P
ProVision
ProVision manages side letters and most favored nation (MFN) elections for lawyers who run private investment fund formations. It covers the work after a fund closes, when negotiated investor terms are scattered across execution copies, spreadsheets and email. The platform takes uploaded side letters, limited partnership agreements and master side letters, extracts provisions and investor terms while preserving the original legal text, and builds a single master side letter view a team can search, compare and merge.
It then runs the MFN process, generating election forms for each investor in PDF and Word, distributing them with anonymization and tracking responses into one record. The company says the platform does not require AI to run, and that AI is applied where it adds value, with guardrails that keep control of outputs with the lawyer. Deployment is single tenant on Amazon Web Services, with a dedicated instance per customer.
ProVision is made by Intelligent Legal Solutions (ILS) Limited of London, founded in 2024 by Fergus Plant and Jack McCarthy, formerly of the funds teams at Goodwin and Proskauer, with Stefano Benigni. Named customers include Cleary Gottlieb, Fried Frank, Goodwin, Paul Weiss, Proskauer, Ropes & Gray and Willkie Farr & Gallagher.
ProVision, 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 ProVision
Vendors in the same categories as ProVision 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.
- JJosefJosef is a no code platform on which in house legal and compliance teams build self service tools for the rest of the business.
- CCounselLink+CounselLink+ is an enterprise legal management platform for corporate legal and claims departments.
- PProvakilProvakil combines litigation operations, contract management, intellectual property tracking and legal collections for enterprise legal departments.
- PPointOnePointOne is an AI timekeeping and billing platform for law firms and government legal offices.
- TTruth SystemsTruth Systems is a San Francisco company, founded in 2023, that sells AI governance software to law firms.
- IInletInlet is AI timekeeping software for law firms that bill by the hour, from Inlet, Inc. of 169 Madison Avenue, New York.
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.
Extraction is the model's job: uploaded side letters, LPAs and master documents are read, and their provisions and investor terms are structured automatically. The support FAQ says the platform does not require AI to run and that the most advanced AI is deployed only where it adds value, with guardrails to retain control over outputs. A customer's own published account describes AI features as added when appropriate, according to each client's preferences and data security policies, so the AI is optional and set for each client.
Without it the platform is still a structured repository of side letters and LP comment memos, with MFN election form generation and response tracking, provision comparison and merging, versioning and an action record.
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.
Extraction is said to structure provisions while preserving the original legal text, and comparison is said to work without breaking traceability, so an output can be traced to its source clause. The support FAQ says fail safes or guardrails are provided to prevent hallucinations. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation, error rate or description of the extraction method is published, and nothing states what share of provisions are extracted correctly or how an extraction error reaches a reviewer. A Data Security White Paper, described as a technical deep dive into the architecture, is available only by email.
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.
The about page says the technology is there to assist rather than to second guess professional judgment and that ProVision keeps the lawyer in control, and the overview repeats that structuring happens without compromising legal judgment. Extracted provisions and investor information are presented for review, MFN elections follow rules and parameters the team sets, and the home page describes visibility and control at every step, with a record of every action, approval and document version.
No threshold is published at which the system acts without a reviewer, and nothing describes what happens to extractions nobody approves. No confidence signal appears against an individual provision, and the guardrails in the support FAQ are named without being described.
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.
The company names Cleary Gottlieb, Fried Frank, Goodwin, Paul Weiss, Proskauer, Ropes & Gray and Willkie Farr & Gallagher as customers, described as more than ten of the world's largest law firms. It quotes Theresa Spartichino, Director of Practice Technology at Ropes & Gray, and Conan Hines, Director of Practice Innovation at Fried Frank. Fried Frank published its own announcement of the deployment, quoting Becky Zelenka, partner and joint head of its Private Equity Funds group.
ILS says that in 2025 the platform processed more than 5,000 side letters across over 450 matters, supporting more than 150 billion dollars of capital raised in six named markets. No figure is attributed to any named firm, the quotes describe operational clarity and quick adoption without measurement, 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.
ProVision runs in a single tenant AWS environment logically segregated per customer, and documents and extracted data sit in a dedicated instance and are said never to be mixed with other clients' data. There is no shared document storage across customers, access runs on granular role based control, and encryption is AES-256 at rest with TLS 1.2 or higher in transit. No privilege or work product treatment is named. The FAQ carries an entry headed Do you use our data to train AI models, but no training position is published in readable text.
ILS's trust center also describes a zero knowledge framework under which ILS cannot access customer provisions or investor data, with end to end encryption at every stage, which sits in tension with a product that extracts and structures provisions on its servers. Nothing published reconciles the two, and the white paper that might is available only by email.
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.
The about page says the technology assists rather than second guesses professional judgment and that ProVision keeps the lawyer in control, and the overview describes structuring side letters and LPAs without compromising legal judgment. The audience is private investment funds lawyers at law firms and fund formation teams, so there is no consumer surface. No statement says outputs are not legal advice, nothing requires a lawyer to verify an extracted provision before relying on it, and no rule of professional conduct, bar or regulator is named.
No jurisdiction limit is stated, although the company reports work across six markets with different regimes. The Terms of Service, described on the trust center as the governing agreement, are available only by email.
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 accountable for model behavior or evaluation and testing regime, and nothing on bias or on uneven extraction quality across document types, drafting styles or jurisdictions. The site's navigation and footer list ProVision Overview, Trust Center, Blog, Support, About ILS, Our Team, Careers, Press Announcements, Contact, Privacy Policy and Cookies Policy, and none is a governance page.
The trust center's Resource Vault lists eight items, all security, privacy or contractual documents rather than AI governance material. The support FAQ's reference to fail safes and guardrails is a product assurance, not a governance framework. A description of the company as taking a disciplined approach to AI led by lawyers comes from its lead investor rather than from the company.
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.
ProVision publishes AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, single tenant AWS deployment with logical segregation per customer, granular role based access control, real time monitoring, redundant backups and configurable data residency options. No retention period, deletion route or certification, or named subprocessor appears on the site or the trust center. The documents that would cover each point are listed on the trust center, and each opens an email to the company's information security address: a GDPR Overview said to cover where data is hosted and which subprocessors are involved, a Data Processing Agreement, an Incident Response Overview and a Privacy Policy.
The portal does not say whether a request is fulfilled without a sales conversation. A Privacy Policy also sits at a public footer link.
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.
ILS's trust center lists a Terms of Service, described as the governing agreement for using ILS platforms, and its View link opens an email to the company's information security team. The Data Processing Agreement sits behind the same route, so neither agreement is published openly. No indemnity, cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position is published, and none of the home page, overview, about page, support FAQ or trust center carries any liability language.
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.
Documents enter by upload, described as side letters, LPAs and related documents uploaded in minutes, and outputs leave as generated election forms in PDF and Word. No document management system is connected, and neither iManage nor NetDocuments nor SharePoint is named; no practice management, matter management, electronic billing or fund administration system is named either. There is no integrations page in the site navigation or footer, no API reference and no developer documentation.
The one published connection is for sign in: the support FAQ confirms single sign on with multi factor authentication, or username and password with two factor authentication, or both. At an AmLaw firm, the executed documents the product reads usually already sit in a document management system.
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.
ProVision is deployed in a secure single tenant AWS environment, logically segregated per customer, with each customer's documents and extracted data in a dedicated instance and no shared document storage across customers. ILS contrasts this with what it says most legal technology providers do, which is run shared multi tenant environments. Amazon Web Services is named as the host. Configurable data residency options are listed as a feature, but no region is named.
Nothing states where processing happens as distinct from storage, and no model or inference location is published. A GDPR Overview said to cover where data is hosted is available only by email request.
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.
ILS's trust center says a SOC 2 Type II report is independently issued and covers security, availability and processing integrity. The compliance section of the same page says the systems are aligned with SOC 2 Type II standards, and its summary strip reads SOC aligned, while the support FAQ says the company is SOC 2 Type 2 certified. Alignment is a self assessment and certification is not, so the pages conflict. No auditor, audit period or report date is published, and the report is reachable only by emailing the company's information security address, with no statement that the request is fulfilled without a sales conversation.
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 support FAQ says the platform deploys the most advanced AI only where it can add value. No model, provider or version is named, no inference location is stated, and no commitment to notify customers of changes is published. Amazon Web Services is named as the cloud host, which says where the platform sits, not whose model reads a side letter. ILS's trust center lists a GDPR Overview said to cover which subprocessors are involved, and its link opens an email request.
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 information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. The site has no pricing page, and the support page lists a Sales contact for ProVision pricing, enterprise discussions and rollout planning behind an email link. Nothing states whether the platform is charged per matter, per fund, per side letter, per seat or as a license for the whole firm, and no tier, price range, minimum, term or implementation cost is published. Two FAQ entries are headed What is the ROI and What does a pilot look like; neither is a pricing disclosure.
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 product is addressed to private investment funds lawyers and fund formation teams. The work is named at the level of the task: side letters, limited partnership agreements, master side letter compilation, MFN elections and LP comment memos, described as work after a fund closes. The named customers are elite international law firms, and geographic reach is given as the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Middle East.
The platform is described as serving both funds and law firms. No statement names fund types or structures it does not support, nothing says whether an in house fund legal team can buy it directly rather than through counsel, and no minimum firm size is given. Roadmap language describes expanding into a unified platform for fund formation teams.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for ProVision, 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 4, 2026
-
ilsprovision.com/trust-centre1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 4, 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?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
ILS publishes an FAQ entry headed Do you use our data to train AI models on both its trust center and its support page, so it addresses the question, but the answer, held in a collapsed section, was not available to read. Answers to other entries in the same set are published, including that the platform does not require AI to run and uses advanced AI only where it adds value with guardrails, and that single sign on with multi factor authentication is supported.
The Data Processing Agreement and the Terms of Service, which would settle the point, are reachable only by emailing the company's information security address. This is not a finding that ILS is silent on training or that it trains on customer content.
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 retention period for uploaded documents, extracted provisions or generated outputs is published on the home page, the ProVision overview, the about page, the support FAQ or the trust center. The trust center describes how data is held rather than for how long: AES-256 encryption at rest, TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, single tenant deployment with a dedicated instance per customer, role based access control and redundant backups, and it states that the customer owns its data.
No default period, configurable window, deletion route or certificate of destruction is published, and nothing addresses what happens to a fund's side letters at the end of a matter or of the subscription. The documents that would carry it, a Data Processing Agreement, a Privacy Policy and a GDPR Overview, are listed on the trust center and each resolves to an email link.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
ILS's trust center says most legal technology providers run shared multi tenant environments and that ProVision is different: it is deployed in a secure single tenant AWS environment logically segregated per customer, with each customer's documents and extracted data held in a dedicated instance and never mixed with other clients' data. No shared document storage across customers is listed as a separate control, alongside granular role based access control limiting access to authorized users.
Nothing describes segregation between matters, funds or clients within one firm's instance, though the product is built to compare provisions across investors and matters, and no ethical wall or conflicts mechanism is described.
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 compelled disclosure or customer notice position is published on the home page, the ProVision overview, the about page, the support FAQ or the trust center, and no transparency report or government request statement appears there. The Terms of Service and the Data Processing Agreement are listed on the trust center behind email requests, and the Privacy Policy sits behind the same route and at a public footer link.
ILS's trust center says it works under a zero knowledge framework and cannot access customer provisions or investor data. If that holds, it would bear on what the company could produce under compulsion, but it is not a notice commitment, and nothing published connects the two.
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.
ProVision works from the customer's own documents: uploaded side letters, limited partnership agreements, related documents and existing master side letters, with provisions structured from them and the original legal text preserved. It does not retrieve primary law, published precedent, a clause bank of market standard terms or any third party dataset, and none is named on the home page, the ProVision overview, the about page, the support FAQ or the trust center.
The comparison and merge feature surfaces provision information across clients and matters, but it works on the firm's own material rather than licensed content. There is no licensed content and no jurisdictional coverage to record.
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.
ProVision reads investor side letters and fund documents and produces structured provisions, master side letter views and MFN election forms. It does not retrieve or present primary law, and no case, statute or regulation is shown to a user at any point in the published workflow. Nothing on the home page, the ProVision overview, the about page, the support FAQ or the trust center addresses checking authority for later history.
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.
The support FAQ says the platform provides fail safes or guardrails to keep full control over outputs and prevent hallucinations. Extraction preserves the original legal text, and comparison is said to keep traceability, so a reviewer can return to source. No abstention state, condition for declining to answer, confidence score against an extracted provision or handling of ordinary failure conditions is published. Those conditions are specific and foreseeable here: an ambiguous side letter or one amended by hand, a scanned execution copy, a provision spanning clauses, or two investor terms that conflict.
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 court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product ProVision or the company names Intelligent Legal Solutions and ILS. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. ProVision structures negotiated investor terms rather than generating legal citations, so a fabricated citation is not the failure it would usually produce.
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 bar authority, regulator, conduct rule or ethics opinion is named on the home page, the ProVision overview, the about page, the support FAQ or the trust center, and no guidance specific to any jurisdiction is mapped. The company reports operating across the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Middle East, which have materially different rules for using technology on client matter material and for moving it across borders.
The nearest published language addresses professional judgment rather than professional rules: the about page says the technology assists rather than second guesses professional judgment. The Terms of Service, where a jurisdiction or conduct provision would usually sit, are available only by emailing the company.
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 support and trust center FAQ frames the problem in billing terms: moving side letters by hand into Excel or Word compendia and tracking MFN elections by hand leads to hours billed that the firm does not recover, inaccurate work product and slower delivery. A further FAQ entry is headed What is the ROI. The pitch is that the firm captures fees it currently loses, rather than that the work takes fewer billed hours.
No record of AI assisted work for each matter is described, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing says whether a provision the model extracted or structured is identified as such to the firm or to the fund client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The trust center's Resource Vault lists a Data Security White Paper described as a technical deep dive into architecture, encryption and the zero knowledge framework; a GDPR Overview said to cover where data is hosted and which subprocessors are involved; an independently issued SOC 2 Type II report; a Privacy Policy; a Data Processing Agreement setting out the company's role as processor; and an Incident Response Overview.
Each View link opens an email to the company's information security team, and the portal does not say whether a request is fulfilled without a sales conversation. No subprocessor or model provider is named openly, so a client's AI clause cannot be answered from published material alone. The only external link in the vault points to the California Attorney General's CCPA page rather than to any ILS document.
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.
The home page commits to keeping a clear, complete record of every action, approval and document version to support compliance. The overview describes comparison and structuring that keep traceability, with the original legal text preserved so an entry can be traced to its source clause. Nothing says the record identifies which provisions the model extracted rather than a person entered, no model or version is attributed to an output, and nothing describes exporting that history for a client audit, a regulator or a court.
The exports described are of work product, MFN election forms in PDF and Word with anonymization, rather than of the audit trail.