P

Prevail

AI drives the features the vendor leads with, on a court reporting and proceedings platform that would still run without it. The models produce the instant rough transcript of a session, the summaries written while a deposition is under way, and CheckMate's analysis through a connected language model. Transcription and translation of audio and video are AI work too. Around that sits a platform that does not depend on the models: video conferencing built for proceedings, exhibit tools and scheduling, and certified transcripts made by people.

The About page says the platform includes a certified court reporter in every session. A firm buys a proceeding with a human record maker, and the AI makes that record available sooner and searchable. The models are the engine of core capabilities rather than the whole product.

Summaries are grounded to the record in a way a lawyer can follow, and the one accuracy figure has no method behind it. A post of 24 September 2026 on the AI summaries says each section carries a page and line range that opens the rough transcript at that point. It tells users to read the lines themselves before quoting an answer. The commercial page says the AI generally produces a 95% accurate rough transcript, with no test set, sample or definition of accuracy behind the figure.

CheckMate's grounding is not published: the help center describes it querying connected models, and nothing states whether an answer cites the transcript line or document it rests on.

Human review stands between the AI rough and the certified record, and the analysis tools carry a verification instruction with no control structure. Every certified transcript is said to go through a round of human review by credentialed court reporters. A post of 13 August 2026, written after an Indiana appeals judge noted a speaker attribution error, describes the layers. Remote participants get separate audio channels, trained monitors tag speakers live in hybrid and in person proceedings, and scopists check the transcript word for word against the recording before certification.

CheckMate has no equivalent. It queries language models during live testimony and is described as helping teams find relevant documents and lines of inquiry. Nothing states what its output may not be used for, when it declines to answer, or how a lawyer confirms a point before acting on it in the room.

One named firm stands behind a described deployment, with no figures attached. A release of 23 February 2026 launching CheckMate says Shook, Hardy & Bacon has built Prevail AI into its Complex Litigation Strategic Counseling Practice Group for early case assessment, case work up and trial. It quotes Patrick Oot, a partner who co chairs that group, on how the product changes preparation and questioning during testimony.

The home page lists Discount Tire, Perkins Coie and Greenberg Traurig as clients, without stories. No case study with figures is published, so what changed for the Shook practice in time, cost or outcome is not shown.

Confidentiality sits in the agreement, while the training and privilege commitments sit in published posts that the contract does not include. The terms bind each party to treat confidential information as confidential, and do not mention training or models. A post of 1 April 2026 on protecting privilege discusses United States v. Heppner and states the training position, and a later post extends that position to model providers.

Nothing in the contract a firm signs carries those commitments, so they rest on the vendor's published word rather than on terms a firm could enforce.

Supervision of AI work is engaged in public, and the advice line is never drawn. The privilege post names ethics opinions on evaluating AI tools for confidentiality risk and on informed consent. The post on the speaker attribution error quotes the Indiana appeals court's view that anyone using AI to help prepare a transcript is responsible for proofreading it, and the vendor draws a clear line between its AI rough and its certified transcript.

The terms carry no statement that the service or CheckMate's analysis is not legal advice, nothing on who may use the product, and no position on the licensing of digital court reporting by jurisdiction.

Nothing published sets out how the AI is governed. The pages read, which include the security page, the help center and posts on privilege and on AI summaries, name no person or function accountable for model behavior. None describes testing before a release, publishes evaluation results, or sets out principles for how the AI is built and used. The security certifications cover an information security management system, not the conduct of the models.

Uneven output is a live question for this product and goes unaddressed. Transcription and speaker identification can fail unevenly across accents, dialects and the many languages handled, and nothing states how performance is measured across them. Human review of certified transcripts is an oversight step on the record, not a governance framework for the AI.

Security controls and breach notice are published in working detail. The security page says customer data is encrypted at rest in AWS S3 with keys managed through AWS KMS. All access to customer data is logged and attributable to individual people, new employees get access only after a background check, and restorable backups are kept. The data security post adds that transcript editors reach only the jobs assigned to them, and that media cannot be downloaded or shared outside the platform. The terms commit to reporting a security breach within 72 hours, with the relevant details.

An infringement indemnity and a fee cap are in the agreement, and nothing allocates the risk of AI output. The terms of service took effect on 16 October 2023, under California law with AAA arbitration in San Diego. Prevail defends and indemnifies the subscriber against claims that the service infringes a copyright, a United States patent or a trademark, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Liability is capped at what the subscriber paid in the six months before the claim arose.

All warranties are disclaimed, including any that the service will be secure or error free, and the subscriber indemnifies Prevail for its own breaches and negligent acts. Nothing says who bears the loss when an AI rough transcript, a summary or a CheckMate answer is wrong. The terms predate CheckMate and do not mention transcripts or court reporting.

Model and repository connections are described with some detail of what moves, and none reaches a firm's document or case management system. A secure API streams live transcripts and notes to the organization's chosen language model, and the help center documents personal connections and organization connections set by an administrator. On 24 February 2026 Prevail and Consilio announced that Prevail's capabilities would be delivered through Consilio's Aurora platform, letting clients query Consilio hosted document repositories from within Prevail.

The announcement said availability would follow, and no later status is published. The government page names integration with RelativityOne and with Teams and Zoom, without describing what syncs. Session Review lets a team download documents singly or as one package. No document management, case management or other litigation support connection is published, and no Relativity implementation documentation was found.

Storage and transcription work are both placed in the United States, and tenancy is not stated. The security page names Prevail's AWS region in the United States, and the data security post says customer data stays within Prevail's cloud environment in United States data centers. The government page goes further on processing: all hosting, editing, transcribing and data transfer take place within the continental United States, with no offshoring of data, labor or services.

The CheckMate release says customer data stays within each organization's environment, and firms can send analysis to their own language model instead of Prevail's. Nothing states whether customers share infrastructure or are separated at the tenant level, whether a region outside the United States is available, or where a connected third party model processes the transcript it receives.

Two standards are claimed with the auditor named, and no report, date or scope document can be reached. The home page and the data security post state SOC 2 Type 2 attestation and ISO 27001:2022 certification, both by Prescient Security. The security page says the SOC 2 controls cover security, confidentiality, processing integrity, privacy and availability, and that HackerOne tests the infrastructure several times a year.

The government page says Prevail holds authorizations to operate from multiple large federal agencies, none named. No trust center is published, the reports are not offered for download or on request on any page read, and no audit period or certificate date is published.

The architecture is described and the providers are not. A firm can use the vendor's native model or connect its own legal AI model, with Consilio's Aurora given as an example, and the help center says the native solution is open to all members with no setup. Nothing published names the model or provider behind the native solution, the AI rough transcripts or the summaries. Nor does anything say where those models run, or commit to telling customers when they change. Only a firm's own connected model is known to it; what sits under transcription and the native model is not.

No pricing appears anywhere on the site. The pages read, among them the commercial page, the terms and the CheckMate release, show no price, plan, rate per page or hour, session fee or unit of charge. The terms refer to the amount a subscriber has paid under its subscription, which indicates a subscription without saying what it covers or costs. Nothing shows whether charging is by page, hour, seat or session, or whether CheckMate, translation and the summaries are priced apart from the court reporting itself. Every route to a number runs through a demo request or a scheduling contact.

Customers and proceedings are described with substance, and the limits are not. The commercial and government pages address law firms, corporate legal departments and federal agencies. Depositions, arbitration hearings and internal investigations are the named proceedings, and the Consilio announcement adds compliance reviews. Sessions run remote, hybrid and in person, transcription and translation cover more than 90 languages, and the government offering adds hearings, interviews and redaction of personal information.

The blog addresses arbitration in several posts in 2026. Nothing states which jurisdictions the certified transcripts are prepared for or the court reporters are qualified in, which practice areas the analysis is built around, or whether firms outside the United States are served.