P

PERSUIT

Persi is described by the vendor as the intelligence layer built into PERSUIT, and the pricing position is explicit: it is not bought separately and arrives with the platform. PERSUIT ran as a competitive RFP, fee arrangement and electronic billing platform for about a decade before Persi existed. Its underlying capabilities, such as request management, panel governance, invoice review and spend reporting, are workflow and data functions that stand without models.

What the models add is real and central to how the product is now sold: matter triage, fee benchmarking, firm shortlisting, proposal evaluation and anomaly detection across six named workflow stages. The product would still function without them.

The dataset is described precisely, and the output is never measured. PERSUIT states that Persi draws on more than $22 billion in proposal data across more than 4,800 firms, and the proof page dates that dataset to platform transactions as of February 2026. No accuracy figure, evaluation, test set or named failure mode was found for Persi's own outputs on any page read. Persi's illustrated answers cite counts of comparable matters and percentages against benchmark.

Nothing published shows that a user can open the underlying comparables to check them. Grounding to primary law and citator checks do not apply, since the product reasons over commercial pricing data rather than case law. Accuracy is asserted without measurement.

PERSUIT publishes a clear written division of labor with a visible approval point. The Persi page states that Persi does not replace the customer's judgment: the customer brings the judgment and Persi brings the infrastructure. Every one of the six illustrated workflows ends at a confirmation rather than an action. Requests are drafted ready to review and send, a breaching invoice is put on hold pending review, and exceptions are flagged for the customer.

The customer configures the constraints. Engagement rules such as minimum competitive bids, spend thresholds, panel requirements and diversity obligations apply to every matter, with a worked example of a $100,000 threshold triggering a competitive request to at least three panel firms. No autonomy modes are published, and nothing states what Persi may do without asking. The control structure is shown through product illustrations rather than documentation a buyer could hold the vendor to.

Named legal departments, a customer result and dated platform figures with their basis are all published. Named officers include Gabriel Harnier, General Counsel at SAP; Anne Robinson, Chief Legal Officer at IBM; Sabine Chalmers, General Counsel at BT Group; Leanne Geale, Group General Counsel at Nestlé; and Ernst van de Weert, General Counsel at Heineken. SAP reached its three year savings target in nine months. Platform figures are 26 percent average savings per matter, 30 percent with competitive sourcing, the lowest bid winning 48 percent of the time, and 79 percent of value awarded under an alternative fee arrangement.

Each has its denominator explained and is footnoted as sourced from PERSUIT platform transactions as of February 2026. Each carries a caveat that individual results differ by matter type, industry and process design. The testimonials for individual customers are quotes without their own figures.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms, and the substance sits behind an NDA. The privacy policy commits to reasonable steps against misuse and unauthorized access and states that employees may not view customer data unless necessary to diagnose a problem. It describes SSL/TLS in transit and logging of sign ins, and the security page adds SSO and role based access controls. Nothing addresses training on customer content.

Persi is marketed as trained on the aggregate proposal dataset that customers themselves generate, and no published term says whether a given customer's proposals feed it. No retention or deletion position, segregation by matter or tenant, or treatment of privilege or work product was found. The security page lists the documents that would answer these, the subprocessor list, data flow diagrams and SOC 2 report, as available in the Trust Center under NDA. A buyer cannot read the commitments before entering an evaluation.

Nothing is published on the advice line. No terms of service, customer agreement or disclaimer was found. The footer link labeled Privacy & Terms leads to a privacy policy alone, and the home, platform, Persi, security, integrations and proof pages carry no disclaimer. PERSUIT produces sourcing and pricing recommendations rather than legal work product. Persi is described as advising whether a matter should be insourced or sent out, recommending which firms to instruct, and evaluating which proposal represents best value.

Those recommendations are used by in house lawyers and by law firms. No position on the line between tooling and professional judgment is published, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 is not mentioned.

No governance position is published for a system that allocates work between law firms. There is no responsible AI page, no named accountable owner, no testing regime before release, and no ISO 42001 or equivalent. Persi shortlists firms, scores firm performance with numeric value scores, and decides which firms are invited to compete for mandates worth six and seven figures. The vendor itself lists diversity obligations among the engagement rules the system enforces.

Nothing published addresses whether those recommendations have been tested for uneven treatment across firms, jurisdictions or matter types. Security certifications are a different subject and are covered under Security Certifications.

A generic privacy policy and a security summary are published, with the operative detail withheld. Published controls are SSL/TLS encryption in transit, employee access restricted to what is needed to diagnose problems, logging of sign ins, regular external security audits by contracted firms, and tested business continuity and disaster recovery plans. Role based access control and full audit logging across platform activity are also stated.

No retention period, deletion practice beyond GDPR erasure rights, or incident or breach notification practice is published. A subprocessor list exists, but the security page places it in the Trust Center under NDA. The privacy policy is dated October 2021 and still relies on the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, invalidated by Schrems II in July 2020. The policy covers the product without addressing what happens to matter data, proposals and prompts after processing.

Nothing published says who bears the loss when a recommendation is wrong. No terms of service, master subscription agreement, customer agreement or service level agreement was found. The footer was checked across six pages, and its Privacy & Terms link leads to a privacy policy with no liability, warranty or indemnity provision. No separate terms page appears in the navigation. The Trust Center is the only route to contractual documentation, and the security page states its contents are available under NDA, which is the vendor's choice to gate them. No indemnity, cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position can be read before a buyer enters an evaluation.

Integration is documented in detail. Four connection routes are published, managed integrations, an RFP API, a reporting API and composable workflows, and each is documented at field level. Direction is stated explicitly. Matter management systems send PERSUIT the matter ID, reference data, legal team assignments, practice group and jurisdiction. When an RFP concludes, PERSUIT sends the billing system the PERSUIT ID, firm name, total budget, currency, matter owner, entity, category and department.

Sample API fields are printed on the page, including request_id, participation_status, pricing_items, total_fee, average_rate, price_at_start and price_at_end. Managed integrations are stated to need no custom development, and a public API documentation URL is published. The target systems are described by category rather than by product, so no specific matter management or billing partner is named. The API documentation sits behind the application and was not opened.

The host is named, and neither tenancy nor a residency option is stated. The security page states the platform runs on Google Cloud, with MongoDB and Qlik as data providers, which answers whose infrastructure is used but not where a given customer's data sits. No tenancy model is published. No residency option is offered. The only location material is in the privacy policy, which says personal information may be stored outside Australia with cloud providers in the United States, and that European personal data may be transferred to Australia and the US under standard data protection clauses.

That is a transfer disclosure about personal information rather than a residency offering for platform data, and it comes from a policy dated October 2021. Processing location is not addressed as distinct from storage, and no region can be chosen by the customer.

The certifications are real, current and itemized, but the evidence is not openly accessible. The security page states ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with the version named and describes it as independently audited rather than assessed by the company itself. It also states SOC 1 Type 2 attestation and CSA STAR certification. Third party external assessments are published with dates and scores: SecurityScorecard A and UpGuard 865/950, both stated as independently assessed in January 2025.

A SafeBase trust center is named and publicly linked. The page lists what it holds: a penetration test report, network diagram, data flow diagrams, SOC reports, subprocessor list, ISO certificate and Statement of Applicability, and OSPAR for financial services buyers. The SOC 2 report is stated to be available under NDA once access is granted. No auditor is named for any attestation, no coverage period is given, and the SOC 2 scope is not specified. No request was submitted.

Persi is described through its training data and never through its models. The vendor states repeatedly that Persi is trained on more than $22 billion of outside counsel management data and contrasts it with generic AI, naming Claude and Copilot only as competitor categories. No model, model provider, inference location or commitment to notify customers of changes was found on any page read. Google Cloud, MongoDB and Qlik are named on the security page.

They answer where the software runs rather than whose model sees client content. The subprocessor list that might answer it is in the Trust Center under NDA. The vendor refers to proprietary intelligence without identifying what sits underneath.

No pricing information is published at any level. There is no pricing page: the navigation and footer were checked across the home page and the platform, Persi, security, integrations, proof and privacy pages, and none has a pricing entry. No plan names, packaging structure, unit of charge or figure are published. Every commercial route is a demo request, an industry briefing or a contact form. The ROI calculator asks the buyer to supply its own outside counsel spend rather than disclosing what PERSUIT costs. Neither the shape of the pricing nor any number is published.

Coverage is documented by role and by sector with real specificity. Five buyer pages are published: General Counsel and CLOs, legal operations, head of litigation, in house attorney, and law firm partners and business development. Law firms are a distinct buyer here, sitting on the other side of the same transaction. Nine industry pages are published, from financial services and life sciences to energy and real estate.

Named matter types are disputes across jurisdictions, regulatory investigations, M&A and complex litigation. The limits are not stated, and the vendor declines to state them. It answers the objection that some matters are too complex by claiming that every matter type has been run through the platform and that complexity is the use case. Government legal departments are not addressed.