Miramis
Miramis is a contract lifecycle management platform built around an AI contract agent, PLAI, and sold to enterprise legal teams for use across the whole business. Sales, HR and procurement staff draft from pre-approved templates with deal data pulled from HubSpot or Salesforce, negotiate with counterparties in a shared workspace or through a Word add-in, and route contracts for approval and signature according to a Delegation of Authority the legal team sets once; PLAI reviews every incoming redline against the company's playbook and tells the business what it can accept, what to change and what to escalate to legal. Native eIDAS-compliant e-signing is built in, with DocuSign supported as an alternative. Once signed, contracts sit in a repository where PLAI extracts metadata, tracks obligations and renewals, answers questions about the portfolio in plain language and generates dashboards. The company is Miramis Technologies AB of Stockholm, with a UK subsidiary in London; it traded as Pocketlaw from its founding until a rename on 11 February 2026 that marked its move from a self-serve legal platform for startups to an enterprise CLM. It publishes its terms of service with a data processing agreement and sub-processor schedule in full, states that customer data is never used to train foundation models, and holds ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certifications it warrants to maintain contractually. Named customers include the general counsels of BabyBjörn, Strömma, Svea Solar, Cambio, Eton, Treyd and Almedia, and language models are supplied by OpenAI and Google Cloud Vertex AI with processing stated to remain in the EU or EEA.
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 engine of a core capability layered on a product that would still function without them as a contract workflow system. PLAI reviews redlines against the playbook, extracts metadata into the repository, answers portfolio questions and generates dashboards, and the vendor describes it as built into every workflow rather than bolted on. Remove it and templates, self-serve drafting with CRM data, approval routing on a Delegation of Authority, native eIDAS e-signing, the repository and renewal alerts remain, which is a working CLM; terms section 2.1.1 describes the service as an AI contract lifecycle management platform and the definitions treat Miramis AI as a feature of it. The AI-native label is the vendor's positioning; the structure is a CLM with a model layer. Home page, terms and rebrand announcement read 6 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.
Accuracy is acknowledged as imperfect and nothing is measured. Terms section 5.2.1 states that, given the probabilistic nature of the technology, output may be inaccurate, incomplete or misrepresent people, places or facts, and section 5.2.2 disclaims any warranty on the accuracy or correctness of output; the acceptable use policy requires the customer to review outputs before use. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published. The primary-authority limbs of this band do not apply and are not held against the record: PLAI grounds its review in the customer's own playbook, templates and Delegation of Authority rather than in primary law, and citation checking is not a function it performs. What the band does ask of a contract agent, some measure of how often its redline assessments are wrong, is not published. Home page, terms, acceptable use policy and help centre read 6 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.
What runs alone, what constrains it, and how legal checks it are all published. Modes: business teams in sales, HR and procurement handle contracts autonomously within guardrails legal defines, drafting from pre-approved templates and negotiating in-platform, while PLAI reviews each incoming redline and states what can be accepted, what must change and what needs escalation; metadata extraction and approval routing run automatically. Constraints: legal sets the rules once, which templates, which terms are non-negotiable and who approves what, and the Delegation of Authority determines approvers and signatories on every contract. Review surface: flagged redlines with suggested alternative wording, automated approval routing before signature, and a complete audit trail on every action. Route back: anything outside the playbook escalates to legal, and the acceptable use policy and terms section 2.3.2 prohibit using the AI as the sole basis for any decision affecting legal rights without prior human review. Home page, FAQ, terms and acceptable use policy read 6 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 a figure, short of a date or method. BabyBjörn's general counsel, David Grünbaum, is quoted that the company improved efficiency six times by streamlining legal flows with Miramis and that each department now handles its own standardised legal tasks; no date, baseline or method accompanies the figure. Six further general counsels or heads of legal are named with attributed quotes and no figures: Strömma, Svea Solar, Cambio, Eton, Treyd, PortmanDentex, Secret Escapes and Almedia. The home page's own figures, cycle time falling from 21 days to three to five, are unattributed, and its animated counters for time from draft to execution, hours saved and cost saving render without values. The customer stories page was not opened. Home page read 6 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.
Four of the five limbs are in the published agreement and the privilege limb is absent. No training: terms section 6.2.5 provides that no customer data will be used, directly or indirectly, to train any foundational AI model, with the word foundational carried as a qualifier. Segregation at the level an in-house buyer requires: role-based permissions down to document level and SSO are stated on the help centre and home page, and customer data is defined as confidential information under section 6.1. Retention and deletion: DPA section 16 requires destruction or return on termination and destruction within twelve months in any case. Third-party model providers: section 6.2.4 states that input goes to and output comes from third-party LLM providers under their terms, section 8.3 deems them sub-processors, and Schedule 1 names OpenAI and Google Cloud Vertex AI with EU or EEA residency. Nothing on any surface addresses privilege or work product handling, for a product whose users include a legal team negotiating on the company's behalf; under the standing reading that limb is required for A. Terms, DPA, help centre and home page read 6 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.
A real position on advice versus tooling is published, short of the supervision and competence dimension framed for a lawyer and of jurisdiction limits. Terms section 5.2.2 states that Miramis provides self-serve technology, is not a law firm or a substitute for a lawyer and gives no legal advice; section 2.3.2 bars using the services in any way that would constitute or substitute for legal advice, the practice of law or automated decision-making about persons; the acceptable use policy of 11 February 2026 repeats both and requires human review before any decision affecting legal rights. That matters here because the product is sold for business users to handle contracts without legal expertise, and the terms say so plainly. What is not addressed is how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties beyond the guardrail architecture, and no jurisdiction limit is named except the e-signature caveat in section 2.5.2 that local law may impose requirements the platform does not meet. Terms and acceptable use policy read 6 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.
Responsible-use statements without a mechanism, a testing regime or an accountable owner. The acceptable use policy carries AI usage rules, human review before rights-affecting decisions, and terms section 5.2.1 acknowledges probabilistic limits and states that Miramis continually strives to improve accuracy, reliability and safety. No governance framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent certification, pre-release testing description, or statement about uneven output across contract types or business teams is published, and no AI principles page exists in the site inventory. Security controls are graded elsewhere. Terms, acceptable use policy, home page and help centre checked 6 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.
Retention, deletion, access control, sub-processors and incident practice are all published, current and specific enough to hold the vendor to, in the terms and the DPA appended to them. Retention and deletion: DPA section 16 requires destruction or return of personal data on termination and destruction within twelve months regardless; terms section 2.3.4 requires reasonable prior notice before Miramis deletes customer data for breach. Access control: Schedule 2 lists access-level controls, access logging, VPC, two-factor authentication and password management, and the home page and help centre add SSO and document-level role permissions. Sub-processors: Schedule 1 lists nine by name, service and data residency, all EU or EEA, including AWS, Azure, OpenAI, Google Cloud Vertex AI, Signicat, Idura, Auth0 and Twilio SendGrid, with a 30-day objection window on additions under DPA section 7. Incident practice: DPA section 5.1 commits to written breach notice within eight hours of discovery with the circumstances, categories, consequences, measures and a contact. The help centre adds that data sent through the AI integrations is not stored at the provider. Terms of service version 2.2 of 18 February 2026 and its DPA read in full 6 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.
What the vendor stands behind is published and specific, including that on wrong output it stands behind nothing, which a buyer can read before signing. Terms section 5.4 gives a vendor indemnity against third-party IP infringement claims arising from use of the services, with its exclusions listed in 5.4.2 and the remedies in 5.4.3 including a refund of prepaid fees on termination. Section 5.3 caps each party's liability at fees paid in the preceding twelve months, excludes indirect loss, and carves out fraud, wilful misconduct and gross negligence; section 5.3.4 sets a twelve-month claims window. Section 5.1.1 warrants that the services conform to specification and are performed professionally, with the remedy in 5.1.2. Section 5.2.2 then states that Miramis bears no legal responsibility and gives no warranty for the accuracy, correctness or fitness of output, and section 5.5 has the customer indemnify Miramis for claims arising from input and use of output. DPA section 13.3 adds an indemnity for processing against instructions. No insurance is stated. The allocation is complete and the terms are the self-serve agreement; order forms prevail on conflict. Terms read in full 6 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.
Real integrations, documented, with depth described for some. Salesforce and HubSpot are described as pulling deal data directly into contract drafts, the Word add-in as keeping redlines synced with the platform, and DocuSign as a supported alternative to native e-signing; Teams, Slack, SharePoint and Google Drive are named on the home page without a description of what moves. A WebAPI is offered for custom connections and public developer documentation exists, still hosted at the pocketlaw-api domain, and a May 2026 release named Miramis Connect exposes the platform to external AI agents. The integrations page and the developer documentation were not opened, so what a firm must configure is not recorded. No document management or matter management system is named. Home page, FAQ and content hub index read 6 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.
Residency and processing location are stated and the tenancy model is not. DPA Schedule 1 gives EU or EEA data residency for every sub-processor including both model providers, DPA section 12 states processing is primarily within the EU or EEA with adequacy, standard contractual clauses or equivalent safeguards for anything outside, and the help centre states EU data residency is available. That places both storage and model processing in the region. Nothing states whether customers share infrastructure or receive a dedicated tenant, no region outside the EU is offered, and nothing describes what changes between plans. Terms, DPA, help centre and home page read 6 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.
Certification is real, stated, and unusually warranted in the contract, short of accessible evidence. Terms section 6.2.6 states that Miramis is ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II certified and shall maintain the certification or an equivalent throughout the term, which is a contractual commitment no other record in this pull carries; the home page and help centre repeat both and add regular penetration testing. No auditor, coverage period, scope or route to the report is published, no trust centre exists, and the Security page and Security Policy in the site inventory were not opened. The control detail in DPA Schedule 2 is a list of headings rather than a description. Terms, DPA, home page and help centre read 6 September 2026; the two security pages are the rebuttal route.
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.
Providers, location and change notice are published; the models are identified only as a family. DPA Schedule 1 names OpenAI and Google Cloud Vertex AI as the AI sub-processors with EU or EEA residency, terms section 8.3 deems the model provider a sub-processor, and DPA section 7 requires written details and a 30-day objection window before any sub-processor is added. The definition of Miramis AI names OpenAI's GPT models as an example, which is a model family rather than a named model, and nothing states which model runs which function. Under the standing reading the separate limb that the models are named is not met by the provider list alone. Terms and DPA read 6 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.
The unit and structure are stated in the agreement without the figure, and the pricing page could not be retrieved. Terms section 2.2.3 licenses per individual user, section 4.1 sets twelve-month initial and renewal terms with 90 days' notice to terminate, section 3.1.2 gives 120 days' notice of price changes, section 3.2 sets 30-day invoice terms and 20 per cent late interest, and section 4.4 provides for free trial accounts; section 3.1.1 refers to standard subscription plans offered from time to time. A pricing page exists in the navigation and footer at /pricing; it did not surface in search and could not be fetched on 6 September 2026, which is a limit on this reading rather than a finding. A third-party review states published pricing was withdrawn at the February 2026 rebrand, and aggregator listings carry pre-rebrand tiers; neither is evidence and neither is credited. Terms read in full 6 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.
Segment and work type are described with substance; the boundaries are partly stated. The buyer is enterprise in-house legal, with solutions pages for legal, sales, HR, procurement, finance and IT, industries named as banking and financial services, manufacturing, retail and technology, and a mid-market to enterprise positioning in the vendor's own comparison pages. Coverage is European by design: Swedish and UK entities, eIDAS e-signing with BankID and MitID, EU residency, and a DORA clause for regulated customers. Limits stated: e-signature validity may not meet enhanced local requirements and some documents cannot be signed electronically. Not stated: any practice area or contract type the platform does not handle, and any position on use outside Europe. Home page, terms and solutions navigation read 6 September 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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The commitment is in the agreement. Terms of service section 6.2.5, version 2.2 of 18 February 2026, provides that no customer data will be used, directly or indirectly, to train any foundational artificial intelligence models. The word foundational is a qualifier: it bars training of foundation models and does not in terms address fine-tuning or any non-foundational model of the vendor's own, and terms section 7.3.4 separately permits usage data, defined to exclude customer content, to be used to develop and improve the services. The home page and help centre state more broadly that data is never used to train or fine-tune any AI models and that this is contractually prohibited across all sub-processor agreements, which describes the vendor's contracts with its model providers rather than a term the customer holds. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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 customer controls deletion by contractual instruction and no zero-retention setting is stated. DPA section 16 requires destruction or return of personal data at the customer's election on termination, with destruction within twelve months in any case, and DPA section 3.3 confines processing to the customer's written instructions; the help centre states that data passed through the AI integrations is not stored at the provider and not linked to any account. Nothing states how long prompts to PLAI or its outputs are retained inside the platform during the term, and the repository retains executed contracts by design. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
The product maintains its own permission model and documents it at the level of a description. The help centre states that role-based permissions control access down to document level, the home page lists advanced permissions and SSO with SAML, and the terms require an individual licence per user. That is tenant and document level separation, which is what an in-house buyer requires; nothing describes how PLAI's retrieval respects those permissions when answering questions across the portfolio, and no document management system's access model is inherited because none is integrated. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The published agreement commits to notice. Terms section 6.2.3 permits disclosure of confidential information, which includes customer data, when compelled by law or a binding order, and requires the receiving party, to the extent not prevented by law, to give the disclosing party notice of the proceeding and the compelled disclosure and to cooperate in seeking confidential treatment. DPA section 9.1 adds that the processor will inform the controller without undue delay of any contact from authorities, courts or regulators concerning the personal data it processes. No transparency report is published. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material identifies a legal corpus behind the product's answers, and the product is not built on one: PLAI reviews contracts against the customer's own playbook, templates and Delegation of Authority and answers questions about the customer's own repository. No primary law source, licence or update cadence is published. Home page, FAQ, terms and help centre checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or cite primary law; its output is redline assessments, drafts from templates, extracted metadata and answers about the customer's contracts. Recorded as the honest value for a product with no citator function. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.
An explicit path for not completing a request is described in public materials: the home page and FAQ state that PLAI reviews every incoming redline against the playbook and flags what can be accepted, what needs to change and what needs legal escalation, and that anything outside the guardrails legal defines is routed to legal rather than handled. The behaviour is described rather than demonstrated, and nothing states what PLAI does when the playbook gives it no answer as distinct from when a rule tells it to escalate. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Miramis, Pocketlaw or Miramis Technologies AB was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on both names together with a general search for court findings; results returned sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots, none of which is this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; a contract management tool that cites no authority carries a remote exposure on this signal.
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.
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance. The terms and acceptable use policy address the advice line and require human review, but neither names an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework in any jurisdiction; the company is Swedish with a UK subsidiary, so the reference points would differ from the ABA opinion this index uses as a baseline, and none of any jurisdiction is named. Home page, terms, acceptable use policy and help centre checked 6 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The buyer is an in-house legal department that bills no client, so the product sits outside a lawyer-to-client fee relationship. Savings claims are published and kept here: contract cycle time from 21 days to three to five, a six-times efficiency improvement attributed to BabyBjörn's general counsel, and hours-saved counters on the home page. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded or disclosed on any bill, and no per-matter record of AI involvement is described, although every action carries an audit trail. No law firm is a named buyer segment. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
A current sub-processor and model provider list is published together with client-facing disclosure material, in the form of a DPA appended to the public terms. Schedule 1 lists nine sub-processors by name, service, personal data processed and residency, with OpenAI and Google Cloud Vertex AI identified as the AI providers and every entry marked EU or EEA; DPA section 7 gives a 30-day objection window on additions and section 7.3 offers extracts of the sub-processor agreements on request. The DPA is published without an agreement in place and is drafted as an appendix to be executed, so a firm's client could be given it directly. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
Some elements of a disclosure record are available and no document-level export is described. The home page states that approval routing and e-signing carry a complete audit trail on every action, that PLAI's redline review flags changes with reasoning, and that version history is kept in the negotiation workspace; that is a per-contract record of what the agent flagged and what a human approved. Nothing states that a record of the model used, the sources retrieved and the human verification can be exported per document, and the models are identified only as a family. Court disclosure is remote for a contract management tool and the vendor does not address it. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.