Neos
Neos is cloud-based case management software built specifically for plaintiff personal injury firms, running the work from the first intake call through settlement disbursement in one system: intake forms and lead tracking, statute and deadline calculators, document assembly, medical record handling, treatment and lien tracking, demand drafting, and case-value and settlement reporting. NeosAI, the embedded intelligence layer, summarises documents, extracts data from images and records to populate case fields automatically, answers questions against the case file in chat, and generates documents; it is sold only in the top of three subscription tiers. Demands Plus, in early access, assembles a medical chronology from the records already on the file with every entry linked to its source document and page, flags gaps in the treatment timeline, and then drafts a demand letter from that chronology with each claim cited back to the record so an attorney can open the source and verify it before approving. The vendor states that the tool does not decide causation, damages, standard of care or whether a case has merit. Neos is priced per user from $109 per month billed annually, with a three-user minimum, and runs on Microsoft Azure with each firm's data isolated in its own environment. It is the current product of Assembly Software, a Coral Gables, Florida company whose earlier case management systems Needles and TrialWorks remain supported as legacy platforms, and the vendor reports more than 1,450 personal injury firms and 15,000 attorneys and staff on the platform.
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 tier structure settles this axis more cleanly than any editorial judgement could: NeosAI is sold only in Platinum, the top of three plans, and the two plans beneath it are complete, purchasable case management systems without any AI at all. Essentials at $109 per user per month carries document management, intake forms and workflows, standard reporting and email and calendar sync; Premium adds OCR, PDF editing, Bates stamping and redaction. The vendor sells its own product without the models, at a published price, which is the plainest possible evidence that the platform stands on its own. What the models do add is a genuine capability rather than a convenience: Demands Plus assembles a medical chronology across every page of records with dates, providers, diagnoses, treatments and outcomes extracted and each entry linked to its source page, flags breaks in the treatment timeline, and drafts the demand from that chronology. Alongside it sit AI Document Generation, Summarization, Extraction, Dynamic Layouts and Chat. Graded level with Opus 2, Casepoint, Consilio and Nextpoint on the same reasoning: the engine of real capabilities, layered on a workflow system with a forty-year lineage through Needles and TrialWorks that plainly functions without it.
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.
The grounding apparatus is real, described, and verifiable by the reader, which is what separates this from the assertions common in the lane. Every chronology entry is linked to its source down to the document and page; every claim in a demand draft carries a citation that opens the exact source in Neos, described as a document, a note, or a value on the case. The retrieval method is described rather than implied, in two passes: the chronology is assembled from the records and establishes the facts, then the demand is drafted from the chronology rather than from raw records, drawing additionally on emails, call logs and notes already on the file. What is missing is any measurement. No accuracy figure, no test set, no failure modes named, and the Demands Plus FAQ asserts that a draft 'is accurate because every claim is cited to its source and an attorney reviews it', which is an argument from process rather than a number an outsider could test. The published figures are throughput, not accuracy: a first draft in about fifteen minutes, roughly thirty including attorney review, against four to eight hours by hand. Note also that the sources cited are the case record rather than primary legal authority; this product retrieves no law, so the citator and good-law limbs of the A band do not apply to it and the grade rests on the limbs that do.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The supervision commitment is unusual in this corpus because it sits in the customer agreement rather than only in marketing. Section 4(a) of the Terms and Conditions for Neos Customers provides that use of any AI Tool is entirely at the customer's sole discretion and that the Platform will not implement any results obtained from AI Tools unless the customer directs it to do so. Product material matches it: nothing is final until an attorney approves, no demand sends without sign-off, and the generation interface offers regenerate, edit or approve. The scope limit is stated with unusual specificity for a plaintiff product, 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. The review surface is concrete rather than rhetorical, since verification means opening a cited source rather than reconstructing where a number came from. Held off A by the two things the band asks for that are absent: no threshold is published at which the system stops or declines, and nothing published 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.
This is a deep and specific set by the standards of the pull. Named individuals at named firms carry named figures: Bettina Altizer of Altizer Law at a 60 per cent efficiency lift, Kelly Martin of Latham Martin at 80 per cent less data entry, Matthew Shad of Schad and Schad at 90 per cent faster file closing, Sheila Hiestand of McCoy and Hiestand at 50 per cent faster open to settlement, Edward Flynn of Finney Injury Law at twice the medical record review speed, Seth Green of Green Injury Lawyers at $3,000 saved per device setup, and Eva Herman Marcin of Herman Law tracking more than 4,000 active litigation cases. Further attributed customers include Paulson and Nace, Kalfus and Nachman, The Cochran Firm, The Samuels Firm, Queener Law, Becker Kellogg and Berry and Pacheco and Couceiro, alongside portfolio figures of 1,450 plus firms and 15,000 plus attorneys and staff. What holds it at B is the A band's method limb rather than its attribution limb: not one of the figures carries a stated basis, a measurement window or a definition of what was counted, so a reader cannot assess how 80 per cent less data entry was arrived at. The case studies library was not opened this session; under the load-bearing test it would not move the grade, because even a dated case study would supply the date the A band wants and not the method it also requires.
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.
Substantive and readable before signing, on both limbs the B band names. Confidentiality is handled at section 9 of the Neos Terms and Conditions with a defined standard of care, an access restriction to personnel with a legitimate need to know who are bound by equivalent obligations, and a commitment at 9(d) to give advance notice of any compelled disclosure so the disclosing party can seek a protective order. The privacy policy, last updated 29 June 2026, adds a specific access limitation: Assembly does not access content entered into the software except to provide technical support as requested or required, as compelled by a legal or regulatory authority, or on an aggregated non-personally-identifiable basis. On training use, section 8(b) confines the processing licence over Customer Data to what is necessary to provide the Platform or to the customer's written instructions, and section 4(b) confines the Input licence to generating Output. Two things keep it off A. Privilege and work product are nowhere addressed by name on any surface read, which is a conspicuous silence in a product that ingests medical records and drafts demands. And section 8(c) grants Assembly a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable and transferable licence to process Aggregate Data, defined as aggregated and de-identified customer data, for any lawful purpose, which sits in tension with the marketing commitment that 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.
A real position on advice versus tooling, published in the agreement rather than buried in a footer disclaimer. Section 5(d) of the Terms and Conditions states that Assembly does not offer and does not purport to offer legal or other professional advice and expressly disclaims any warranty that use of the Platform will ensure the customer's compliance with any requirement. Section 4(d) adds that Output is not intended to be and should not be used as a substitute for legal analysis and judgment, that the customer will independently evaluate Output for accuracy including through human review before using or sharing it, and section 13 puts verification of accuracy and completeness before acting squarely on the customer. The product copy draws the same line concretely by enumerating what the system does not decide: causation, damages, standard of care, and case merit. Short of A on two counts. Jurisdiction limits are commercial rather than professional, the contractual Territory being the United States and its territories with no engagement with state-level variation, and the client-facing intake surfaces, which include dynamic intake questionnaires and automated lead emails and texts reaching prospective clients, carry no located disclosure that the respondent is not dealing with a lawyer.
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.
Nothing whatever was located. Searched the home page, the Neos product page, the pricing page, the IT Leaders solution page, the Demands Plus page, the Terms and Conditions for Neos Customers, the legacy Terms of Service and the privacy policy, together with the navigation and footer of every one of them, on 31 August 2026: there is no responsible AI page, no governance statement, no accountable owner named inside the vendor, no pre-release testing regime described, no ISO 42001 or equivalent, and no disclosure of uneven output across matter types or populations. The absence is more pointed here than the grade alone conveys. This is a product that extracts diagnoses and treatment histories from medical records into structured case fields, flags treatment gaps for attorney attention, drafts the demand that opens settlement negotiation, and feeds case-value reporting from prior settlements on the file. The category's decisive question of what a valuation basis is trained on and whether that basis is disclosed is not answered anywhere located. Security controls, which this vendor does publish, are a different subject and are graded separately.
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.
Most of the ground is covered and the one canonical gap the B band names is the gap here. Incident practice is contractual and specific: section 8(e) of the Terms and Conditions requires either party becoming aware of a Security Breach to notify the other no more than 48 hours after becoming aware, with delay permitted only where law or a law enforcement instruction requires it. Retention of AI material is the strongest single commitment on the record, the vendor stating that input data is deleted immediately after a response is generated and that no data is held beyond the specific AI transaction. Access control is documented as role-based and individual permissions, with each firm's data isolated in its own Azure environment, and section 8(d) obliges both parties to maintain safeguards to prevailing industry standards. What is missing is a named subprocessor list: the privacy policy refers only to unnamed third-party vendors providing telecommunication, data hosting and data storage, and then disclaims all responsibility and liability for their negligent acts or omissions in capitals. General record retention is also left vague, the privacy policy reserving an archived copy as required by law or for legitimate business purposes with no period stated, while the deletion terms sit in a decommission schedule published at its own URL that was not opened this session.
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.
A complete and specific allocation of loss that a buyer can read in full before signing, which puts it well above the several vendors in this lane that publish no customer agreement at all. Section 12(a) gives a real indemnity, with Assembly defending and holding the customer harmless against third-party claims that Assembly Materials infringe intellectual property, subject to a defined Exception carve-out, with remedies of procuring a licence, 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, which is a named carve-out set rather than a bare cap. It stops short of A because of what the vendor does not stand behind: section 13 disclaims any warranty as to the quality, accuracy, currency or completeness of what the Platform produces, section 4(d) states that Assembly does not represent that Output will be accurate and complete, no insurance is named, and the indemnity reaches infringement rather than a wrong answer. Note for the reader that the separate legacy Terms of Service governing Needles and TrialWorks is materially worse on this axis, capping at one month of fees and disclaiming 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.
The integrations are real and several are named, but the marketing and the agreement point in different directions and the agreement decides it. The IT Leaders page sells 'a documented API and built-in integrations', while section 2(c) of the Terms and Conditions is headed No API Access and provides that the Agreement grants no rights to access or use APIs, SDKs, connectors or other development tools, and that any such access is subject to Assembly's approval in its sole discretion and to additional terms. A buyer cannot rely on the API the marketing offers. On the built-in side the named set is substantial, with native Microsoft 365, Outlook, SharePoint and OneDrive, plus Case Status, Hona, RingCentral, Zoom Phone, DocuSign, Zapier, YoCierge and LawPay, and a handful carry a one-line description of what moves, such as calls logged to the case and documented in the Communications Center. But on the home and product pages they are presented as a logo strip, no documentation an implementer could use was located on any public surface, and nothing states what syncs in which direction or what a firm must configure. The knowledge base sits behind a separate support portal and was not opened; given section 2(c) it would not lift the grade to A.
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.
This axis asks two questions and the vendor answers one of them well and the other not at all, so neither the B nor the C band fits cleanly and the lower is taken with the reason recorded. The deployment model is stated clearly and repeatedly: cloud only, hosted on Microsoft Azure, with each firm's data isolated in its own Azure environment and no on-premise option offered, which is a real tenancy statement and more than most records in this pull carry. Residency is the failure. No region is named anywhere, nothing distinguishes where processing happens from where data is stored, nothing states where the Azure AI services that run NeosAI are located, and no residency options are offered at any tier. What is published actively cuts against a residency commitment: the privacy policy states that personal information may be transferred to, collected, processed and stored in the United States and other locations where Assembly or its service providers operate. The contractual Territory of the United States and its territories is a restriction on where the customer may use the software, not a commitment about where the data sits. The C band's words about tenancy are false here and the note carries that; the grade reflects a residency position that does not exist.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
The attestation is claimed in the vendor's own name rather than inherited, which distinguishes it from the pattern this lane keeps producing, but none of the evidence a buyer would need is reachable. Assembly states that it maintains SOC 2 Type II certification with quarterly penetration testing, repeated on the home page, the IT Leaders page and the product FAQ. Against the A band, everything that would make it verifiable is absent: no auditor is named, no coverage period or report date is given, no scope statement says which systems or which Assembly products the certification covers, no penetration test summary is published, and no trust portal or report request route was located in the navigation or footer of any of the eight surfaces read on 31 August 2026. There is no gated portal either, so the middle access tier does not arise; there is simply nothing to request. This is the same shape recorded on Bloomberg Law and lands in the same place, with the small difference that the Type is stated here and was not there. Quarterly penetration testing is a real operational detail and is what keeps this above a bare badge claim.
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 provider is named and the architecture is described, which is the first B limb almost exactly. The IT Leaders FAQ states that 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 are exported to a separate AI vendor and no data is stored outside Neos. That is a clearer account of where inference happens relative to the customer's data boundary than most vendors give, and it is corroborated by the platform's own Azure hosting. What is missing is the other half of the A band. No specific model is identified anywhere, the vendor referring only to Azure AI services as a family; nothing states which model version is in use for which feature; and there is no commitment to notify customers when any of it changes, which matters more than usual on a two-month release cadence the vendor advertises. A Microsoft case study published on the vendor's blog was named but not opened this session; it could not reach the A band, since the change-notification limb would still be unmet.
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.
Real pricing for part of the range with the upper tiers withheld, which is the B band verbatim. The pricing page names three tiers, publishes a figure for the entry tier at $109 per user per month billed yearly, states the unit of charge, and carries a full feature comparison table across all three covering practice management, NeosAI, document management, communications, intake and support. It also publishes a floor most vendors leave to a sales call, stating that Neos is built for firms with three or more users and that smaller practices will be routed elsewhere, and it names five paid enhancements including ePayments through LawPay with no activation fee. The FAQ repeats that pricing starts at $109 per user paid annually. The specific limitation a buyer should notice is that the published figure buys the tier without the AI: NeosAI is a Platinum feature and Demands Plus requires Platinum plus the add-on, and neither Premium nor Platinum carries a number, so the price of the capability this index grades is not published at any level. Nothing states what implementation adds, and the legacy Terms of Service is where the incidental charges appear, 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.
Coverage is documented precisely and, unusually, so are the limits, which is the part of the A band most vendors fail. Six practice areas have their own pages: personal injury, auto accident, medical malpractice, mass tort, workers' compensation and premises liability, with nursing home abuse covered through a named customer and a further post for other practice areas. Five roles have their own pages: managing partners, attorneys, firm administrators, paralegals and IT leaders. The boundaries are stated rather than left open. The pricing FAQ says plainly that Neos is built for firms with three or more users and routes smaller practices to a different Assembly product, the Terms and Conditions confine the Territory to the United States and its territories, and the positioning declines general practice outright, the comparison section contrasting Neos with platforms built for many practice areas and optimised for none. The in-house and government limb of the A band does not apply to a product sold exclusively to plaintiff firms and is not graded. One inconsistency is recorded rather than graded: the privacy policy describes Assembly's customers as law firm, corporate, government and other, which does not match the plaintiff-only positioning on every Neos surface.
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, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The agreement permits aggregated and de-identified 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 licence to providing the Platform or the customer's written instructions, section 4(b) confines the Input licence to generating Output, and then section 8(c) grants Assembly a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable and transferable licence to process Aggregate Data, defined as customer data that has been aggregated and de-identified, for any lawful purpose. That last licence is the operative permission and no opt-out from it was located. The qualifier is that it runs on aggregated and de-identified material rather than identifiable client content. Moved from policy-never on 1 September 2026.
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.
The vendor 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, which is why this records as a disclosed fixed window rather than customer-controlled. Note the scope: this addresses 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 located ties NeosAI retrieval to those permissions, so whether a chat query or a generated document respects a case-level restriction at query time is unstated.
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 twice and in both a policy and a contract. The privacy policy states that unless prohibited by law the vendor will notify the customer promptly on receiving a subpoena or other legal process seeking access to their data. Section 9(d) of the Terms and Conditions goes further on mechanism, requiring advance notice of a compelled disclosure to the extent permitted by law so the disclosing party can seek a protective order, and requiring reasonable steps to minimise the extent of the disclosure. No transparency report or count of requests received was located, which is what separates this from the top value.
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.
This signal does not fit the product and the honest value is the absence. Neos retrieves no primary law: the corpus its AI works from is the firm's own case file, the records, notes, emails, call logs and case values the firm has already put there, and the vendor is explicit that Demands Plus draws on the live case rather than an external body of material. Searched the home page, the Neos product page, the Demands Plus page, the IT Leaders page and both agreements on 31 August 2026; nothing identifies any external corpus, licensed or otherwise, 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.
Not applicable to this product class and recorded as the absence rather than skipped. Neos does not retrieve or cite legal authority; the citations its demand drafts carry point to documents, notes and values on the case file, not to cases or statutes, so there is no subsequent history for a citator to check. Searched the Demands Plus page, the Neos product page and the pricing feature table on 31 August 2026 and located no citator, treatment signal or good-law claim of any kind.
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.
What is documented is a categorical refusal of judgment rather than an inability-to-ground abstention path. The Demands Plus page states twice that the tool drafts and does not decide causation, damages, standard of care, or whether a case has merit, and that those remain the attorney's and the expert's. A second feature is adjacent to uncertainty: treatment gaps, meaning breaks in the treatment timeline, are detected and surfaced for review rather than smoothed over. Nothing located describes what the system does when it cannot ground a claim in the record, and no confidence or grounding score is exposed, so the specific failure this signal tracks is not addressed even though abstention behaviour is.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and secondary trackers and audits reporting from it, on both the product name Neos and the company name Assembly Software on 31 August 2026. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming either was located; the tools named in reporting on the database are general-purpose assistants and legal research products. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. Note for the reader that the failure mode this signal tracks fits Neos poorly: it generates no citations to legal authority, its citations point to the firm's own case record, and its principal output is a demand letter addressed to an insurer rather than a 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.
Professional responsibility is engaged with in general terms and no guidance is named. Section 5(d) of the 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 enumerates the judgments reserved to the attorney. No ethics opinion is named anywhere located, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, and no state bar guidance is mapped or referenced. Searched both agreements, the privacy policy and the five product and solution pages on 31 August 2026.
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.
Time savings are claimed prominently and repeatedly, and the client side of the equation is not addressed anywhere located. The published claims include a demand draft in about fifteen minutes against the four to eight hours the vendor says the task takes by hand, described as roughly thirty times faster, alongside customer figures of 80 per cent less data entry and 90 per cent faster file closing. Nothing published addresses what happens to a bill or a fee when AI-assisted work compresses, and no per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described. The buyer here is typically a contingency practice, where the hourly question takes a different shape, but the vendor engages with neither shape. The expense tracking, invoice generation and case cost recovery features address the recovery of case costs, which is a separate question from this one.
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 artifacts without publishing them, and no request route or self-serve portal was located. What is published and would help a firm answering a client's AI clause is real but partial: Microsoft is named as the AI service provider, the vendor states that no client or medical records are exported to a separate AI vendor, and the zero-retention position is specific. What is absent is the artifact the value set turns on, a current subprocessor list; 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.
Some of the elements a disclosure would need are produced as a by-product of how the drafting works, which is more than most products in this pull can say. Every claim in a demand draft carries a citation that opens the exact source on the file, so what was retrieved for a given passage is recorded in the document itself, and the document stays attached to its case and can be reopened. Two elements are missing. No model is identified, so the model-used limb cannot be answered from the product. And while the vendor states that an attorney reviews, edits and approves every demand before it goes out, nothing located indicates that the approval is captured as an exportable record of who verified what and when, as distinct from a workflow gate.