Evidence Mapper surfaces claims the record cannot support and shows where evidence is missing. No published evaluation shows that behaviour.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Litmas, and no recorded case was returned. 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.
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.
The FAQ addresses professional responsibility in general terms: the filing is the attorney's, verification before filing is the lawyer's duty, the platform supports the duty to supervise, and attorneys have been sanctioned for AI-fabricated citations. No ethics opinion is named.
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 FAQ says attorneys typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is billed or what a client should be told.
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.
Checked the Trust Center, FAQ and Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The SOC 2 and HIPAA reports are offered under NDA on request; no subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material was located.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Every fact and case reference in the output carries an inline pincite to its source, and the FAQ says the platform gives lawyers the traceability to show their work. No audit log, record of which model produced a draft, or export of AI use for disclosure to a court is described.