M
Matey
Matey is an AI discovery analysis platform from MateyAI, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for criminal defense. Its flagship product, CrimD, ingests case discovery of any kind, including scanned documents, email archives, text messages, body-worn camera video and audio, transcribes media automatically, sorts documents into user-defined folders on ingestion, and lets defense teams ask questions in plain language, build timelines and draft outlines for motions and trial, with answers linked back to the underlying evidence.
The company sells to public defender offices, private criminal defense firms and government agencies, and its FAQ says the platform can be tailored to civil litigation, corporate and forensic investigation work; it is an affinity partner of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Pricing is not published.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the product. CrimD's ingestion, automatic transcription of audio and video, classification of documents into folders on arrival, plain-language questions across the whole case, timeline building and document summaries are all model work, and the company describes the platform as a knowledge graph explored by AI. Without the models, what remains is a file viewer with video annotation. Verified 22 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Answers are tied to the case record. The home page says answers to questions are traceable to case evidence, and the product page says users can view and navigate directly to all supporting documents and citations; the August 2025 funding announcement adds that the platform reads and reasons through actual case materials rather than producing case law, with audit trails. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published, and the product page's claim that its summaries are superior to general language models carries no evidence. Verified 22 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Oversight rests on traceability alone. The product page describes deploying large numbers of AI agents across millions of documents, and the check it offers the lawyer is that answers and timelines link back to the supporting evidence; the funding announcement mentions audit trails. Nothing describes a review step, an override, a threshold at which the system defers to a person, or what its output may not be relied on for. Verified 22 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
A named customer, with results stated only as testimony. A release of 23 September 2025 names the Michigan criminal defense firm Manley & Manley, PLLC as a user and quotes one of its trial attorneys on condensing 34,000 pages of discovery to 10 relevant pages and finding a body-camera statement during a cross-examination. The headline figures, 90 per cent faster discovery review and more than $40,000 saved per case, are attributed only to an unnamed public defender office or carry no customer, and no method is given. The site's other quotes are from an unnamed public defender and deputy director. Verified 22 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms. The security page promises the highest security standards, encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access, multifactor authentication and data anonymisation and masking, and the FAQ says the company has special agreements with Microsoft and other entities to ensure confidentiality, without saying what they provide. The agreement and platform privacy policy that govern the product are not published, and nothing public addresses training on customer data, which outside providers handle case material, or how privileged or work-product material is treated. Verified 22 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages, the website terms and privacy policy, and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. Nothing states what the product is and is not, that its answers and analysis are not legal advice, or how it supports a defense lawyer's supervision and competence duties; the agreement that governs the product is not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located. The trust centre lists security and operational controls, and the funding announcement claims full explainability, but neither describes how the models are governed; the product analyses witness statements and body-camera footage, where uneven output would matter. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Policies are listed by name rather than published. The trust centre shows that the company maintains a data retention and disposal policy, removes customer data on request in line with agreed customer requirements, keeps production data out of development and testing, and has an incident response plan and vendor risk management; the security page adds encryption, role-based access and data masking. The policies themselves, any retention period, any subprocessor list and any breach notification commitment are not published, and the website privacy policy expressly excludes the platform. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Checked the website terms, the privacy policy, the FAQ and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. The agreement that governs the product is not published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an answer or timeline is wrong. The website terms cap liability at $100 but apply only to the website and say so. Verified 22 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Checked the home page and the product, FAQ and security pages on 22 September 2026. The FAQ says the platform integrates seamlessly with existing legal software and supports various legal tools and databases, but no integration is named or described; evidence arrives by upload. Verified 22 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Checked the home page, the product, security and FAQ pages and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. No deployment option, hosting provider, region or residency is stated; the FAQ's reference to special agreements with Microsoft does not say where case data is stored or processed. Verified 22 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Named, dated attestations with a request route. The trust centre, run on Secureframe with continuous control monitoring, offers a 2025 ISO 27001 certificate, the 2025 initial certification audit report and a 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 audit report on request, and lists controls across change management, availability, confidentiality, incident response, network and access security. The scope of the certification and of the audit is not stated, and the reports are available only on request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The models are described, not identified. The product page refers to the industry's most capable AI and a densely connected knowledge graph, and the FAQ mentions special agreements with Microsoft and other entities, but no model, provider, hosting location or change notice is named. Verified 22 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Checked the home page, the product, FAQ and about pages and the contact page links on 22 September 2026. No price, tier or unit of charge is published; the FAQ says only that CrimD was built to be affordable for individual criminal defense lawyers, and every route to a figure is a demo or sales request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The core buyer is clear: criminal defense, from individual defense lawyers and firms to public defender offices, with government agencies also named as users and an affinity partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The FAQ widens it to civil litigation, corporate law and forensic investigations, and the about page adds corporate legal departments and litigation funders, without saying how the product differs for them. No limits on case size, evidence type or jurisdiction are stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Matey, 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.
-
trust.matey.ai1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
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?
No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.
The agreement and privacy policy that govern the platform are not published: the website terms and website privacy policy both say the platform is covered by separate customer agreements and an End User License Agreement, and neither appeared on the site or in a search on 22 September 2026. No public page states whether customer case data is used to train models.
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 trust centre says that on customer request, data no longer needed is removed in line with requirements agreed with the customer, and that a data retention and disposal policy governs how customer data is kept and disposed of. The policy itself and any retention period are not published, and no zero-retention option 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 security page lists role-based access control that restricts sensitive data to authorised personnel, and the trust centre lists access controls. Nothing published describes how access is scoped between cases, matters or teams within a customer, or how it is enforced.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Checked the website terms, the website privacy policy, the security page and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. The website privacy policy reserves sharing personal information with legal or regulatory authorities when required by law, but it expressly excludes the platform; nothing published addresses legal requests for case data held in the product.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. The product works on the discovery each customer uploads, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. The product analyses case evidence rather than citing legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Checked the home page, the product page and the FAQ on 22 September 2026. Answers link to supporting evidence, but no confidence indicator or path in which the system declines to answer a question the evidence does not support is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Matey and for CrimD, and no recorded case was returned for either. 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?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Checked the home page, the product, security, FAQ and about pages and the website terms on 22 September 2026. No material refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion; the affinity partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is a commercial relationship, not guidance.
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 company claims 90 per cent time savings on discovery review and more than $40,000 saved per case, and the home page quotes a deputy director on $30,000 of case setup labour replaced. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is billed or disclosed by the private defense firms that use it; public defender offices bill no client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
Checked the home page, the security page, the FAQ and the trust centre on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list is published; the FAQ refers only to special agreements with Microsoft and other entities.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Answers and timelines link back to the supporting evidence, and the company says the platform keeps audit trails. No export of a record showing the model used, the sources and the human check is described, and no disclosure guidance or template is published.