M
Magnar

Magnar is a legal AI agent for lawyers in Latin America, built by Magnar SpA in Santiago, Chile. It is sold in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador and Costa Rica, and Brazil and Mexico are opening after an $8M Series A in September 2026. A lawyer gives the agent an objective and approves its plan. The agent then reads case files of up to 10,000 pages, researches each country's legislation and case law with a citation behind every point, drafts documents and reviews contracts.

It can also work in court and registry websites through a browser the lawyer watches live, and run scheduled tasks such as a weekly case summary. Copilot proposes the next step on any screen and acts only on approval. Around the agent sit tabular review of hundreds of documents, a Word add in that edits in tracked changes, Monitor alerts on new rulings and regulations, Vaults for document management with client datarooms, and electronic signature.

Magnar reports about 30,000 users and 350 law firms. Individual plans start free, Plus costs $50 a month, and firm seats are priced per user in UF.

Compared with

Magnar, 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

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.

Everything turns on the agent. A lawyer states an objective, Magnar breaks it into stages of reading, research and drafting, and the lawyer adjusts or approves the plan before it runs. It then reads the full case file, retrieves legislation and case law with citations, works in the websites it needs and leaves a structured document with its sources. Case analysis takes files of up to 10,000 pages and answers questions, builds timelines and drafts from them, while tabular review pulls defined fields from hundreds of documents into one table.

Sidechat works on the document that is open, Compare explains the changes between two versions, and Monitor runs an agent every hour over official sources and keeps only the findings that meet a lawyer's condition. Vaults and electronic signature are conventional modules sold inside the same subscription, and every document stored in Vaults is open to the assistant.

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.

Research answers keep each conclusion tied to the decision, regulation or official document behind it, and the original text opens in one click. The Chilean database lists its sources by name, from the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals and the Constitutional Court to the CMF, the SII, the Comptroller General, the Labor Directorate and the environmental tribunals. Magnar counts more than 70 million laws and court decisions across the region, and the coverage of sources, courts and periods varies by country.

Clause 3.4 of the terms says the AI is probabilistic and can produce errors and hallucinations. No accuracy rate, test set or failure analysis is published.

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.

Approval points are built into each mode. A plan appears before any run, and the lawyer can adjust or approve it. Copilot proposes an action on the contract, case or vault on screen and carries it out only once the lawyer approves. In Word, edits arrive as tracked changes. When the agent works in a court or registry site, the lawyer watches the browser live and can take over at any point, and portal sign ins need the lawyer's own credentials.

Scheduled tasks run with the app closed and alert only when something changes. The terms make the client, as a legal professional, responsible for reviewing and validating every output before it goes into a filing, a contract or advice. Filing a brief through a court's electronic filing system is among the tasks shown. Whether that step needs its own approval, a confidence threshold at which work stops, and recovery after an error are not described.

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.

About 30,000 users and 350 law firms worked with Magnar in September 2026, a little over a year after it started, and more than 23,000 lawyers in Chile use it by its count. Partners at three firms are quoted by name and on video. Roberto Lewin of Barros Silva Varela & Vigil speaks about the effect on associates and on hiring. Diego Rodríguez of A/C/R Legal talks about the changing role of lawyers, and Germán Barrios of Bafur Abogados calls AI a vital tool for firms.

None of the quotes carries a figure, a date or a measured result, and no case study with outcomes is published. The research product's promise of hundreds of hours saved each month comes with no method or customer behind it.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Training is settled in writing. Clause 6.6 licenses customer content to Magnar only to process it for the service and states that Magnar will not use it to train its models or share it with other customers. Under the privacy policy, content is processed transiently and each organization's data is visible only to its own users. Magnar's agreements with model providers such as OpenAI, Google and Anthropic bar training, and any provider retention is limited to abuse monitoring for at most 30 days.

Stored history stays until the user deletes it and is erased within 30 days of account closure. Privilege and work product are not addressed by name, and separation inside a firm runs on Magnar's own folder permissions rather than matter walls.

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.

Clause 3.3 of the terms describes Magnar as a technology assistant, not a law firm, and rules out legal representation and legal advice. Clause 3.4 states that the AI is probabilistic and can produce errors. It makes the client, as a legal professional, solely responsible for reviewing and validating any output before using it in a legal document, a filing or advice to anyone. The product is sold to lawyers, firms and legal departments, with a free plan and student pricing. Supervision of staff, competence duties and the jurisdictions where output may be relied on are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

ISO 42001, the AI management system standard, is in progress. Magnar describes it as covering transparency, fairness and accountability with controls for bias and explainability, and its trust center lists the certification as under way. The same trust center publishes more than 40 policies and controls, from secure development and change management to breach notification and personnel screening. No AI policy, release testing, accountable owner or finding about how output varies across countries, courts or practice areas is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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 is set out by data type. User content is processed transiently. Stored history and case files remain until the user deletes them, and everything is erased securely within 30 days of account closure unless a legal hold applies. Model providers may keep content for abuse monitoring for no more than 30 days. Data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, administrative staff work on least privilege access with multifactor authentication, and penetration tests run periodically.

Subprocessors appear in the trust center with entity, country, service, data types and storage location, a list last updated on 25 September 2026. Among them are Google's Gemini API, AWS hosting and Amazon Bedrock, MongoDB Atlas, GitHub, ElevenLabs and Google Workspace. As a provider registered with Chile's National Cybersecurity Agency, Magnar notifies an affected user within three hours of a confirmed breach.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

Under the terms of 6 April 2026, governed by Chilean law, total liability is capped at the fees the client paid in the 12 months before the event, and lost profit, lost opportunity and indirect damages are excluded. Magnar warrants that it will provide the service professionally and use commercially reasonable efforts to keep it available. Otherwise the platform is offered as is, with no promise that legal analysis is accurate, complete or binding.

Against third party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property, Magnar defends the client, provided the client gives prompt notice and hands over the defense. No carve outs from the cap, no insurance and no remedy for wrong output are stated.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

A Word add in analyzes the open document and proposes edits as tracked changes, and Magnar also works in Outlook. Google Drive connects on paid plans, while OneDrive, NetDocuments and iManage are listed as coming soon. Magnar Drive mirrors Vaults in Finder or File Explorer. A lawyer edits a file in Word, Magnar records the new version on save, permissions stay in Magnar, and files download only when needed. Client datarooms let a client sign in by email to the folders the firm shares.

Court, registry and apostille sites are reached through the agent's own browser, and Google Workspace sign on and Gmail access are optional. The Enterprise plan adds custom integrations, with no description of what they move.

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.

Lawyers reach the product in a browser or through desktop and mobile apps, as cloud software. Each organization's data is isolated from other Magnar users. Hosting, the database and model inference run in the United States on AWS, MongoDB Atlas and Google, and the privacy policy covers processing outside Chile through adequacy findings or standard contractual clauses. No regional hosting choice, private deployment or difference between tiers in where data sits 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.

ISO 27001:2022 certification covers the servers, databases, internal processes and handling of customer information, and a SOC 2 Type 2 report covers security, availability and confidentiality controls over a period. Compliance status, controls and more than 40 policies sit in a trust center, with documents released through a request access step. The auditor and the report period are not shown. ISO 42001 is in progress.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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 subprocessor list names Google's Gemini API and AWS with Amazon Bedrock for model inference, both in the United States. The privacy policy names OpenAI, Google and Anthropic as examples of model providers used through enterprise APIs under zero retention agreements. Users choose between General, Light and Pro modes, and the specific models behind each are not named. Customers can subscribe to the trust center for notice of subprocessor changes, the list last changing on 25 September 2026, though no notice period for a change of model is committed.

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.

Prices are published for individuals and teams. Free gives 5 credits a month with no card, and Plus costs $50 a month with 30 credits a week, three modes, a document library, Google Drive and one monitor. Team seats are priced per user each month in UF, the Chilean unit of account, plus VAT, with unlimited users and a two week free trial. Base is 0.5 UF with 10 weekly credits, Plus 1.5 UF with 40 and Pro 5.25 UF with 130.

Credits pay for questions and file processing. Extra use on team plans is billed at whichever costs less, extra credits or the next plan up, and price rises need 30 days' notice. Enterprise is quoted, and there are no setup fees.

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.

Lawyers, law firms and corporate legal departments use the product in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador and Costa Rica, and Brazil and Mexico are opening with local teams and offices. Visitors from other countries are told it is not yet available there. Research depth follows each country's sources. In Chile those span civil, criminal and labor courts, tax, financial market, competition, environmental, consumer and social security bodies, and the Inter American Court of Human Rights.

Availability of sources, courts and periods varies by jurisdiction. Students get a validated discount on individual plans, and teams of any size can mix seat levels. Which practice areas fall outside the product is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

8 public documents

The public pages on file for Magnar, 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

$50 a month

USD, as published, never converted
  • Magnar has a free plan with a few credits each month.
  • One lawyer can pay $50 a month for more credits and features.
  • Law firms pay per person each month in UF, a Chilean money unit, from 0.5 to 5.25 UF.
  • Every question and file uses credits, which refill each week.
  • Big firms get a custom price.

Individual plans are priced in dollars per month with a weekly allowance of credits. Free gives 5 credits a month with no card. Plus costs $50 a month for 30 credits a week, General, Light and Pro modes, a document library, Google Drive and one monitor. Team plans are priced per user per month in UF plus VAT, with unlimited users. Base is 0.5 UF with 10 credits a week, Plus 1.5 UF with 40 and Pro 5.25 UF with 130, and levels can be mixed within one team. Enterprise plans are quoted.

Implementation: None. Magnar advertises no setup fees, and Enterprise adds custom onboarding with a dedicated account manager.

Note: Credits are used by questions and file processing, and deeper research or many files use more. Individual credits reset weekly while billing stays monthly. Team credits are per person, renew weekly and do not roll over. On team plans, use beyond the allowance is billed at the lower of extra credits or the next plan up for that month. Price increases need 30 days' written notice, and a customer may cancel without penalty before they apply. Team prices are reference prices subject to a commercial proposal.

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 the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

Clause 6.6 of the terms licenses customer content to Magnar only to process it for the service and states that Magnar will not use it to train its AI models or share it with other customers. The privacy policy repeats that content does not train Magnar's foundation models unless the user instructs otherwise. Magnar's agreements with OpenAI, Google and Anthropic bar those providers from training on it, and Google Workspace data stays outside model building under Google's limited use rules.

Source: Vendor PublishedMagnar NO utilizará el Contenido del Usuario para entrenar sus modelos de Inteligencia ArtificialAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

Content is processed transiently. If the user keeps chat history or case files, they remain until the user deletes them, and on account closure everything is erased within 30 days unless a legal or court order requires keeping it. Clients are expected to download their content before a subscription ends. Model providers may hold content for security and abuse monitoring for no more than 30 days. No zero retention setting is described.

Source: Vendor Publishedlos datos se conservarán hasta que el Usuario los elimineAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

Each organization's data is reachable only by its own users. Inside the firm, Vaults organize documents by organization, client and project with granular permissions, and Magnar Drive keeps those permissions when files open in Word. Client datarooms show an outside party only the folders the firm allows, watermarking each page and logging each action. Permissions live in Magnar rather than following a firm's existing document system.

Source: Vendor Publishedwith Magnar permissions intactAs of Oct 13, 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 lists compliance with tax, judicial or administrative orders from a competent authority among the purposes for processing data. Neither it nor the terms commit to telling the customer about such a request or to resisting it, and no transparency report is published. Breach reports go to Chile's National Cybersecurity Agency under Law 21.663, with notice to affected users within three hours.

Source: Vendor PublishedPara cumplir con obligaciones tributarias, judiciales o administrativas emanadas de autoridad competenteAs of Oct 13, 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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

Each country has its own source list. In Chile the database names the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals and the Constitutional Court. It adds civil, criminal and labor courts, the environmental and competition tribunals, and regulators such as the CMF, the SII and the Superintendency of Social Security. The Comptroller General, bills before Congress and the Inter American Court of Human Rights are also listed. Monitor checks selected sources every hour for new publications. The rights basis for each source and the update schedule of the research database are not stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Answers cite the ruling, regulation or official document behind each conclusion, and the original opens in one click. Magnar describes tracking how each law is applied and comparing lines of precedent across courts. No flag on a decision that has been reversed or overruled, and no check of subsequent history on a cited authority, is described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Errors and hallucinations are possible, the terms warn, because the AI is probabilistic, and every research answer keeps its conclusions linked to their sources. Monitor separates the documents it analyzed from those that meet the lawyer's condition, so a run with no match reports none. What the agent does when the sources do not support an answer, whether it declines or flags low confidence, is not described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Magnar. Magnar's terms tell users the AI can hallucinate and require them to verify output before using it in a filing.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

Professional responsibility for any output sits with the client as a legal professional, who must review and validate it before using it in a filing or advice. Magnar's own position is that it supplies the technology while judgment and legal decisions stay with the lawyer. No ethics opinion or guidance from a bar association in the countries Magnar serves is discussed, and no mapping of the product to professional rules is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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.

Law firms and legal departments buy Magnar, and its research product promises to save hundreds of hours a month in finding and analyzing case law. Organization admins see how much each user consumes, which tracks usage by person rather than by matter. No guidance on billing clients for AI assisted work or disclosing it is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

The trust center publishes a subprocessor list giving each provider's legal entity, country, service, data types and storage location, with Google's Gemini API and Amazon Bedrock named for model inference, and customers can subscribe to change notices. Policies and audit documents are released through a request access step. No client facing disclosure pack is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

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 step of the agent's plan stays visible, and each conclusion cites the source behind it. Vaults keep every version with a line by line comparison and record who uploaded what and when, and datarooms log each action. A brief filed through a court system comes back with its filing receipt. No export ties a filed document to the model used, the sources retrieved and the lawyer who verified it, and no court disclosure template is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 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 430 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
October 14, 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