N
Neota Logic
Neota Logic is a no-code legal automation platform from Neota Logic Inc. of New York, with group companies in London and Melbourne, which now positions itself as a governance layer for AI in corporate legal departments and law firms. Legal, compliance and risk teams build their own applications for intake and triage, contract generation, regulatory assessments, approvals and client-facing advice tools from process maps, decision trees and document templates, and connect them to systems such as iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint, Salesforce, DocuSign and Microsoft 365.
Its AI Task Node calls a model the customer has approved, through the customer's own Amazon Bedrock, Azure or other provider account, to extract, classify, summarise or draft inside an otherwise deterministic workflow, with confidence captured as a variable that can route work to human review, and every call logged with the prompt, response, model, token count and approver. An MCP connection, in preview, lets AI assistants such as Claude call Neota applications for rule-based answers.
Neota states ISO 27001 certification, hosting on AWS or Azure in a region the customer chooses, and pricing per solution rather than per user.
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 drive a core capability on a platform that would still function without them, which is the B band, on the BRYTER and Josef precedent. The AI Task Node calls a customer-approved model to extract clauses, classify requests, summarise and draft inside an otherwise deterministic workflow, and the vendor names contract review, matter triage and document summarisation as its AI uses; an MCP connection in preview lets AI assistants call Neota applications.
Underneath is the no-code process, decision and document automation platform the company has sold since 2010, which runs without any model. Verified 18 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.
Grounding is documented, with each AI step traced to its source and checked by rules, short of accuracy figures, which is the B band. The AI Solutions page shows an extraction step that captures the clause and citation it relied on, attaches a confidence score, validates the output against the customer's deterministic rules and escalates to a person when a check fails, and it describes the failure the design guards against: a fluent, confidently wrong answer from an ungoverned model.
No accuracy figures, test results or failure rates for the AI Task Node itself are published. Verified 18 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 the AI runs alone, what constrains it and how a person checks it are all published, which is the A band. The AI Solutions page describes the AI Task Node's modes (extract, classify, draft), each confidence-scored and logged; a decision gateway that branches on AI confidence against a threshold the customer sets; human review nodes that must sign off before the process continues or output reaches a client; and a drafted output that is always checked downstream.
The FAQ says the customer decides where review points sit and what happens when a check fails, whether routing to a named person, holding the matter or asking the requester for more, and the August 2026 release says no model is ever invoked by default. Verified 18 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.
Named deployments with substance but no measured result, which is the B band. Six case studies name Harneys (a fund-launch application after which the firm introduced fixed fees and reports a higher pitch win rate), Fujitsu (self-service NDAs, DPAs and other agreements), Thommessen (matter onboarding integrated with Salesforce), Simonsen Vogt Wiig (an award-winning public guidance tool), Grampians Health (freedom of information handling, with letter readability improved from grade 8 to 12 to grade 3 to 4) and an unnamed firm's FCPA subscription service.
None gives a before-and-after figure with a method, the readability change reflects the customer's own rewriting, and the home page's $100 million-plus of verified value carries no basis. None of the case studies concerns the AI features. Verified 18 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.
The confidentiality position is structural and published, short of a contract a buyer can read or a privilege statement, which is the B band. The FAQ says customer data is not used to train models because the customer connects its own model under its own provider agreement inside its own AWS Bedrock or Azure boundary, so existing provider protections stay in place. Application data is encrypted at all times and deleted when a session ends unless the site owner directs otherwise, and access to applications is set by the customer down to who can see a matter. No customer agreement is published, and privilege and work product are not addressed. Verified 18 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 what the tool is, short of guidance for the client-facing advice tools customers build, which is the B band. The Terms of Use say outputs should be reviewed by a qualified person before reliance, and the FAQ says the model does the language work while the customer's rules decide the outcome, with the expert knowledge coming from the legal team rather than the vendor. Customers use the platform to publish self-service advice applications to their own clients and to the public, such as Simonsen Vogt Wiig's free guidance tool, and nothing addresses disclosure, supervision or jurisdiction for those applications. Verified 18 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.
A governance framework with real mechanisms, sitting on the customer side, which caps this at B under R124(3). Models are approved centrally by the customer's administrators, no model runs by default, every call is logged with prompt, response, model, cost and approver, and outputs are validated against the customer's rules with human sign-off where the customer sets it. The vendor sells this governance as its product, and under R126 that purpose earns nothing on its own; what is graded is that these controls apply to Neota's own AI Task Node.
Nothing is published on how Neota tests the node before release, who is accountable internally, or uneven performance. Verified 18 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.
Most of the ground is covered, short of a subprocessor list or an incident commitment, which is the B band. The Security page states AES-256 encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access with single sign-on, regular third-party penetration testing and hosting on AWS or Microsoft Azure; the Privacy Policy says application data is encrypted, deleted at the end of a session unless the site owner directs retention, and stored in the country or region the site owner chooses; AI calls run through the customer's own model account.
No subprocessor list or incident notification timeline is published, and a security pack is available on request. Verified 18 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.
Liability is addressed only through a standard limitation, which is the C band. The Terms of Use (1 June 2026) provide the services as is, say outputs should be reviewed by a qualified person before reliance, exclude indirect and consequential damages and limit aggregate liability as set out in the customer's agreement, which is not published. No indemnity or position on incorrect AI output is published. Verified 18 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.
Named connections into legal systems with what they do, short of implementer documentation, which is the B band. The Integrations page and FAQ list prebuilt connectors for iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and Box (store, retrieve and file documents), Microsoft 365 and a Word Toolbar, DocuSign and Adobe Sign (route for signature), Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and HubSpot (push and pull data), Slack, Teams, Gmail and Outlook, PostgreSQL, MS SQL, Power BI and Tableau, plus inbound and outbound REST APIs with a sample call and an MCP server in preview.
What syncs in which direction and what a customer must configure are not documented publicly; training runs through Neota University. Verified 18 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.
Deployment options, residency choice and the AI processing location are stated, short of the regions available or what changes between options, which is the B band. The Security page offers hosting on AWS or Microsoft Azure, the Pricing page offers cloud, on-premise and private cloud, the FAQ says the deployment region is chosen to fit the customer's residency requirements, and the Privacy Policy says site data is stored in the country or region the owner directs.
AI runs inside the customer's own Bedrock or Azure boundary. No list of regions is published. Verified 18 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.
A named certification without scope, date or a published route to the certificate, which is the B band. The Security page states ISO 27001 certification and regular third-party penetration testing, and offers a security pack through the contact form. No certificate number, scope, certification body, date or trust centre is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The model providers are named, where they run is stated and no model changes without the customer's approval, which meets the A band. The Integrations and home pages name OpenAI, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Azure AI Foundry, Amazon Bedrock and self-hosted models; the FAQ says deployment sits inside the customer's own AWS Bedrock or Azure boundary under the customer's own provider agreements; the audit record names the model on every call; and the August 2026 release says models are approved centrally by the customer and none is invoked by default, so the customer controls any change rather than relying on notice from the vendor. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 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 published without the figure, which is the B band. The Pricing page says Neota is priced per solution or use case rather than per user, on a declining tiered subscription in which the cost per solution falls as more are built, plus fixed-fee professional services, with deployment options including cloud, on-premise and private cloud, and a Discovery Sprint with a recoverable upfront investment as the way to start.
The FAQ adds that price reflects solutions in scope, users and environments. No rate is published. Verified 18 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.
Segments and uses are described with substance, short of stated limits, which is the B band. The vendor serves corporate legal departments, law firms (including client-facing services), and enterprise compliance, risk, procurement, HR, insurance and government teams, with case studies across offshore funds, commercial contracting, matter onboarding and AML, public-sector freedom of information and FCPA compliance, and customers in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. What the platform does not support, or where the AI tasks are unsuitable, is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for Neota Logic, 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.
-
neotalogic.com/ai-solutions3 signals
Court Disclosure Support, Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
neotalogic.com/faq2 signals
Client Data in Training, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
neotalogic.com/privacy2 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
neotalogic.com1 signal
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
neotalogic.com/security1 signal
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 18, 2026
Quoted per solution
- Neota charges for each solution you build, not for each person who uses it.
- The more solutions you build, the less each one costs.
- Setup and building help is sold as fixed-fee professional services.
- You start with a paid Discovery Sprint that builds a first working version.
- No prices are published, so you have to ask for a quote.
Per solution or use case, not per user, on a declining tiered subscription; the FAQ says price reflects solutions in scope, users and environments. Deployment options include cloud, on-premise and private cloud. Source: https://www.neotalogic.com/pricing and https://www.neotalogic.com/faq, read 18 September 2026.
Implementation: Fixed-fee professional services. A Discovery Sprint to scope and build a first working solution carries an upfront investment described as recoverable. No figures published.
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?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
A public FAQ says customer data is not used to train models, with no matching term in a published agreement. The reason given is structural: Neota does not send customer data to a Neota model; customers connect their own model under their own provider agreement, inside their own AWS Bedrock or Azure boundary. No customer agreement is published, and the Terms of Use do not address training.
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 retention. The Privacy Policy says application data is encrypted, and when a session ends it is either deleted automatically or kept for a period the site owner directs. Zero retention is not stated as available for AI activity, because the audit trail logs every prompt and response, and how long that log is kept is not stated.
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 keeps its own permission model, described at two levels. Building access is managed in Workbench with role-based permissions and optional single sign-on, and access to each application is defined by the customer down to who can start a workflow, see a matter or approve. It does not inherit document-system permissions.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
The Privacy Policy says Neota may disclose personal information in response to a subpoena, court order or other governmental request, with no commitment or reservation on notifying the customer. No customer agreement 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.
Searched the home, AI Solutions, FAQ, Integrations, Security and Pricing pages, the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on 18 September 2026. The applications run on the customer's own rules, documents and data with the customer's chosen model; no external legal corpus is described.
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.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. No check of cited authority for subsequent history is described.
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.
The vendor describes what happens when the AI is uncertain. Each AI task captures a confidence score as a workflow variable, a decision gateway can branch on it against a threshold the customer sets, and low-confidence or failed checks can be routed to a named person, held, or returned to the requester for more information. The path is configured per application rather than fixed.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Neota Logic. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
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 referred to in general terms. The home page says human oversight ensures decisions meet legal and professional standards, and the FAQ lists regulators, clients, courts and insurers as parties who may ask for the audit trail. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or judicial or bar guidance is named on the surfaces read, and a search of the vendor's material for ABA Formal Opinion 512 located nothing.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
A usable record of AI assisted work exists with no published fee guidance.
A usable record of AI-assisted work exists, with no published fee guidance. Law firms are among the buyers and build client-facing services on the platform, and the audit trail records each AI call by session and matter with its token count and cost. Nothing addresses how firms should bill or disclose AI-assisted work; the Harneys case study describes that firm moving to fixed fees on its own account.
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.
Disclosure material exists behind a request. The Security page offers a security pack through the contact form, and no subprocessor list is published. The model providers are named on the Integrations page, but they run under each customer's own account, so a firm would disclose its own provider rather than one chosen by Neota.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The product exports a per document record covering model used, sources retrieved and human verification.
An exportable per-session record covers the AI's part in the work. The AI Solutions page shows each AI call recorded against its session and matter with the prompt version, the clause and citation captured, the model used, tokens, confidence and the approving person, hashed as immutable, and says the whole trail is exportable. Flagged for sampling.