L
Lulius
Lulius is an AI research platform for German federal law, sold to law firms and also to consumers, companies and tax advisers. A question returns an answer built from retrieved sources, with a reference under each statement. The sources are more than 4,600 federal statutes and regulations and about 83,000 decisions of the seven federal supreme courts since 2010, taken from the federal government's open legal information portal.
For lawyers it drafts opinions in the classic German structure of issue, definition, application and result, analyzes case files of up to 600 pages, compares documents, checks deadlines and drafts letters. A connection to the Actaport practice management system reads case files and writes deadlines, notes, tasks and fee items back only after the lawyer confirms each one. The models are Anthropic's Claude, run through Amazon Bedrock in Frankfurt, where accounts, conversations and documents are also stored.
Plans cost 19 euros a month for consumers, 99 euros for a solo lawyer and 499 euros for a firm of five users, VAT included and cancelable monthly. Lulius is operated by Elivya UG of Frankfurt am Main, which the site describes as a company of Voisa AI.
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 language model is the product, working over a legal collection that is free to reuse. Every paid plan is metered in questions: 15 a month for consumers, 100 for a solo lawyer and 1,000 for a firm, with the first question free. The features page describes the method as retrieval augmented generation: the system first searches the statutes and decisions and then writes the answer from them. Section 2 of the Terms of July 2026 describes the service as based on large language models from Anthropic, Claude, and an indexed database of German statutory texts.
Opinions, document analysis of files up to 600 pages, comparison of several documents, letters and deadline review all come out of the same model. What would remain without it is modest. The statutes and federal decisions come from the government's open portal and are public domain, and the free calculators for deadlines, costs and interest run on deterministic engines that the features page sets apart from the AI. Those calculators and the case law search sit outside the paid quota, and they are what a buyer would get for nothing.
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 described and the sources can be opened, and no accuracy figure is published. The features page says answers are formed from the indexed sources by retrieval augmented generation, not from a language model's memory, with a source reference under every statement. The case law search covers 83,345 decisions of the seven federal supreme courts from January 2010 to July 2026. Each decision page links to the official version, which it calls authoritative, and 53,826 of the decisions carry an ECLI identifier.
Deadlines, costs and interest are calculated by deterministic engines with the legal basis shown, so those figures do not depend on the model. No evaluation, error rate or test set is published on the features, comparison or compliance pages. The comparison of seven legal AI products, which Lulius runs itself and says so, compares prices, coverage and hosting rather than accuracy. Section 2 of the Terms gives no warranty for completeness, correctness or currency.
A lawyer named only by initial says on the home page that the opinion drafts are at a level he knows from no other tool, which is a testimonial rather than a measurement.
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.
The one place the product acts on a firm's records is gated by confirmation, and the chat itself has no stated review control. The Actaport integration page says the model never writes into Actaport itself. Every action, whether a provisional deadline, a case note, a Word draft, a task or a fee item, is a button with a preview that the lawyer confirms, and deadlines arrive marked to be approved, which keeps a second person's check in place.
The features page says that where a case needs a lawyer's review, the system says so, and the compliance page says the lawyer's responsibility for the matter is unaffected. Deadlines, costs and interest come from deterministic engines rather than the model. Section 2 of the Terms describes answers as information, not legal advice, and gives no warranty on them. Nothing describes how a lawyer checks an opinion draft before it is used, what triggers the system's warning that a lawyer is needed, or what happens after an answer proves wrong.
Consumers receive a first assessment with a risk traffic light, and no review step stands between the answer and their decision.
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.
Three testimonials are published, none with a full name, a date or a method behind its figure. On the home page a specialist employment lawyer in Munich, given as RA Dr. M. Schreiber, says he saves at least an hour of research per matter and that the opinion drafts are at a level he knows from no other tool. A tenant in Berlin, given as Sarah K., says Lulius showed her in two minutes that the rent cap applied to a 20 percent increase, which would have cost 300 euros at a lawyer.
RA J. Hofmann of Kanzlei Hofmann and Partner in Hamburg, a firm of four lawyers, calls the firm suite a game changer for deadline review, matter preparation and team management, without a figure. The home page also says lawyers spend 3.5 hours a day on research, with no source. No case study, customer list, user count or press coverage is published on the home, about, companies or editorial pages, and the about page states no founding date or team size.
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.
Secrecy, training, provider retention and deletion are addressed in writing, and separation stops at the customer. The compliance page summarizes the data processing agreement of July 2026, which takes effect in text form when a lawyer registers for a professional plan. Part B binds the provider to secrecy under section 43e of the Federal Lawyers' Act without time limit, instructs it on criminal liability under section 203 of the Criminal Code, and requires subcontractors to commit to secrecy in text form.
Customer content is not used to train AI models, and AI requests are processed in Frankfurt, not stored permanently and kept within the European Union. The privacy policy of May 2026 adds that the agreements with Anthropic and the terms of Amazon Bedrock exclude training and permanent storage. Data is separated between customers at database level with row level security, and deletion runs immediately from production and within 30 days from backups.
The full agreement is shown only to registered professionals, and the summary is not binding by its own statement. Separation between matters or users inside a firm is not described, and consumer plans carry no such agreement.
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.
The advice line is stated on every surface, including the consumer ones, and the marketing to consumers leans on it. Section 2 of the Terms of July 2026 says answers are expressly not legal advice under the Legal Services Act and do not replace individual advice from a licensed lawyer. The compliance and features pages define the product as legal information and a first assessment rather than a legal service, with the lawyer's responsibility for the matter unaffected.
The features page says the system tells the user where a case needs a lawyer's review, and the consumer plan includes a referral to a lawyer. Jurisdiction limits are stated precisely: German federal law, federal supreme court decisions since 2010, no lower courts and no European courts, with Austrian and US editions on waitlists. The product is also sold to consumers, to managers and accountants who need no legal training, and to tax advisers, while the Terms address one undifferentiated user.
A tenant's testimonial values a two minute answer at the 300 euros a lawyer would have cost. Professional duties are framed as data protection and secrecy duties, not as supervision of the output.
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 governance position on the AI is published. The service writes legal opinions for lawyers and first assessments for consumers. The home page, features page, compliance page, about page, editorial page, comparison page and the Terms of July 2026 were checked. None names an accountable owner, a testing regime, an evaluation of the model across practice areas or kinds of user, or any finding, and the EU AI Act is not mentioned.
The editorial page describes a process for the published guides: real user questions, primary sources and checks against the original texts before publication, with confirmed errors corrected and the change date reset. That process covers the articles rather than the product's answers. The comparison of seven legal AI products discloses that Lulius runs it. Design choices that limit risk, such as retrieval from the statutes and deterministic engines for deadlines and costs, are described as features, not as a governed program.
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, named subprocessors, change notice and breach notice are all published. The privacy policy of May 2026 names six processors with location and role, among them Supabase in Frankfurt for the database, Anthropic through Amazon Bedrock in Frankfurt for the models, and Voyage AI in Palo Alto for embeddings, with vectors kept in an EU database. Conversations and messages are deleted within 30 days after an account is closed, invoices are kept up to ten years, and AI requests are not stored permanently.
The compliance page summarizes the data processing agreement of July 2026. Data is deleted immediately from production and within 30 days from backups, backups run daily, and encryption is TLS 1.2 or higher in transit and AES 256 at rest. Production access needs two factors and is limited to named administrators, and customers are separated by row level security. Any subprocessor added or replaced is notified in text form with 14 days to object, and breaches are notified within 48 hours.
The full agreement and its Annex 3 subprocessor list are visible only to registered professionals, and the page says only the full text binds.
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.
Liability is handled by the standard German limitation clause, and decisions taken on the output are excluded outright. Section 8 of the Terms of July 2026 makes the provider liable without limit for injury to life, body or health and for intent and gross negligence; for slight negligence it is liable only for breach of an essential contractual duty, limited to the damage typical of the contract and foreseeable when it was concluded, and claims under the Product Liability Act are unaffected.
No monetary cap is stated. The same section says the provider accepts no liability for decisions a user makes on the basis of information Lulius outputs, and section 2 gives no warranty for the completeness, correctness or currency of answers. No indemnity, warranty on output, insurance or service level is published in the Terms, on the compliance page or on the home page. The one remedy on offer is commercial: the home page promises a full refund within 30 days without reasons, and consumers keep their statutory right of withdrawal under section 5. A wrong citation in a filed brief, or a consumer's wrong decision on a first assessment, stays with the user.
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.
One practice management integration is documented in full, and it is the only one. The Actaport integration page lists eight functions: attaching files from the case to a conversation, importing case documents, creating provisional deadlines from calculations, saving answers as case notes, uploading Word drafts, creating tasks and follow ups, transferring fee items from cost calculations, and looking up case details.
It says what the model reads: the parties and their roles, the area of law, the value in dispute, and case documents in PDF, image, Word, Excel or email format up to 10 MB. The model writes nothing itself; each write is a button with a preview the lawyer confirms, and deadlines arrive pending approval. Setup takes three steps: requesting technical user credentials from Actaport, entering four values in the integrations section, and working through the case button in chat.
The integration is included in the Solo, Solo Plus and Kanzlei plans without using up questions. The page says RA-MICRO, advoware and AnNoText offer no open interface, and no Word, Outlook, document management or electronic mailbox connection is 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.
Where data is stored and where each kind of processing happens are stated provider by provider, for a single hosted service. The compliance page says accounts, conversations and documents are held only in the European Union, in the Frankfurt am Main region, in data centers certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2. It says AI requests are processed in region, only in Frankfurt, and do not leave the Union. The privacy policy of May 2026 gives each processor's location.
The Supabase database is in Frankfurt, and the Claude models run through Amazon Bedrock in its Frankfurt region, with AWS EMEA SARL as the contracting party and standard contractual clauses for any remaining third country link. Web hosting is on Vercel in Frankfurt, dictation runs through ElevenLabs in Warsaw, and embeddings go through Voyage AI in Palo Alto, with the vectors stored only in the EU database. The compliance page adds that the statute search sends Voyage only the abstracted search term, without user, account or payment data.
The service is delivered as software as a service with customers separated in the database. No private instance, choice of region or difference in hosting between plans is offered.
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.
The certifications named belong to the data centers, and none is claimed for Lulius or its operator. The compliance page says hosting runs in data centers certified to ISO 27001 and SOC 2, without naming whose certificates they are. The privacy policy places the database with Supabase, the models with Amazon Web Services and web hosting with Vercel, all in Frankfurt. The compliance page also summarizes the technical and organizational measures from the data processing agreement: TLS 1.2 or higher for every connection, currently TLS 1.3, AES 256 encryption at rest, two factor authentication for production access limited to named administrators, row level security between customers, and daily automated backups.
No certificate, audit report, penetration test, certifying body or trust center for Elivya UG or the Lulius service is published, and none is offered on request. A provider's data center certificate shows how the building and cloud are run, not how the Lulius application is secured.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The model family, its provider, the route it runs on, the region and notice of change are all published. Section 2 of the Terms of July 2026 says the service is based on large language models from Anthropic, Claude. The privacy policy of May 2026 says Claude runs through Amazon Bedrock in its Frankfurt region, with AWS EMEA SARL as the contracting party. Both the agreements with Anthropic and the Bedrock service terms exclude training on requests and permanent storage.
The same policy names Voyage AI of Palo Alto for embeddings and ElevenLabs of Warsaw for speech recognition, and the compliance page says the embedding service receives only the abstracted search term. The data processing agreement, as the compliance page summarizes it, commits to notice in text form before any subprocessor is added or replaced. Customers have 14 days to object for data protection or professional reasons, with a special right to terminate on both sides if the customer objects.
Which Claude model or version answers is not stated, and a change of model within Anthropic's family is not covered by the subprocessor notice.
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.
Three plans are priced with their units and quotas, and anything larger is arranged in a meeting. The home page lists the consumer plan at 19 euros a month for 15 questions, Solo Anwalt at 99 euros a month for 100 questions, and Kanzlei at 499 euros a month for 1,000 questions shared by a team with five users included, all shown as gross prices; section 4 of the Terms of July 2026 says all prices include VAT. Every plan is cancellable monthly with a full refund within 30 days without reasons, the first question is free, and the Terms set a minimum term of one month with monthly renewal through Stripe.
The comparison page repeats the 99 and 499 euro figures as starting points. Not priced are extra questions once a quota is used, seats beyond five, and the Solo Plus plan named on the Actaport integration page; the home page invites buyers who need a higher quota to book an appointment. No implementation fee applies to the self serve plans, and the Actaport integration is included without using up questions. Section 10 gives six weeks' notice by email of changes to the Terms.
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 legal coverage is bounded precisely, and the audience is broad. The case law page states what is not covered: no lower courts, no decisions before 2010, no Court of Justice of the European Union and no European Court of Human Rights. It includes the seven federal supreme courts from January 2010 to July 2026. The features page limits the statutes to more than 4,600 federal statutes and regulations, so state law is outside the collection.
Austrian and US editions are on waitlists, and the Austrian page says its collection is being built on the federal legal information system there. The audience runs well beyond law firms. Plans address consumers, solo lawyers and firms of five users; a companies page offers the product to management, HR, purchasing and accounting with no legal training needed; and a tax adviser page sells the same plans for research across the federal tax statutes.
Practice areas are not listed as such, though the calculators and the companies page point to employment, tenancy, family, inheritance, debt collection and data protection. No page says which kinds of legal work the product does poorly, or whether in house legal departments are served.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Lulius, 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.
-
lulius.ai/compliance3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
lulius.ai/datenschutz1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Oct 2, 2026
€19/monthEUR, as published, never converted
- Lulius costs 19 euros a month for consumers.
- A solo lawyer pays 99 euros a month and a firm of five pays 499 euros.
- Each plan includes a set number of questions per month.
- You can cancel monthly and get your money back within 30 days.
- Prices include VAT.
Verbraucher (consumers): 19 euros a month for 15 questions, plain language assessments, a risk traffic light, dictation and a lawyer referral. Solo Anwalt: 99 euros a month for 100 questions, opinion style analysis, document upload and analysis, a personal template base, matter management and full text search. Kanzlei: 499 euros a month for 1,000 questions shared by the team, five users included, a shared firm knowledge base and priority support. All prices include VAT, cancellable monthly, with a 30 day refund guarantee; the first question is free.
Implementation: None stated. The plans are self serve and the Actaport integration needs only credentials from Actaport.
Confidentiality and data terms: Not applicable in the German market. A data processing agreement with a secrecy commitment under section 43e of the Federal Lawyers' Act takes effect on registration for a professional plan.
Note: Prices are gross and include VAT (section 4 of the Terms of July 2026). Extra questions, seats beyond five and the Solo Plus plan named on the Actaport integration page are not priced; higher quotas are arranged by appointment. The Actaport integration is included without using up questions.
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 compliance page says customer content is not used to train AI models and presents this as a summary of the data processing agreement of July 2026, whose full text is shown only to registered professionals; the privacy policy of May 2026 adds that the agreements with Anthropic and the Amazon Bedrock terms exclude training on requests. The Terms of July 2026 do not address training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
The compliance page says AI requests are not stored permanently, and that data is deleted immediately from production systems and within 30 days from backups; the privacy policy of May 2026 says conversations and messages are deleted within 30 days after an account is closed. No zero retention setting for stored conversations is described.
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 compliance page says customers are separated at database level with row level security, and the Terms say that on the Kanzlei plan the team members unlocked by the firm determine access. Nothing describes separation between matters or between users inside a firm.
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 of May 2026 says data is passed on only with consent, where the operator is legally obliged, or to defend against abuse, with no language on notice to the customer. The Terms of July 2026 and the compliance page summary of the data processing agreement do not address requests from courts or authorities, and no transparency report was located.
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 license or rights basis.
The case law page says its 83,345 decisions of the seven federal supreme courts from 2010 come from the open collection of the federal legal information portal, that court decisions are official works in the public domain under section 5 of the Copyright Act, and that the collection was last updated on 9 July 2026 and is kept current regularly. The more than 4,600 federal statutes and regulations are not traced to a source, and no update cadence is stated for either.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product instructs the reader to check the citation without performing the check.
Each decision page links to the official version and calls it authoritative, and section 2 of the Terms gives no warranty for the currency of answers. No check of whether a cited decision was later overturned or a provision amended is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behavior in public materials.
The features page says that where a case needs a lawyer's review, the system says so, and the consumer plan pairs a risk traffic light with a referral to a lawyer. Nothing describes what the product does when retrieval finds no statute or decision to support an answer.
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 2 October 2026 for Lulius and its operator, 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 compliance page explains AI use in a firm through statutes: Article 28 of the GDPR, section 43e of the Federal Lawyers' Act, section 203 of the Criminal Code and, for tax advisers, section 57 of the Tax Advisers Act. No bar association guidance, professional code or ethics opinion on AI 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 home page quotes a lawyer saying he saves at least an hour of research per matter and says lawyers spend 3.5 hours a day on research that Lulius condenses to seconds, and the Actaport integration transfers fee items from cost calculations into the case. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed to clients.
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.
The privacy policy of May 2026 names six processors with location and role, including Anthropic through Amazon Bedrock as the model provider and Voyage AI for embeddings, and the compliance page summarizes the secrecy and processing terms a firm needs under sections 43e and 203. The agreement's own list in its Annex 3 is visible only to registered professionals.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Checked the features page, the compliance page, the Actaport integration page, the Terms of July 2026 and the home page on 2 October 2026; nothing describes a record of the model used, the sources retrieved and the lawyer's check for a court filing, or guidance on disclosing AI use to a court.