N
Neos
Neos is cloud case management software built for plaintiff personal injury firms. It covers the work from the first intake call to settlement disbursement: intake and lead tracking, statute and deadline calculators, document assembly, medical records, treatment and lien tracking, demand drafting, and case value and settlement reporting. NeosAI, sold only in the top of three tiers, summarizes documents, extracts data from records into case fields, answers questions about the case file and generates documents.
Demands Plus, in early access, builds a medical chronology with every entry linked to its source page, flags gaps in treatment, and drafts a demand letter with each claim cited to the record so an attorney can check it before approving. The vendor states the tool does not decide causation, damages, standard of care or case merit. Neos costs from $109 per user per month billed annually, with a three user minimum, and runs on Microsoft Azure with each firm's data isolated.
It is made by Assembly Software of Coral Gables, Florida, which also supports its older Needles and TrialWorks systems and reports more than 1,450 personal injury firms on the platform.
Neos, 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.
Alternatives to Neos
Vendors in the same categories as Neos whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- LLaw Practice AILaw Practice AI is AI software for plaintiff law firms, founded in 2019 and based in Woodland Hills, California.
- PPrecedentPrecedent is a case automation platform for plaintiff personal injury law firms, from Precedent LLC of Charlotte, North Carolina, whose founders the company describes as insurance carrier insiders.
- CCasePeerCasePeer is cloud case management software built only for plaintiff personal injury and mass tort law firms.
- NNovoNovo drafts the two documents that carry a personal injury claim through the stage before litigation: the medical chronology and the demand letter.
- AAI Demand ProAI Demand Pro is personal injury settlement demand software from AI Demand Pro, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California, built by personal injury attorneys for personal injury firms.
- EEsquireTekEsquireTek is a written discovery platform and service from EsquireTek, Inc. of San Diego, built for plaintiff trial lawyers, litigation firms and corporate legal teams.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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.
NeosAI is sold only in Platinum, the top of three Neos plans, and the two plans below it are complete case management systems without any AI. Essentials at $109 per user per month includes document management, intake forms and workflows, standard reporting and email and calendar sync; Premium adds OCR, PDF editing, Bates stamping and redaction. Assembly sells the product without the models at a published price. Demands Plus builds a medical chronology across every page of records, extracting dates, providers, diagnoses, treatments and outcomes with each entry linked to its source page.
It flags breaks in treatment and drafts the demand from that chronology. Alongside it sit AI Document Generation, Summarization, Extraction, Dynamic Layouts and Chat. The workflow system, with a forty year lineage through Needles and TrialWorks, works without them.
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.
Every Neos chronology entry links to its source down to the document and page, and every claim in a demand draft carries a citation that opens the exact source in Neos, whether a document, a note or a value on the case. The method has two steps: the chronology is built from the records and sets out the facts, then the demand is drafted from the chronology, drawing also on emails, call logs and notes on the file. No accuracy figure, test set or named failure mode is published.
The Demands Plus FAQ says a draft 'is accurate because every claim is cited to its source and an attorney reviews it'. The published figures are about speed: a first draft in about fifteen minutes, roughly thirty with attorney review, against four to eight hours by hand. The cited sources are the case record, not legal authority, so citator checks do not apply.
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.
Section 4(a) of the Terms and Conditions for Neos Customers says use of any AI Tool is at the customer's sole discretion and the Platform will not implement AI results unless the customer directs it to. The product material matches: nothing is final until an attorney approves, no demand is sent without sign off, and the generation interface offers regenerate, edit or approve. The scope limit is stated twice on the Demands Plus page: the tool drafts and does not decide causation, damages, standard of care, or whether a case has merit, which stay with the attorney and the expert.
Checking means opening a cited source. No threshold is published at which the system stops or declines, and nothing addresses what happens after the system is wrong.
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.
Bettina Altizer of Altizer Law reports a 60 percent efficiency gain with Neos, Kelly Martin of Latham Martin 80 percent less data entry, Matthew Shad of Schad and Schad 90 percent faster file closing, and Sheila Hiestand of McCoy and Hiestand 50 percent faster open to settlement. Edward Flynn of Finney Injury Law reports twice the medical record review speed, Seth Green of Green Injury Lawyers $3,000 saved per device setup, and Eva Herman Marcin of Herman Law tracks more than 4,000 active litigation cases.
Other named customers include Paulson and Nace, Kalfus and Nachman, The Cochran Firm, The Samuels Firm, Queener Law, Becker Kellogg and Berry and Pacheco and Couceiro. Assembly reports more than 1,450 firms and 15,000 attorneys and staff. None of the figures states a basis, measurement window or definition of what was counted.
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.
Section 9 of the Neos Terms and Conditions sets a defined standard of care and limits access to personnel with a need to know who are bound by equivalent duties. At 9(d) it commits to advance notice of any compelled disclosure so the other party can seek a protective order. The privacy policy, last updated 29 June 2026, says Assembly does not access content entered into the software except for requested technical support, when compelled by a legal or regulatory authority, or in aggregated form without personal identifiers.
Section 8(b) limits the processing license over Customer Data to providing the Platform or following the customer's written instructions, and section 4(b) limits the Input license to generating Output. Privilege and work product are not named, though the product ingests medical records and drafts demands. Section 8(c) grants Assembly a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable and transferable license to process aggregated and deidentified customer data for any lawful purpose, while the marketing says data is never used to train models.
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.
Section 5(d) of the Neos Terms and Conditions says Assembly does not offer legal or other professional advice and disclaims any warranty that using the Platform will ensure the customer's compliance with any requirement. Section 4(d) says Output is not a substitute for legal analysis and judgment and that the customer will independently check Output, including through human review, before using or sharing it. Section 13 puts verification of accuracy and completeness on the customer.
The product copy draws the same line by listing what the system does not decide: causation, damages, standard of care and case merit. Jurisdiction limits are commercial rather than professional, the Territory being the United States and its territories with no attention to state rules. The intake tools that reach prospective clients, including dynamic questionnaires and automated lead emails and texts, carry no published disclosure that the person is not dealing with a lawyer.
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 responsible AI page, governance statement, accountable owner, testing regime before release, ISO 42001 or equivalent, or disclosure of uneven output across matter types or populations is published on the home page, the Neos product page, the pricing page, the IT Leaders page, the Demands Plus page, the Terms and Conditions for Neos Customers, the legacy Terms of Service or the privacy policy. The product extracts diagnoses and treatment histories from medical records into case fields, flags treatment gaps for attorneys, drafts the demand that opens settlement talks, and feeds case value reporting from prior settlements on the file. Nothing says what any valuation is based on.
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.
Incident practice is contractual: section 8(e) of the Neos Terms and Conditions requires either party that becomes aware of a Security Breach to notify the other within 48 hours, with delay only where law or law enforcement requires it. For AI material, Assembly states that input data is deleted immediately after a response is generated and no data is held beyond the specific AI transaction. Access control uses roles and individual permissions, each firm's data is isolated in its own Azure environment, and section 8(d) requires both parties to keep safeguards to prevailing industry standards.
No subprocessor is named: the privacy policy refers only to unnamed third party vendors for telecommunication, data hosting and storage, and disclaims, in capitals, all liability for their negligence. General retention is vague, the privacy policy keeping an archived copy as required by law or for legitimate business purposes with no period stated. The deletion terms sit in a decommission schedule at its own URL.
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.
Section 12(a) of the Neos Terms and Conditions gives an indemnity: Assembly defends and holds the customer harmless against third party claims that Assembly Materials infringe intellectual property, subject to a defined exception. The remedies are procuring a license, modifying the materials, or terminating with a pro rata refund. Section 11(b) warrants that Services will be performed in a competent and workmanlike manner, with reperformance and then refund as the exclusive remedy.
Section 14(b) caps aggregate liability at fees paid or payable in the preceding twelve months, and 14(c) lifts that cap for fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct, violation of law and the indemnification obligations. Section 13 disclaims any warranty on the quality, accuracy, currency or completeness of what the Platform produces, and section 4(d) says Assembly does not represent that Output will be accurate and complete.
No insurance is named, and the indemnity covers infringement, not a wrong answer. The separate legacy Terms of Service for Needles and TrialWorks caps liability at one month of fees and disclaims indemnities outright.
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.
Assembly's IT Leaders page offers a documented API and built in integrations, while section 2(c) of the Terms and Conditions, headed No API Access, grants no rights to APIs, SDKs, connectors or other development tools and makes any such access subject to Assembly's approval and further terms; the agreement controls. The built in set covers Microsoft 365, Outlook, SharePoint and OneDrive, plus Case Status, Hona, RingCentral, Zoom Phone, DocuSign, Zapier, YoCierge and LawPay.
A few have a line on what moves, such as calls logged to the case in the Communications Center. On the home and product pages they appear as a logo strip, no implementer documentation is published publicly, and nothing says what syncs in which direction or what a firm must configure. The knowledge base sits behind a support portal.
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.
Neos is cloud only, hosted on Microsoft Azure, with each firm's data isolated in its own Azure environment and no on premise option. No region is named, nothing separates where processing happens from where data is stored, nothing says where the Azure AI services behind NeosAI run, and no residency options are offered at any tier. The privacy policy says personal information may be transferred to, collected, processed and stored in the United States and other places where Assembly or its service providers operate.
The contract's Territory, the United States and its territories, limits where the customer may use the software and says nothing about where data sits.
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.
Assembly states that it maintains SOC 2 Type II certification with quarterly penetration testing, on the home page, the IT Leaders page and the product FAQ. No auditor is named, no coverage period or report date is given, no scope says which systems or Assembly products are covered, and no penetration test summary is published. No trust portal, gated portal or report request route is published.
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 IT Leaders FAQ says NeosAI uses Microsoft Azure AI services under a zero data retention commitment, that input data is deleted immediately after a response is generated, and that no client or medical records go to a separate AI vendor or are stored outside Neos. That explains where inference happens relative to the customer's data, and the platform's own Azure hosting supports it. No specific model or version is named for any feature, and there is no commitment to notify customers of changes, though Assembly advertises a two month release cycle.
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 Neos pricing page names three tiers, gives $109 per user per month billed yearly for the entry tier, states the unit of charge, and publishes a full feature comparison across all three. It also states a floor: Neos is built for firms with three or more users, and smaller practices are routed elsewhere. Five paid enhancements are named, including ePayments through LawPay with no activation fee. The published figure buys the tier without AI.
NeosAI is a Platinum feature and Demands Plus needs Platinum plus an add on, and neither Premium nor Platinum has a price, so the cost of the AI is not published at any level. Nothing states what implementation adds. The legacy Terms of Service lists incidental charges, including a $250 data retrieval fee.
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.
Six practice areas have their own Neos pages: personal injury, auto accident, medical malpractice, mass tort, workers' compensation and premises liability, with nursing home abuse covered through a named customer. Five roles have pages: managing partners, attorneys, firm administrators, paralegals and IT leaders. The pricing FAQ says Neos is built for firms with three or more users and routes smaller practices to another Assembly product.
The Terms and Conditions limit the Territory to the United States and its territories, and the positioning rejects general practice, contrasting Neos with platforms built for many practice areas and optimized for none. In house and government buyers are not addressed, as the product is sold only to plaintiff firms. The privacy policy describes Assembly's customers as law firm, corporate, government and other, which does not match the plaintiff positioning on every Neos page.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Neos, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Aug 31, 2026
-
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Aug 31, 2026
From $109
- Neos costs $109 per user each month for the cheapest plan, and you have to pay for a whole year at once.
- There are three plans, and only the most expensive one includes the AI features. That plan's price is not on the website.
- Your firm needs at least three people to buy it at all.
- Assembly's website shows a table of exactly what each plan includes.
- It does not say what setting the system up costs on top.
From the pricing page and its FAQ. The unit is per user per month, billed yearly, and $109 is both the entry tier rate and the stated floor; the pricing FAQ says there are three tiers starting at $109 per user paid annually. A full feature comparison covers all three. Essentials at $109 includes document management, intake forms and workflows, standard reporting, and email and calendar sync. Premium adds OCR, PDF editing, Bates stamping and redaction, custom dashboards, advanced workflows and priority support, with no price.
Platinum adds NeosAI, intake automation, Neos Texting, case cost recovery, advanced analytics, and a dedicated customer success manager with white glove implementation, also with no price. The published figure buys the tier without AI: NeosAI is only in Platinum, and Demands Plus needs Platinum plus a separate add on, so the price of the AI is not published. A three user minimum applies, with smaller practices routed to another Assembly product.
Five paid enhancements are named without prices: ePayments through LawPay with no activation fee, digital disbursements, premium texting, RingCentral and medical records retrieval. Implementation cost, contract length and renewal terms are not published. The legacy Terms of Service for Needles and TrialWorks lists a $250 data retrieval fee, a $35 chargeback fee, and a statement that no refunds are paid at any time.
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 agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The Neos agreement permits aggregated and deidentified use of customer data for any lawful purpose, which the marketing does not mention. The no training commitment is stated plainly on the IT Leaders solution page, and the FAQ there attributes it to a DPA and BAA that are not published. The published Terms and Conditions for Neos Customers approach the question from three directions: section 8(b) confines the Customer Data processing license to providing the Platform or the customer's written instructions, section 4(b) confines the Input license to generating Output, and section 8(c) grants Assembly a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable and transferable license to process Aggregate Data, defined as customer data that has been aggregated and deidentified, for any lawful purpose.
That last license is the operative permission, and no opt out from it is published. It runs on aggregated and deidentified material rather than identifiable client content.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
Assembly publishes a zero retention position on AI transactions, stating that data is never held beyond the specific AI transaction and that no data is stored outside Neos, with the commitment attributed to Microsoft Azure AI services operating under zero data retention. The period is specific and immediate, and nothing indicates the customer can configure it. This covers what the AI layer retains, not what the case file retains, since outputs are written back into the matter and persist there as the firm's own record.
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.
Neos is the system of record rather than a layer over a separate document management system, so there is no external access model for it to inherit and it maintains its own. That model is described at two levels: tenant separation, with each firm in its own Azure environment, and within the firm role based and individual permissions set so that the right people see the right cases. Nothing published ties NeosAI retrieval to those permissions, so whether a chat query or a generated document respects a case level restriction at query time is not stated.
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 commitment appears in both a policy and a contract. Assembly's privacy policy says that, unless prohibited by law, it will promptly notify the customer on receiving a subpoena or other legal process seeking their data. Section 9(d) of the Terms and Conditions adds a mechanism: advance notice of a compelled disclosure, as far as the law permits, so the other party can seek a protective order, and reasonable steps to limit the disclosure. No transparency report or count of requests received is published.
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.
Neos retrieves no primary law. Its AI works from the firm's own case file: the records, notes, emails, call logs and case values the firm has entered, and Assembly says Demands Plus draws on the live case rather than outside material. No outside source, licensed or otherwise, is identified on the home page, the Neos product page, the Demands Plus page, the IT Leaders page or either agreement, because none is claimed.
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.
Legal authority is neither retrieved nor cited; the citations in Neos demand drafts point to documents, notes and values on the case file, not to cases or statutes, so there is no later history for a citator to check. No citator, treatment signal or good law claim of any kind is published on the Demands Plus page, the Neos product page or the pricing feature table.
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 Demands Plus page says twice that the tool drafts and does not decide causation, damages, standard of care, or whether a case has merit, which stay with the attorney and the expert. Treatment gaps, meaning breaks in the treatment timeline, are detected and shown for review rather than smoothed over. What is documented is a refusal to make those judgments, not a path for declining: nothing describes what the system does when it cannot ground a claim in the record, and no confidence or grounding score is shown.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and trackers and audits drawing on it, record no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Neos or Assembly Software; the tools named in reporting on the database are general purpose assistants and legal research products. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product. Neos generates no citations to legal authority, its citations point to the firm's own case record, and its main output is a demand letter to an insurer rather than a court filing.
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.
Section 5(d) of the Neos Terms and Conditions states that Assembly does not offer or purport to offer legal or other professional advice and disclaims any warranty that use of the Platform will ensure compliance, section 4(d) requires the customer to evaluate Output independently including through human review, and the Demands Plus material lists the judgments reserved to the attorney. No ethics opinion, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, is named in either agreement, the privacy policy or the five product and solution pages, and no state bar guidance is mapped or referenced.
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.
Neos's published claims include a demand draft in about fifteen minutes against the four to eight hours Assembly says the task takes by hand, described as roughly thirty times faster, alongside customer figures of 80 percent less data entry and 90 percent faster file closing. Nothing published addresses what happens to a bill or a fee when AI assisted work compresses, and no record of AI assisted work for each matter is described.
The buyer is typically a contingency practice, where the hourly question takes a different shape, and Assembly addresses neither shape. The expense tracking, invoice generation and case cost recovery features address the recovery of case costs, a separate question.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The material is stated to exist but sits behind an agreement. The IT Leaders FAQ says that Assembly's DPA and BAA document the zero data retention commitment, which names the documents without publishing them, and no request route or self serve portal is published. Microsoft is named as the AI service provider, Assembly states that no client or medical records are exported to a separate AI vendor, and the zero retention position is specific.
No current subprocessor list is published; the privacy policy refers only to unnamed third party vendors for telecommunication, data hosting and storage.
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.
Every claim in a Neos demand draft carries a citation that opens the exact source on the file, so what was retrieved for each passage is recorded in the document, which stays attached to its case. No model is identified. Assembly says an attorney reviews, edits and approves every demand before it goes out, but nothing indicates that approval is kept as an exportable record of who checked what and when, rather than as a workflow step.