N
Newcode
Newcode is a workspace that sits across the systems a legal team already uses and adds AI on top of all of them. It does not hold documents itself. It connects to them and claims reach into more than 750 Model Context Protocol servers, including Outlook, iManage, SharePoint, OneDrive, Teams and the Microsoft Office apps. A lawyer can, for example, ask for an engagement letter drafted from a matter in Outlook, using past letters in SharePoint as fee benchmarks.
Nova is the assistant. It searches the firm's own material and outside sources, returns answers with references, and offers tools for reviewing many documents in a grid, comparing jurisdictions, deep research, document management search and audio transcription. Aurora is a visual builder in which a firm assembles and deploys its own agent workflows from agents, prompt templates and model choices. Retrieval works in steps, planning, searching, checking and repeating within the taxonomy, labels and walls the firm sets.
The firm controls configuration by matter, permissions, audit, model choice, and cloud or local deployment. Newcode sells to law firms, in house teams, insurers, banks and government bodies, and names customers including Kirkland & Ellis, DLA Piper, Reed Smith, Wolters Kluwer and The Bar of Ireland. Newcode.ai AS is based in Oslo.
Newcode, 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 Newcode
Vendors in the same categories as Newcode 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.
- OOrbitalOrbital is an AI platform for commercial real estate legal work, sold to the real estate practices of law firms, to real estate businesses such as investors, developers and REITs, and to…
- QQanooniQanooni is a legal AI platform for law firms from Qanooni AI Ltd, a company registered in Dubai's DIFC free zone and sold mainly to firms in the United Kingdom and the UAE.
- CCORTOCORTO is an AI workspace for law firms from CORTO Pty Ltd in Sydney, which also runs CORTO AI Inc. in the United States and an office in San Francisco.
- DDragon LegalDragon Legal is speech recognition software for lawyers and legal staff from Nuance Communications, a Microsoft company.
- EEudiaEudia is an AI platform for large in house legal departments.
- RRuliRuli is an AI legal platform from Ruli, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for in house 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.
Newcode holds no documents of its own. It connects to the systems a firm already runs, and everything it adds on top is model driven. Nova retrieves, analyzes and drafts with referenced answers. Aurora is described as the AI native intelligence engine at the heart of the platform, a builder in which a firm assembles agentic workflows from agent nodes, prompt templates and a language model selector. Newcode describes retrieval as an agent that plans, searches, evaluates and iterates until the context is right, rather than a lookup.
The published capability list names workflow orchestration, contract review, case law analysis, knowledge ingestion, data structuring, document analysis, structured outputs, legal reasoning and governed execution. Newcode calls the product an AI harness rather than a workspace with AI in 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.
Nova returns answers with references, grounded in the firm's own data or in verified outside sources, Newcode says. The retrieval agent plans, searches, evaluates and repeats until it has the right context, guided by the firm's taxonomy, labels and walls. The sources are the firm's own documents and outside sources, and answers carry references to what they rest on. No accuracy figure, evaluation, test set, error rate or failure mode is published, and there is no accuracy or benchmark page. Hallucination is not addressed, and no customer agreement is published.
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.
Controls on offer include configuration by matter, granular permissions, audit, firm defined taxonomy, labels and walls, the ability to choose the model and set guardrails without waiting for a release, and governed execution. The interface shows an expandable thought process against each output. Aurora is sold on deploying agent workflows at scale to automate complex processes, and the interface shows an Auto toggle on a running task.
Newcode does not say when the system acts without a person. Nothing says which outputs need review, what happens when an agent is wrong, whether generated work is marked, or what guardrails can be set to. No written commitment says the models work alongside a supervising lawyer.
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.
Customer names run across Newcode's home page in text and logos: Kirkland and Ellis, DLA Piper, Reed Smith, Dickinson Wright, Wolters Kluwer, Robinson and Cole, The Bar of Ireland, Wiersholm, Haavind, Awilhelmsen, Ræder Bing, Simonsen Vogt Wiig, Ekko Advokatfirma and Helton. It also names Norwegian public bodies including Helsetilsynet, Meteorologisk institutt and the Statsforvalteren offices, and claims more than one hundred law firms and enterprises.
In one named testimonial, Preben Brecke, Managing Partner at Haavind, says the product helps structure transactions, sharpen analysis and reach better decisions in private equity, M&A and complex disputes. No figure, date or described outcome accompanies any customer, and no case study is published.
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.
Retrieval follows firm defined taxonomy, labels and walls, according to Newcode's home page, and a firm gets governed, auditable configuration by matter with granular permissions over what each team can reach. No customer agreement, master services agreement or data processing addendum is published. The site footer links only a cookie policy and a privacy policy. The privacy policy says in its first line that it covers personal data collected through the website or contact form, so it does not reach matter data.
Nothing is published on training, privilege, work product, or what any model provider keeps. The site's Security page links to a trust center on Vanta.
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.
No published material addresses the advice line. There is no statement that Newcode is not a law firm and no disclaimer that output is not legal advice. Nothing covers the professional judgment needed before generated work is used, any jurisdiction limit, or supervision and competence. No terms of service are published, and the privacy policy covers only the website. The published use cases are legal work itself. They include drafting engagement letters, extracting court dates and deadlines from a scheduling order, conducting discovery, preparing trial submissions, giving strategic advice, and handling government applications, complaints and administrative proceedings.
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 governance position is published. There is no responsible AI page, principles statement, named owner for model behavior, testing before release, management system or ISO 42001 certification. Governed execution, guardrails and configuration by matter are controls a customer sets over its own deployment, not disclosure of how Newcode governs its models. The privacy policy's clause on automated decisions covers only website data. Nothing says who is accountable for model behavior when the firm has picked the model and built the workflow.
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.
Newcode states granular permissions, configuration by matter, firm defined labels and walls that limit what retrieval can reach, audit as a built in feature, and a choice of cloud or local deployment. No retention, deletion, incident practice or subprocessor list is published for customer data. The privacy policy gives retention periods of twelve months for contact form messages and ninety days for technical logs, sets out GDPR legal bases, names transfer mechanisms and lists three website providers (Vercel, Resend and Cloudflare Turnstile). Its first line limits it to data collected through the website. No customer agreement is published to cover the rest.
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.
No published document addresses who bears the loss when the system is wrong. The site footer has two legal documents, a cookie policy and a privacy policy, both on a single legal page. No terms of service, master services agreement, customer agreement or data processing addendum is published, so no indemnity, liability cap, warranty, disclaimer, service level or insurance statement is public before a sales process. The privacy policy covers website visitors and allocates no liability.
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.
Newcode connects to the systems a firm already uses rather than replacing them. The named systems are iManage for document management, Outlook, SharePoint, OneDrive, Teams, and Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Newcode says it reaches these through access to more than 750 Model Context Protocol servers. A published example drafts an engagement letter from a matter in Outlook, using past letters in SharePoint as fee benchmarks.
The assistant includes a document management search tool, and review, redlining and feedback happen directly in Word. Newcode says context follows the matter rather than the tool. No field mapping, sync direction, trigger or permission model is documented, no developer or configuration documentation is published, and the 750 figure is a count, not a list.
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 can be cloud or local, a self hosted route alongside hosted cloud, with configuration by matter and granular permissions over what each team can reach. No region is named for the hosted option, no cloud provider is identified, and no residency commitment is published. The only places named are company offices in Oslo, Stockholm, Dublin, New York and Palo Alto. The privacy policy's transfer section covers only website personal data.
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 site footer links Security to a trust subdomain hosted on Vanta. The site's own pages name no standard, certifying body, examination period, scope or report, and claim no certification. No certification badge appears on any page.
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.
Buyers are offered the language model that works best for a firm, told they can choose models and set guardrails without waiting for a release, and shown a model selector inside an agent node in Newcode's workflow builder. No provider, model family, version or hosting arrangement is named, and no commitment to notify customers when the available models change is published. One interface illustration shows a model name, and nothing else confirms it.
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.
No pricing is published at any level, including the unit of charge. There is no pricing page in the navigation (solutions, academy, customers, security, about, news, careers and contact) or in the footer, which has only the cookie and privacy policies. Every commercial link leads to booking a demo. Nothing says whether the platform is licensed per user, per firm, per workflow, per agent run or by usage. No tiers, minimum commitment, term or implementation cost are published. No terms of service or master agreement is published, so no payment terms are public either.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The pitch splits across five buyer segments. Law firms are addressed on billable capacity and firm wide standards, and in house teams on standardizing routine work, traceability and turnaround. Insurers are addressed on matching claim facts to policy wordings and endorsements and surfacing coverage grants, exclusions and conditions precedent. Banks are addressed on analyzing facility, loan and master agreements at volume, with review and redlining in Word, and government on handling applications, complaints, investigations and administrative proceedings.
The customer list runs from international firms to a bar association to national public agencies. Named capabilities include fund formation, case law analysis and jurisdictional comparison. Newcode states no jurisdiction limit, despite a Nordic base and US offices, and no firm size range, practice area or matter type the product does not suit. Supported languages are not listed.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Newcode, 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.
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 5, 2026
-
newcode.ai1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 5, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.
No customer agreement is published, and no page states a position on training. The site footer links a cookie policy and a privacy policy on one legal page, and no terms of service, master services agreement or data processing addendum. The privacy policy says in its first line that it covers personal data collected when a visitor uses the website or contact form, so it does not reach matter data and says nothing about model training. No product page says whether customer content trains models, and no opt out or setting is described.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
Nothing published says how long anything the platform handles is kept. The privacy policy gives retention periods of normally twelve months for contact form submissions and related messages and ninety days for technical and security logs, longer where law requires. That policy covers only personal data collected through the website and contact form. Nothing addresses retention of documents retrieved from a firm's connected systems, the context gathered by the retrieval agent, prompts, or the outputs and workflow runs Aurora produces. No commitment to delete or return customer material is published, and no customer agreement is published to carry one.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Newcode's home page says the retrieval agent plans, searches, evaluates and repeats within firm defined taxonomy, labels and walls, and offers governed, auditable configuration by matter with granular permissions over what each team can reach. Walls apply to what the retrieval agent can see, not only to what a user can open. Nothing says whether the platform is shared or single tenant, how a wall is configured or audited, what happens when an agent moves through connected systems with their own permissions, or whether walls hold across the more than 750 outside connections the product claims. No administrator documentation is published.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No published term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data, and no master agreement is published. The privacy policy covers the subject for its own data, listing public authorities, courts and regulators among recipients where law requires, but it commits to no notice, reserves no discretion over notice and publishes no transparency report. It covers only website and contact form personal data, not a firm's matter content.
Nothing says what happens when material held or reachable through the platform is demanded by subpoena, court order or regulator.
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.
Newcode retrieves from the systems a firm already runs rather than from its own database, and calls the result firm owned intelligence, so the primary material behind an answer is the customer's. Nova also searches legal and outside sources and returns answers grounded in the firm's data or verified outside sources, and case law analysis and legal research are listed capabilities. No publisher, database, jurisdiction set or licensing position is stated for outside legal material, and Newcode does not say who verifies the outside sources or against what. A jurisdictional comparison tool is offered without naming the jurisdictions it covers.
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.
Case law analysis and legal research are both listed capabilities, Nova has a legal research tool and a jurisdictional comparison tool, and answers are said to be grounded in verified outside sources. No citator, treatment signal, currency check or good law check is described, and nothing says what verified means or who does the verifying.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
No published material describes what the system does when it cannot ground an output. The retrieval agent is described as planning, searching, evaluating and iterating until the context is right. Nothing states what happens when the right context is never found, whether the agent stops, reports the gap or answers anyway, and no confidence indicator, abstention path or no answer state is described. A reasoning trace is visible in the interface as an expandable thought process, which shows what the system did rather than how certain it was.
Nothing addresses behavior when a connected system is unreachable or a firm's walls exclude the material an answer would need.
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 records no case under the product names Newcode, Nova or Aurora or the corporate name Newcode.ai AS. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the company is on the public record. Nova and Aurora are common product names across the software industry.
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 published material engages with bar or ethics guidance at any level. No bar association, law society, conduct rule, ethics opinion or regulator guidance is named or referred to, and nothing explains what a firm must do to meet its own supervision and competence duties when agent workflows it built are running across its documents. There is no advice disclaimer or statement that the company is not a law firm either. The Bar of Ireland is a named customer.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The law firm proposition is published as reducing repetitive administrative work and expanding firm wide billable capacity, alongside compressing turnaround times, protecting quality at volume and expanding capacity so teams can deliver more. No record per matter of AI assisted work is described as available, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a client is told when research, drafting or due diligence on their matter was produced by an agentic workflow the firm configured. Matters are described as traceable and execution as auditable, offered for governance rather than for disclosure.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor list for the platform is published, no model or model provider is named, no cloud provider is identified for the hosted option, and there is no data processing addendum, consent pack or notice material. The only subprocessors published are three website providers in the privacy policy (Vercel, Resend and Cloudflare Turnstile), which serve the marketing site and do not touch client content. The platform is sold on model choice and on reaching more than 750 outside systems, and none of the parties that may see client content through them is disclosed.
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.
Newcode says the platform keeps every matter traceable, offers governed and auditable configuration by matter, and shows a thought process against outputs, so a firm can see what a workflow did and under what settings. Nova's answers carry references to the sources retrieved. No model or version is shown against any output, although the model can be chosen and may differ between workflows and over time, so the record does not show which system produced what.
Nothing marks generated work once it leaves the platform as a document, no human verification is recorded, and no export is described for producing any of this to a court, client or regulator. No disclosure template or guidance is published.