P
Pattern Data
Pattern Data is an AI case evaluation platform built for mass tort litigation, sold to plaintiff law firms, defence firms, settlement administrators and special masters. It takes a firm's whole docket, from hundreds to millions of pages of medical and administrative records, and evaluates every claimant against the same litigation-specific criteria through three connected stages: Screen, which confirms product use or exposure and qualifying injury and flags missing documentation; Develop, which reconciles full records against expanded criteria such as treatments and risk factors to model valuation; and Settle, which calculates settlement points under the settlement agreement's criteria and generates submission packets in the formats claims administrators require, recalculating as criteria change. The engine uses retrieval-augmented generation over language models with tailored models for litigations including Roundup, AFFF, Camp Lejeune, Depo-Provera, hair relaxer, GLP-1, Paraquat, social media, talc and Zantac; case reviewers validate AI-aggregated findings, eligible claims can be auto-adjudicated and complex or outlier cases are flagged for human review. The company has been court-appointed to run eligibility and adjudication in major settlement programmes, states more than thirty litigations and 1.4 million cases on the platform, and names deployments in the 3M Combat Arms Earplug and Philips CPAP litigations; it integrates with Litify and offers an open API. Pattern Data is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, seed-funded with backing from The LegalTech Fund, states HIPAA compliance, SOC 2 adherence and multi-factor authentication, prices transactionally by case volume and service, and publishes a privacy and a security page and no customer agreement.
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 machine learning is the mechanism the buyer pays for. The product reads records, extracts exposure, injury and treatment data, scores every claimant against litigation criteria and auto-adjudicates eligible claims; remove the models and there is a docket spreadsheet. The company has sold nothing else since its founding and its litigation-specific models are the product it names. FAQ, platform page and home page read 6 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 real and documented with sourcing, short of a first-party accuracy figure. The FAQ states the platform uses a retrieval-augmented generation approach over language models and that case reviewers validate AI-aggregated findings, the platform page states clear sourcing and human validation at every step and that every result can stand up to review, audit or settlement; a third-party review's ninety-eight per cent accuracy figure is not credited. No first-party accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, and the primary-authority limbs do not apply to a record reader. FAQ, platform page and home page read 6 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 runs alone, what a person must approve, and the threshold between them are published. Modes: the FAQ states that eligible claims are auto-adjudicated by the proprietary AI while complex or outlier cases are flagged for human review, and that case reviewers validate AI-aggregated findings; the home page states that every extraction, classification and score is built to support the team's review rather than bypass it. Threshold: eligibility and allocation logic set by the settlement criteria, recalculated when criteria change. Review surface: validated data, record status and what each case needs next, with sourcing on every result. Route back: flagged outliers go to a person. Nothing states a confidence level below which auto-adjudication is withheld beyond the criteria themselves. FAQ, platform page and home page read 6 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.
Scale claims, unattributed figures and unnamed court appointments stand in for named deployments with figures. The FAQ states more than thirty litigations and 1.4 million cases on the platform, court-appointed roles in major settlement programmes, settlement submissions in one day rather than fifteen and review costs cut by up to five times, none attributed to a named firm or programme; home-page testimonials are unnamed; the chief executive's conference biography names the 3M Combat Arms Earplug and Philips CPAP litigations as deployments without figures. FAQ, home page and conference biography read 6 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.
Confidentiality is addressed at the level of general assurance. The FAQ states TLS encryption, HIPAA-compliant environments for protected health data, multi-factor authentication, stringent access controls and staff training; no customer agreement is published, so nothing binds a training position, and no statement on training use, retention, deletion, matter or docket segregation, third-party model providers, or privilege and work product was located. FAQ and platform page read 6 September 2026; the security page was not opened and is the rebuttal route.
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.
No advice line or supervision statement was located. The product is sold to law firms and to court-appointed administrators, and the home page states the AI amplifies rather than replaces human judgment, which is a design statement rather than a position on where the lawyer's responsibility sits; no surface read states that outputs are not legal advice or how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties, and no customer agreement exists to carry such a statement. Home page, FAQ and platform page read 6 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 design principle without a governance framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The home page states that the AI does not replace human judgment and that every output supports review, and the FAQ describes human-in-the-loop validation; no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing results or statement about uneven output across litigations or record types is published on the surfaces read. Home page and FAQ read 6 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.
Some of the ground is covered. Access control: TLS in transit, HIPAA-compliant storage for protected health data, multi-factor authentication, stringent access controls and continuous staff training, with adherence to SOC 2 and regular audits stated. Not located: a retention period, a deletion commitment, a sub-processor list or an incident-notification practice; no customer agreement is published and the security and privacy pages were not opened and are the rebuttal route. FAQ read 6 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.
No liability position is published. The site's page inventory, taken from the navigation and footer on 6 September 2026, carries Privacy, Security, Careers and an AI-search page and no terms of service or customer agreement; the FAQ describes pricing as tailored per firm, which places the agreement in a negotiated document the vendor does not publish. This is an absence on the vendor's surfaces rather than a retrieval limit. FAQ and footer read 6 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.
Real integrations with depth described for one. The navigation carries an Integrations page and a dedicated Litify page, the FAQ states an open API with customisable scripts for automated actions, bulk imports from cloud storage systems and drag-and-drop upload, and the FAQ describes integration with existing case management systems; the platform page states that settlement packets are generated in the formats claims administrators require. The Integrations and Litify pages were not opened, so what syncs with Litify and in which direction is not recorded. FAQ, navigation and platform page read 6 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.
Cloud delivery is stated and neither tenancy nor region is addressed. The FAQ states storage of protected health data in secure HIPAA-compliant environments and bulk import from cloud storage, and no hosting provider, region, residency option or tenancy model is named on the surfaces read; the security page was not opened and is the rebuttal route. FAQ read 6 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 standard is referred to without an attestation on the surfaces read. The FAQ states adherence to SOC 2 compliance and regular comprehensive security audits and full HIPAA compliance, which is a compliance claim rather than a statement that a SOC 2 report has been issued; no report type, auditor, coverage period or route to a report is stated, and the Security page in the footer was not opened and is the rebuttal route to B. FAQ read 6 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 vendor describes its architecture without identifying what sits underneath. The FAQ states a retrieval-augmented generation approach and large language models, and the litigation pages describe models tailored to specific litigations; no provider, model, inference location or change-notification commitment is named on the surfaces read. The security page is the rebuttal route. FAQ and platform page read 6 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 stated without the figure. The FAQ describes a transactional pricing model with fees based on case volume and the specific services used, naming case analysis, settlement award allocation and settlement packet generation as priced services, tailored per firm to caseload and budget, and claims review fees cut by up to five times against manual review; no figure, rate card or pricing page is published. FAQ read 6 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.
Segment and coverage are described with substance and the boundary is the product's stated scope. Buyers are plaintiff firms, defence firms, settlement administrators and special masters; the litigation pages name Roundup, AFFF and PFAS, Camp Lejeune, Depo-Provera, hair relaxer, GLP-1, Paraquat, social media, talc and Zantac, with more than thirty litigations supported; the vendor states the platform is purpose-built for mass tort and multidistrict litigation, which is the limit. No jurisdiction outside the United States is addressed. Navigation, FAQ and platform page read 6 September 2026.
No published figure
- You pay per case, and per service you use: analysing cases, working out settlement shares, and building settlement packets.
- The company sets a tailored deal with each firm based on how many cases it has.
- It says review fees end up about a fifth of what manual review costs.
- No actual rates are published on the pages we could read.
Structure published in the FAQ without a figure. Transactional pricing with fees based on case volume and the specific services used, the FAQ naming case analysis, settlement award allocation and settlement packet generation as priced services; pricing tailored per firm to caseload and budget; vendor claim of review fees reduced by up to five times against traditional methods. No figure, rate card or pricing page was located on 6 September 2026. Null means no figure is published, not that the product is free. FAQ read 6 September 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 training statement was located. The site's page inventory on 6 September 2026 carries Privacy, Security, Careers and an AI-search page and no terms of service; the FAQ addresses encryption, HIPAA environments, access control and audits without stating whether customer records train any model, and the litigation pages describe models tailored per litigation without saying on what. The privacy and security pages were not opened and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses how long records, extractions or settlement data are retained. The FAQ addresses storage security without a period, no customer agreement is published, and the privacy and security pages were not opened and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
Segregation is claimed without documentation of a permission model. The FAQ states multi-factor authentication and stringent access controls, and the platform holds each firm's docket as one live inventory; nothing describes how one firm's docket is walled from another's, how a court-appointed administrator's view is separated from the firms whose claimants it adjudicates, or how the models respect those boundaries. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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 located public material addresses whether the customer is told when its data is demanded by a third party. No customer agreement is published, and the privacy page was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material identifies a legal corpus behind the product's output, and the product is not built on one: it extracts facts from the customer's claimants' records and scores them against litigation and settlement criteria the firm or administrator supplies, citing no law. FAQ and platform page checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or cite primary law; its output is case scores, valuations and settlement packets. Recorded as the honest value for a product without a citator function. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
An explicit path for cases the model does not decide is described: the FAQ states that eligible claims are auto-adjudicated while complex or outlier cases are flagged for human review, and that the platform flags missing documentation rather than filling gaps. The behaviour is described rather than demonstrated, and the criteria that make a case an outlier are not stated. FAQ checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Pattern Data was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the name together with a general search for court findings on mass-tort settlement administration; results returned directory entries, job listings and sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots, none of which names this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; a tool whose outputs feed court-supervised settlement adjudication carries exposure on fabricated facts rather than citations, and the check is worth repeating at re-verification.
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 located public material names an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework. The vendor's material addresses court-appointed adjudication and settlement compliance, which are procedural, and no guidance from any bar or regulator on lawyers' use of AI is named on the surfaces read. FAQ and platform page checked 6 September 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, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Law firms are the primary buyer and the published position on the bill is a savings claim: case review fees cut by up to five times, settlement submissions in one day rather than fifteen. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted review is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill or in a contingency settlement, or how a court-appointed administrator's AI adjudication cost is allocated. FAQ checked 6 September 2026.
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 sub-processor list, model provider list or forwardable disclosure material was located. The FAQ describes retrieval-augmented generation over language models without naming a provider, no customer agreement or DPA is published, and the security and privacy pages were not opened and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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 elements of a disclosure record are available and no export of an AI-use record is described. The platform page states clear sourcing and human validation at every step and that every result can stand up to review, audit or settlement, and the product generates settlement packets in administrator-required formats from validated data, which is a per-claimant record of what was extracted and checked; nothing states that a record of the model used and the reviewer's verification can be exported for a court, and court-appointed adjudication is performed by the vendor under the court's programme rather than certified by the firm. Platform page and FAQ checked 6 September 2026.