O

Ordalie

Without the models there is nothing left to sell. Terms of Sale clause 2.1 defines the subscription as three services, all run by AI: an assistant that answers legal questions and analyzes documents, a search engine that uses AI to understand links between legal documents, and generation of contracts, memos and analyses. The only other item is training and support. The legal texts underneath are free on Legifrance, and Ordalie positions itself against manual Legifrance research, so what a customer pays for is the synthesis and the citation. Pricing follows the same logic: tiers differ by which AI models are available and by query volume.

Grounding is real and the reader can open it. Every answer shows its sources, with direct links to the original text, references to the article, judgment number or page, and the passages relied on; where possible the link goes to Legifrance. The documentation describes the retrieval: the assistant selects sources, shows which it chose, then sorts and synthesizes them into an answer with matching citations formatted as it writes.

The user controls the scope by switching source families and jurisdictions on and off. What is missing: no accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation is published, citation status is not checked, and nothing says what happens when no support is found. The marketing claims no hallucinations.

Review tools come with a written position that a lawyer stays in charge. Every answer carries clickable source markers, the editor tracks every change so it can be commented on or reversed, and the Ledger documentation says its filters help review and do not replace checking the source. Terms of Use 5.2 says Ordalie cannot provide legal services, that its analyses are not legal advice, and that users should consult a qualified professional.

Human oversight is one of the CNB dimensions it claims. What is missing: the same site markets workflows that return a finished deliverable ready to send to a client, and press material claims automation of up to eighty percent of repetitive tasks. No threshold, confidence boundary or type of work is published at which the system runs without a reviewer, and nothing says what happens after it is wrong.

Customer names and time saving figures both appear on Ordalie's site, but never together. Its logo strip of legal teams using it daily includes Mondial Relay, Radio France, Ifop, Aramis Group, the Congres des Notaires de France, Editions Tissot, Carlini Avocats and Gouache Avocats. Three testimonials name a person and organization, including the legal department of SNCF Connect and Tech. Separately, it claims eight hours saved per week on average, a case timeline in three minutes against three hours by hand, and an hour instead of a full day. No figure is tied to a named customer, nothing is dated, and the eight hour average has no stated method.

Training, separation, privilege and model providers are all covered in the contract, while retention is left open. Training: Terms of Sale 9.1 says client data is not used to train models. Separation: case based spaces, projects per matter, role based permissions, private personal connections, and a user's own sources never visible to others. Privilege: named as a governing constraint, with clauses 7.1 and 9.3 binding Ordalie and its staff not to use or reveal transmitted documents and accepting liability for breach.

One narrow exception lets developers fix a processing error; the customer can refuse it, and the copies are destroyed within twenty four hours. Model providers: inference providers must process in France, not train on client data, and not keep prompts, outputs or metadata. Retention is the gap. Deletion is well described, but no period is stated for uploaded documents, and conversation retention is thirty days in the documentation against unlimited history in the pricing table.

Ordalie draws the advice line in its terms. Terms of Use 5.2 says it is not authorized to provide legal services, that its texts, positions and analyses are not legal recommendations or advice, and directs users to a qualified professional. It also claims alignment with the CNB's guidance on AI use by lawyers, naming human oversight and traceability, which touches the supervision duty. What is missing: the free plan is open to anyone with an email address, and nothing says the product is for professionals only or addresses use by people who are not lawyers; clause 3.1 only bars registering under a false professional status.

No jurisdiction limit on reliance is stated for a product answering across several jurisdictions, and nothing explains how a supervising lawyer meets a competence duty over its output.

The product is designed, Ordalie states, to align with the French national bar council's (CNB) requirements for AI use by lawyers, naming transparency, confidentiality, human oversight, data protection and traceability. That is a claim of alignment with an outside framework, with no mapping, assessment or supporting document published. SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 are security certifications, not AI governance. No one is named as accountable for AI, nothing is published about testing before a model or workflow ships, and no incident has been disclosed.

Bias is not addressed. On this product the risk is concrete: answers draw on source families the user switches on and off across jurisdictions of very different depth, so quality is likely to vary by practice area and country, and nothing examines that.

Most of the ground is published in specific terms. Access control: AES-256 at rest, TLS in transit, account isolation, logged access limited to authorized people, role based permissions, and SSO on the top tier. Subprocessors: the privacy policy (article 3.4, updated 6 June 2026) names Scaleway for hosting, AI inference providers including Azure France, and Stripe for payment. Incidents: Terms of Sale 9.4 commits to notify the customer without undue delay of a personal data breach.

Deletion: content is erased immediately and irreversibly from production when deleted or when its period ends, with copies left in encrypted backups until overwritten. Retention is the gap. No period is stated for uploaded documents, and Ordalie's documentation says conversations are kept for thirty days, while its pricing table sells unlimited history. The inference providers are barred by contract from keeping prompts, outputs or metadata.

Ordalie publishes a liability position that goes beyond a disclaimer, without reaching AI accuracy. Terms of Sale 7.2 commits it to carry professional liability insurance. Clauses 7.1 and 9.3 accept that Ordalie can be held liable for breaking its confidentiality undertaking. Terms of Use 5.4 limits liability to direct and proven damages rather than excluding whole categories. What is missing: no indemnity, cap figure, insurer or cover limit, and no warranty of output.

Terms of Use 5.1 supplies the service on a best efforts basis at the user's own risk, and Terms of Sale 8.2 makes the user solely responsible. The 99.95 percent availability target is stated not to be a binding obligation, though the top tier is sold with an SLA. A customer relying on a wrong answer has no published recourse.

Integrations come with their direction and setup spelled out. Eighteen connectors each have a documentation page: SharePoint, Workspaces, OneDrive, Outlook, Gmail, IMAP, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, Nextcloud, Tomorro, Eudonet, Odoo, Nuxeo, iManage, Secib Neo, Microsoft Teams and Managed APIs, with Agestia also named. They include iManage, a widely used document management system, and Secib Neo, a French practice management platform.

Direction is stated per connector: iManage connects read only through OAuth with credentials from iManage Control Center, while Dropbox and Box can be given write access so output is saved back. Setup fields are published, such as tenant, site and client credentials for SharePoint, and iManage can run as one shared connection or with each member signing in. Two limits: no public developer API, and two way sync sits in the separate Vault module.

The region, what changes by tier and where processing happens are each stated. Hosting is in France with Scaleway, named with its registration in both agreements, and the privacy policy names the Paris 2 site. The pricing table shows on premises deployment absent on the free and PRO tiers and present on MAX, with SSO and access governance, and the enterprise route adds on premises or private hosting. Storage and processing are covered separately: data is stored with Scaleway in France, and the third party inference providers, including Azure France, must by contract process the data in France.

So the model call stays in France too, and the document that makes it so is named. One limit: France is the only region offered.

Two certifications, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, are claimed in Ordalie's own name, on the lawyer page, in an FAQ answer on client data, in a certifications panel and in the footer. An infrastructure panel gives a last audit of January 2026 and commits to annual security audits. The claims are about Ordalie itself, not its host. What is missing: no auditor, report period, certificate number or SOC 2 scope is published, there is no trust center and no route to a report, and the footer's Security link leads to the privacy policy. Nothing covers penetration testing, vulnerability fixes or incident response.

Ordalie names a provider and no model. The privacy policy (article 3.4) and Terms of Sale 9.1 name AI inference providers including Azure France, so inference is known to run through Microsoft's French Azure services, and the models run in France under contract. What is missing: no model or version is named, and the basic and advanced model tiers are commercial labels. No notice of model or provider changes is published; the fifteen day notice in Terms of Sale 2.3 covers removing or changing a service, and the subprocessor list is accurate as of its update date only.

Ordalie's own positioning, repeated in the press, says it develops its own models, and nothing reconciles that with the named third party providers.

The price is published, and buying needs no conversation. The free plan costs nothing. PRO is €75 and MAX €99 per user per month excluding VAT, with ten percent off for annual billing, which makes PRO €67.50 a month. A twenty six row table compares the tiers across models, volume, history, sources, uploads, exports, collaboration, integrations, governance and support. Purchase is by card or SEPA through Stripe, seats and plan changes prorate immediately, monthly plans have no commitment and cancel in a few clicks, and invoices download directly.

Enterprise beyond MAX is quoted, covering Vault, on premises or private hosting, custom connectors and pilots. Two inconsistencies: the table includes Vault and on premises deployment in MAX while the FAQ puts both in the enterprise offer, and the Terms of Sale say prices include twenty percent VAT while Ordalie's pricing page says they exclude it.

Who the product serves and what it covers are both described in detail. Three audiences each have a page: lawyers in private practice, in house counsel and French notaries, with named notarial customers and workflows for notaries. Firms get shared case files, role based permissions and a private space per lawyer. The sources documentation lists the 102 French codes, the courts covered and BOFiP for tax, and shows how a practitioner narrows the scope.

Jurisdictions are selectable, and uncovered countries can be requested. What is missing: no firm size, unsupported practice area or government use is addressed. The coverage claim is also inconsistent. The lawyer page and FAQ claim 3.5 million official texts across eight jurisdictions, including Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, while the sources documentation lists France, the EU, Luxembourg, Great Britain and Switzerland and two million references.