AI Legal Index
Vendors · Litigation & eDiscovery

L
Litmas AI

Litmas AI is a litigation platform from Litmas, Inc. for trial and appellate lawyers, sold to solo practitioners, firms and in house teams in personal injury, commercial, insurance defense, criminal defense and other litigation practices. Working from the documents uploaded to a case, it answers research questions about the case with inline pincites to the record and to U.S. court opinions. It breaks each cause of action into its elements, maps the evidence to each one to show what is supported and what is missing, and visualizes parties, witnesses and facts in a graph.

It flags a new document that contradicts earlier testimony. It drafts discovery requests and deposition outlines, drafts motions, pleadings and demand letters in guided steps, and exports a motion with its cited documents as exhibits. Every case, statute and pincite is checked against verified U.S. court opinions by what it calls dual layer validation, citations that cannot be validated are removed, and each cited case is checked for later treatment.

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.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

Litmas AI, 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.

Build your own comparison

Alternatives

Alternatives to Litmas AI

Vendors in the same categories as Litmas AI 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.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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 AI answers research questions about the case, 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. Newer features include an Agentic Associate with control points called Review Draft and the Verification workflow. The Authority Map is described as "a citation network built from the orders themselves".

It ranks leading authorities by how many dockets cite them and can check an opposing brief. The platform alerts the lawyer when a new transcript contradicts an earlier statement, and exports a motion with every cited document as an exhibit. For mass claims, a master case holds shared facts, case law and templates, and work product is generated for each sub case. The case library that holds the documents supports that work.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Litmas AI's 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. A citation that cannot be validated is removed rather than shown, and 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 home page promises "100% Citation Accuracy" and says every legal citation is verified against authoritative sources "with full Shepardization", following citations in both directions.

The case law research page lists checks for existence, treatment and proposition, subsequent history and negative treatment, and where a case has been distinguished and by whom. The pricing page promises zero fabricated case law. 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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Drafting runs step by step, with verified facts assigned to a motion and elements marked as proven by the user. Litmas AI's 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. A blog post of 27 September 2026 answers whether Litmas AI files or sends without the lawyer's review: "No. Every draft stops at your desk before it moves anywhere else."

Each section can be edited, approved or regenerated. Nothing states what the product may not be used for or what happens when its output is wrong. Output is marketed as ready to file and ready for filing, and a blog post of 10 September 2026 describes a summary judgment draft as 90 percent ready to be filed.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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 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 home page claims more than 200 firms and 10 times faster drafting. Litmas AI's FAQ says users typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent, and the how it works page repeats the figure, with no basis or source given for any of these numbers. Litmas AI was named among 15 finalists for the Startup Alley at ABA TECHSHOW 2026, announced on 5 March 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

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 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. The pricing table lists attorney client privilege as protected, and the pre suit workflow covers client intake and privileged communications. No terms of service, customer agreement, data processing addendum or subprocessor list is published. Nothing says which model providers process case data, and deletion after cancellation follows an unstated retention period.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Litmas AI's FAQ says it 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 trial page says Litmas AI "is designed exclusively for licensed attorneys, in-house counsel, and their professional staff", and that anyone outside a legal practice or legal department may not be eligible for access.

The product is built for litigators, and coverage is U.S. federal and state law. No published agreement repeats that position, and the same pages describe output as ready to file and ready for court.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how research or drafting performs across jurisdictions, practice areas or case types is published. The About page lists the team, including Chief Legal Officer Wayne Atkins, and names no owner for AI governance.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on AI Safety and Data StewardshipA generic privacy policy covers the product without addressing what happens to documents and prompts after processing.

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.

Data is encrypted with AES-256 at rest on servers based in the U.S., isolated to each workspace, protected by access controls and never used for training, according to the Trust Center. After cancellation, data stays exportable for a limited period and is then permanently deleted. The Privacy Policy, effective 18 November 2025, 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 is published.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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 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.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Practice Systems Integration DepthIntegrations are listed as logos or marked as coming, with no documentation an implementer could use.

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.

Most case or practice management systems can be integrated through APIs, the FAQ says, naming Clio, Filevine and MyCase, and the Unlimited plan includes case management integration support. The home page describes an API ready ecosystem, and a blog post of 20 February 2026 promises API ready integration with existing systems without naming them. Drafts export to Word, with PDF export described as coming, and a motion can be exported with every cited document as an exhibit. What connects, what syncs and how it is configured is not described.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

Deployment Model and Data Residency

Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.

The Trust Center and FAQ say the platform runs in the browser, that all data is stored on servers in the U.S., and that each firm's data is isolated to its workspace on a privately housed server. It is a single cloud service. Where AI processing takes place, and whether infrastructure is dedicated or shared, is not stated, and no other deployment option is offered.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Litmas has completed a SOC 2 Type I examination and an independent HIPAA compliance audit, according to its Trust Center and its blog, and offers both reports to customers and prospective customers under NDA, requested by email to privacy@litmas.ai. The case law research page calls it SOC 2 certified. The auditor and the report period are not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

Answers are combined through a proprietary legal reasoning layer from the case file and verified U.S. court opinions, according to the FAQ, and the Privacy Policy lists service providers that provide AI functions. The employment law page says the system is trained exclusively on verified legal data, never general internet content, and a blog post refers to a proprietary database of case law, statutes and regulations. No model, model provider, inference location or change notification is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Commercial TransparencyA buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, and what implementation adds.

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.

The pricing page publishes a plan priced per case 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, personalized onboarding and drafting before suit. Each case includes 5,000 pages, with additional pages at $0.01 each, and uploads can be up to 500 MB per file. A drafting service by Litmas's own legal team is priced at $1,499 per case per month per attorney, covering defined drafting requests per case each month. A free trial of 7 days is offered, and the compare page says no annual or multi year commitment is required.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

The site covers solo practitioners to larger firms and in house teams, and lists the motions and documents it drafts. Practice area pages cover personal injury, insurance defense, commercial litigation, criminal defense, employment, debt collection, family law, IP litigation, bankruptcy, appeals and mass litigation. The family law page offers fourteen starting points across dissolution, custody, support, paternity and protective orders, in California Family Code and general versions.

The IP page covers patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret cases, and the bankruptcy page makes all 91 bankruptcy courts selectable. Litmas claims case law coverage in all 50 states and federal courts, with local rule formatting. Case law currency varies by court, and the cadence is given only on request. What the product does not handle is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

6 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.

Pricing

$125 per case per month

USD, 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, and 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 of 7 days is available.
Source: Vendor PublishedWhich legal AI vendors publish their pricing →

The Per Case Plan costs $125 per case per month. You pay only for active cases and can pause or close one at any time, with unlimited research and drafting, dual citation validation, case law from all 50 states and federal courts, and 5,000 pages per case. The Unlimited Plan costs $999 per attorney per month for all cases and adds intake before suit, demand and complaint drafting, a free paralegal seat, case management integration support, personalized onboarding and early access.

Pages beyond 5,000 per case cost $0.01 each, as a one time charge. Litigation Drafting Services cost $1,499 per case per month per attorney. Litmas's legal team drafts on the platform and the attorney reviews and finalizes, as a service sold beside the software.

Implementation: None published. The Unlimited plan includes personalized onboarding and case management integration support, and Litmas AI's 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. Litmas's Trust Center says it has completed an independent HIPAA compliance audit, with the report available under NDA, and Litmas AI's FAQ lists medical records among the documents users upload.

Note: A free trial of 7 days is offered on the user's own case. The Unlimited plan is sold through a demo, and the compare page says no annual or multi year commitment is required. No terms of service are published, so renewal, cancellation and refund terms are not stated.

Change log

Product updates

Oct 29, 2026Product / capabilityVerified

Litmas AI made its Agentic Associate publicly available for the first time. It chains an evidence mapper, jurisdiction specific research with two layers of citation checks against US court opinions, and drafting into one workflow that produces summary judgment, motion to dismiss and discovery drafts with pincites to the record. Before drafting, each project produces a session plan the attorney must review.

Bears on: Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureSource
All Litmas AI updates →

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in policy only

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. The personal injury page says data is never shared or used for training. No customer agreement is published, so the statement is not matched by a contractual term. Which model providers process case data is not stated.

Source: Vendor Publishednever used to retrain AI modelsAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

After cancellation, data stays available for a limited retention period for export and is then permanently deleted, the Trust Center says, 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.

Source: Vendor PublishedYour data will remain available for a limited retention periodAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

Litmas's 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.

Source: Vendor Publishedencrypted, isolated to your workspace, and never shared with other usersAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedrespond to valid requests by public authorities (e.g. a court or a government agency)As of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Jurisdictions only

Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.

Verified U.S. court opinions, covering all 50 states and federal courts, are the source material described in the FAQ and on the pricing page, updated on an ongoing basis at a frequency that varies by court and is given on request. The case law research page says every cite is resolved against the reporter, without naming it. The source of those opinions and the basis on which they are used are not identified.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Own treatment signal

The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.

The how it works page says Litmas AI "verifies the historical citation treatment of every case cited to determine whether the case is good law or bad law." The case law research page lists subsequent history and negative treatment as checked, with where a case has been distinguished and by whom, and describes the Authority Map as a citation network built from court orders. Dual layer validation also checks each citation for existence and accuracy against U.S. court opinions. No commercial citator is named as the source, and the lawyer is left to judge weight and applicability.

Source: Vendor PublishedLitmas AI verifies the historical citation treatment of every case cited to determine whether the case is good law or bad law.As of Oct 7, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Documented

The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.

Litmas AI's 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. A blog post of 20 March 2026 says that when the evidence does not support an argument, the platform says so, and the case law research page flags where a case does not support the proposition. No published evaluation shows that behavior.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no case involving Litmas. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product is on the public record.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Named guidance addressed

Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.

A blog post of 27 September 2026 names ABA Formal Opinion 512, California's recently passed law on attorney duties over AI, and Rule 11. Litmas AI's FAQ says 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 citations fabricated by AI.

Source: Vendor PublishedThe ABA's Formal Opinion 512As of Oct 7, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

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.

Litmas AI's FAQ says attorneys typically cut motion drafting time by 60 to 80 percent. A blog post of 10 September 2026 says attorneys are often left reducing the hours it took to draft when they bill the client. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is reflected in what a client is billed or what a client is told.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Not addressed

No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.

The SOC 2 and HIPAA reports are offered under NDA on request. No subprocessor or model provider list and no disclosure material for clients is published in the Trust Center, the FAQ or the Privacy Policy.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 22, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

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 Litmas AI's FAQ says the platform gives lawyers the traceability to show their work. The appeals page claims a full audit trail for every output. No record of which model produced a draft, and no export of AI use for disclosure to a court, is described.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 22, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
November 9, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746