Questel
Questel is a broad intellectual property suite covering patents, trademarks, designs, domain names and innovation management, sold to corporate IP departments, law firms and R&D teams. Its software divides into three families. Orbit is the search and analytics side, with Orbit Intelligence for patent searching and analysis, Orbit Express for lighter collaborative search, Orbit BioSequence for DNA and amino acid work, Orbit Chemistry for small molecules, Orbit Intellixir for scientific literature, Orbit Insight for market exploration, and a standard-essential-patent database. Equinox is the IP management system, sold in separate corporate, law firm and enterprise editions plus modules for invention-to-filing and brand proposal workflow, and covering docketing, forecasting, analytics and e-billing. Markify handles trademark clearance and watching. On top of these sit AI assistants: an AI-Classifier for patent classification, generative patent drafting, Qthena for patent and trademark prosecution workflow, claim mapping, office action response drafting, trademark goods and services description drafting, proof-of-use classification, AI-assisted translation inside Equinox, and Sophia, a cross-platform AI agent. Questel publishes an Artificial Intelligence Policy setting out six principles, a commitment to comply with the EU AI Act, and an internal AI Committee drawing on its legal, information security, data privacy and business development functions, alongside a Trusted AI page naming OpenAI and the open-source model families behind its generative features. A large services arm runs beside the software, handling patent and trademark searches, international filings, EP validation, translation, renewals, recordals, invoice and cost management, and IP consulting through a network the company describes as 320 agents and 1,200 translators. Questel SAS is registered in Paris and reports more than 1,700 staff and over 20,000 clients across 30 countries, with Sanofi, PepsiCo, Dow, Novartis and Danone among the names it displays; it is ISO 27001 certified and Frederic Beylier is chief executive.
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.
This is the incumbent-with-an-AI-layer case in its purest form, and the layer is genuine but plainly peripheral to what is being sold. The core is a patent and trademark database business, an IP management system handling docketing, renewals, forecasting and e-billing, and a large human services arm covering filings, EP validation, translation, recordals and renewals through a network described as 320 agents and 1,200 translators. The AI features are discrete and separately marketed: an AI-Classifier, Sophia as a cross-platform agent, Qthena for prosecution workflow, generative patent drafting, Markify ProSearch for trademark screening, and office action and goods-and-services drafting assistants. Strip all of them out and the databases, the IPMS and the services business remain intact. The one component that would not survive is the generative patent drafting module, which is model-native and arrived through the acquisition of qatent, but it is one product inside a suite of roughly thirty. Third consecutive ip-and-patents incumbent at this grade, against IPRally at A on the same axis.
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.
Accuracy is discussed at length and measured nowhere located. The Trusted AI page carries a heading on a duty of transparency in the accuracy of results, but the text under it is written as intention rather than description: it says users need to be informed of uncertainty and given the means to verify, and that this will be achieved by providing sources and explaining the reasons behind answers. Future tense is not evidence of a shipped behaviour and it is not credited here. The AI Policy is more candid than most, stating that Questel does not guarantee the absolute accuracy of AI content and acknowledging the potential for hallucinations, which is an honest disclosure but not a measurement. A press release on the home page announces that the Questel AI Lab created a proprietary model for patent search to benchmark and enhance semantic retrieval; that release was not opened on 1 September 2026 and no benchmark figure, test set or error rate was located on the home page, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page or the AI-in-IP solutions entry. If the AI Lab release carries a measured number with the test set described, this row moves up.
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.
Oversight is asserted repeatedly and no mechanism is described. The Trusted AI page states that full automation is ideal in some instances while in others AI should act as a supportive tool or human judgment is necessary, and that the balance must be found, which names the question without answering it for any product. AI Policy Article 5 places the duty on the buyer, saying use of the Services remains under the professional responsibility of each client and that clients are responsible for reviewing and verifying accuracy and completeness. The products are marketed as copilots and assistants, which implies supervision without documenting it. What was not located on any surface read on 1 September 2026 is a statement of what any feature runs unattended, where a reviewer sits in the workflow, what threshold stops the system, or what happens after it is wrong. This matters most on the office action response and patent drafting assistants, where the output is a document heading toward a patent office deadline.
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.
Customers are named against specific products, and no figure attaches to any of them. The home page and product navigation carry dated client announcements pairing an organisation with a named product: ELT Group selecting Orbit Intelligence, Fideon selecting Equinox Law Firm, TALKUAL selecting Markify Watch, Pointon Partners selecting the Markify platform, and HGF expanding Qthena for firm-wide patent practice after what is described as years of successful deployment. A separate case study describes how Equinox Law Firm supports Redchip Lawyers. That is more than a logo strip, which is what keeps this above the band below, although the home page also runs one of those, showing Sanofi, PepsiCo, Dow, Novartis and Danone without attribution. The scale claim of more than 20,000 clients in 30 countries is stated with no basis. This grade rests on the announcement headlines and their product pairings as they appear on the pages fetched; the client stories library at questel.com/clients-stories and the individual announcement bodies were not opened on 1 September 2026, so no dated measured outcome was either found or excluded.
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.
The substantive commitments are published and readable in advance, and they sit in policy rather than in a contract a buyer can hold. The Trusted AI page commits that information a user submits to an AI inference is not used to train or fine-tune Questel models, gives AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or better in transit, limits access to authorised employees needing it for engineering support, abuse investigation and legal compliance plus named categories of contractor bound by confidentiality, confirms the customer owns inputs and outputs, and states zero data retention on leaving with deleted conversations removed within 30 days. AI Policy Article 3 adds that third-party providers undertake not to use client data to train their own models. The page even reaches the professional dimension, saying the design removes the risk of revealing information relating to the representation of a client. What is missing is the rest of the picture: nothing addresses segregation between users, teams or matters inside a customer account, which matters because Equinox Law Firm is sold to firms, and the Master Services Agreement and Data Processing Agreement that the AI Policy says govern this are referenced as signed with clients and are not published anywhere on the property.
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.
A real position on advice versus tooling is published, and it is unusually direct for this lane. AI Policy Article 5 states that Questel's Services are not intended to replace or substitute the expertise and judgment of legal professionals, that clients should seek professional legal advice before relying on AI-generated outputs, that the use of the Services remains under the professional responsibility of each client, and that clients should not submit confidential information they do not wish the AI engine to process. That is a published advice line rather than a boilerplate disclaimer buried in website terms, and it appears in a document about the product rather than about the site. What is absent is the rest of the treatment. No jurisdiction limits are named, nothing addresses a practitioner's supervision or competence duties, and no engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512, USPTO practitioner guidance, EPO guidance or any national patent attorney regime was located on the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page, the law firm solutions entry, the legal notice or the privacy policy on 1 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.
This is the most developed governance framework located in the ip-and-patents lane. Questel publishes a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Policy issued at group level across Questel SAS and its affiliates, structured in six articles. It commits to complying with the EU AI Act, naming the regulation and its entry into force on 12 July 2024, which is a named external regime rather than a slogan. Article 6 describes a real internal structure: an AI Committee and a dedicated AI taskforce drawing representatives from the Legal, Information Security, Data Privacy and Business Development functions, plus ongoing employee training on ethics, data privacy and security. The Trusted AI page adds an AI oversight committee and states that every conversation starts with whether the company should do something rather than whether it can. Article 4 commits to safeguards preventing bias among other misuse. What holds this below the top band is exactly what that band asks for: no individual inside Questel is named as accountable, no pre-release testing regime is described, and no evaluation results of any kind have been disclosed, so the commitment to prevent bias is asserted rather than evidenced.
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.
The AI-specific stewardship is specific and the general estate around it is thin, so this sits below the band above on three of the five limbs. What is published and good: the Trusted AI page gives zero data retention once a customer leaves, deletion of removed conversations within 30 days unless legally required otherwise, AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or better in transit, and access restricted to authorised employees needing it for engineering support, abuse investigation or legal compliance plus specified contractors. Against that, the Data Privacy Policy updated May 2026 declines to state a retention period at all, saying data is kept as long as necessary and directing the reader to email for more information. No subprocessor list for the products exists: the policy's third-party section names thirteen website marketing and analytics tools including Google Analytics, LinkedIn Ads, Salesforce Pardot, AdRoll and SEMRush, and no processor touching customer IP data. Incident practice is described only as notifying the supervisory authority and, where required, data subjects, with no customer-facing commitment. A Questel IT Security Policy is referenced in the privacy policy and was not located as a published document. Worth flagging that AI Policy Article 2 claims full transparency on third-party providers as outlined in the personal data policy, and that policy does not deliver it for the product.
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 customer agreement is published, and unlike the comparable case in this lane something about the product's failure mode still is. AI Policy Article 5 states that Questel does not guarantee the absolute accuracy of AI content generated by its Services and expressly disclaims any liability for inaccuracies, given the potential for errors or hallucinations inherent to AI. That is an allocation of loss a buyer can read before signing and it is scoped to the Services rather than to the website, which is the distinction from Anaqua, whose only published contract was a website Terms of Use that did not reach its software. Everything else is absent. The Master Services Agreement and Data Processing Agreement are referenced in AI Policy Article 2 as signed between Questel and its clients and neither is published. No indemnity, liability cap, carve-out, warranty on output or insurance position was located. The legal notice is a French mentions legales scoped by its own text to the corporate website and disclaims liability only for the site and its materials. Searched the footer legal set, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page and the privacy policy on 1 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.
Integration is a named commercial position rather than a logo wall, and the direction of movement is stated for the specific cases. Questel markets an Integrated IP Ecosystem entry and describes its IPMS as directly integrated with leading IP renewal services and top-tier IP databases to eliminate data gaps. Two connections are described concretely enough to assess: PAVIS Connect, sold as a renewals connector explicitly for companies and law firms that already have an IP management system, which is an integration into a competitor's system rather than a demand to migrate; and the Markify Watch integration into Equinox, described as accessing trademark watches directly from within Equinox. An IP Services Portal handles service ordering and monitoring, and the IPMS entry lists e-billing and blockchain tooling. What is missing is depth of the kind an implementer could work from: no public API reference, developer portal or integration documentation index was located on the site navigation, the integrated ecosystem entry or the IP management software pages on 1 September 2026, and no named connection to a document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments was found.
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 implied throughout and neither the tenancy model nor a region is stated. The products are described as SaaS software solutions in the AI Policy, and the Trusted AI page refers to business data stored on Questel systems, but nothing located names a hosting provider, a data centre location, a country or region option, or whether customers share infrastructure or receive a dedicated instance. The only geography published is in the privacy policy's transfer section, which says Questel is a global business, that data may be transferred to countries with different protection laws, and that transfers out of the European Union are covered by intra-group agreements incorporating Standard Contractual Clauses and by clauses executed with third parties. That describes the legal basis for movement rather than where anything sits, and it is scoped to personal data rather than to the IP portfolios and unpublished applications the platform holds. Searched the home page, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page, the privacy policy, the legal notice and the integrated ecosystem entry on 1 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.
The standard is named in prose rather than shown as a badge, which is what separates this from the band below. AI Policy Article 3 states plainly that Questel is an ISO 27001-certified company adhering to international standards for information security management, and an ISO mark also appears on the home page against a line about transparency and consistency. That is a real, stated certification. Everything that would let a buyer act on it is absent: no scope statement covering which entities, products or infrastructure are certified, no certificate date or validity period, no auditor or certification body named, and no SOC 2 or other attestation claimed. There is no trust centre or security portal anywhere on the property, and no route to request a report or a completed questionnaire was located. The privacy policy points to a Questel IT Security Policy that is referenced but not published. Checked the footer, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page, the privacy policy and the home page on 1 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 providers and the model families are named, and the currency of that disclosure is the problem. The Trusted AI page states that Questel leverages generative models from OpenAI through API integrations, linking the OpenAI API Platform, and that it also uses open-source models identified as Mixtral, Falcon and Llama 2, fine-tuned and trained on proprietary data sets, with prompts optimised in-house. It adds that all models are fine-tuned using public patent, trademark and design text or Questel's own data. That is more than most of this corpus publishes. Three things keep it below the top band. No commitment to notify customers when the model set changes was located. Where the models run is only partly answered, since the OpenAI relationship is described as an API integration while nothing states where the open-source models are hosted. And the named models are dated: Llama 2 and Falcon are generations behind, while a 2026 press release on the home page announces a new proprietary Questel AI Lab model for semantic patent search that appears nowhere on this page, so the disclosure a buyer reads may no longer describe the system they would use.
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 shape of the offering is unusually visible and the number is nowhere. Tiering is published across the range: Equinox is sold as Corporate, Corporate+, Law Firm and Law Firm+, with the plus editions marked for enterprise organisations, and Orbit splits into Intelligence, Express, Insight, Intellixir, BioSequence and Chemistry, with Markify separated into ProSearch, Comprehensive Search, Full Pharma Search and Watch. A buyer can therefore see the packaging and roughly which segment each tier addresses. No rate, band, unit of charge, currency or statement of what implementation adds was located anywhere, and the commercial route on every page read is Request a call or Contact. Two products carry a BUY ONLINE label in the navigation, Defensive Publication and Markify Comprehensive Search, indicating a self-serve purchase path that would ordinarily display a price; neither of those pages was opened on 1 September 2026. This grade is therefore rebuttable upward if either carries a published figure, and that check is the single cheapest thing a future pass could do on this record.
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 coverage is documented with more substance than anything else in this lane, and the boundary is still left open. Questel publishes dedicated solution entries for law firms, life sciences and R&D and innovation teams, and the product line itself encodes the segmentation rather than merely describing it: Equinox ships as separate corporate and law firm editions, each with an enterprise variant, and the trademark side mirrors the same four-way split. Practice coverage is genuinely broad and specific, spanning patents, trademarks, designs, domain names, standard-essential patents, biosequences, chemistry, innovation management and legal translation, with named use cases including patentability, freedom to operate, invalidity, clearance, watching, prosecution, renewals and recordals. The life sciences entry names the products that serve that vertical individually. What is not stated anywhere located is where the product stops: no statement of firm size, portfolio size, minimum engagement, or the practice areas and jurisdictions the suite does not serve was found on the solutions pages or the home page on 1 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?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The commitment is clear and it sits in policy rather than in an agreement, which is what decides this value. The Trusted AI page lists it as the first of several commitments covering information a user provides for AI inference, described as a question, an invention description or an action query and acknowledged as often related to confidential client information. AI Policy Article 3 extends the same requirement outward, stating that third-party providers undertake not to use client data to train or improve any of their own AI or machine learning models. Separately the page says all Questel models are fine-tuned using public patent, trademark and design text or the company's own data. No published agreement containing a matching term was located: the Master Services Agreement and Data Processing Agreement are referenced in AI Policy Article 2 as signed with clients and neither is available on the site, so the prohibition cannot currently be read as contractual.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
Customer control is stated directly and a concrete deletion window comes with it. The Trusted AI page says the customer controls the retention period, that zero data retention applies once a customer leaves, and that any deleted conversations are removed from Questel systems within 30 days unless retention is legally required. Zero retention is not offered as a setting available during use, which is why this is not the value above. Note that the Data Privacy Policy updated May 2026 takes the opposite approach for personal data, stating only that it is kept as long as necessary and directing the reader to email for details, so the specific commitment here belongs to AI inference data rather than to the wider account.
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.
Access control is claimed and no enforcement detail is published. The privacy policy lists roles-based data access alongside encryption, firewalls, intrusion-detection software and physical access controls to data centres, and the Trusted AI page limits access to authorised employees and specified contractors. Neither describes a permission model, how it is administered, or whether it operates per user at query time. Nothing addresses walls or matter-level segregation inside a customer account, which is a live question here because Equinox is sold in dedicated law firm and enterprise law firm editions, and because Sophia is marketed as a cross-platform agent reaching across a range of Questel software. Searched the privacy policy, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page and the law firm solutions entry on 1 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.
Disclosure is contemplated and notice is not. The Data Privacy Policy lists duly authorised public authorities, judicial and control, among the recipients of personal data in the framework of Questel's legal and regulatory obligations, and separately names regulated professions including lawyers and bailiffs who may intervene in guarantees, collection or litigation. No commitment to notify the customer before or after such a disclosure was located, no carve-out for where notice is legally prohibited, and no transparency report exists. The documents that would ordinarily carry this, the Master Services Agreement and the Data Processing Agreement, are referenced as signed with clients and are not published. Searched the privacy policy, the AI Policy, the Trusted AI page and the legal notice on 1 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?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The product does not retrieve case law; the corpus is patent, trademark and design registry text, and Questel is itself a database publisher, describing its own offering as a unique collection of IP databases. The Trusted AI page identifies what the models learn from, saying they are fine-tuned and optimised using public information covering patent, trademark and design texts, or Questel's own data. It also states a rights principle rather than a rights position, committing to acknowledge the source of training data and confirm permission to use it, giving open-source data or data provided by users as the examples. No licence or rights basis is stated for any individual source, no coverage figure such as jurisdictions or document counts was located on the pages read, and no update cadence is published. Checked the home page, the Trusted AI page, the AI Policy and the Orbit product entries on 1 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 citator applies and the row is recorded rather than skipped. The suite manages and searches registered rights rather than returning legal authority whose subsequent history could be checked, so there is no treatment signal to surface. The nearest analogue is registry currency, which the product does address: Prosecution Pack is described as providing grant statistics and detailed legal status analysis, and the IP management system exists to keep portfolio status aligned with patent and trademark office records. That is the status of a registration rather than a judgement about whether an authority still stands. Searched the Orbit entries, Prosecution Pack, the AI Policy and the Trusted AI page on 1 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Nothing located describes what any Questel AI feature does when it cannot support an answer. The Trusted AI page comes close to the subject and then states an intention rather than a behaviour, saying users need to be informed whenever there is AI use and uncertainty regarding the AI's responses and given the means to verify them, and that this will be achieved by providing sources and explaining the reasons behind answers. That is written in the future tense and describes what the company considers necessary, not what any product currently does. No abstention path, confidence score, grounding indicator or low-certainty flag is documented for Sophia, Qthena, the AI-Classifier, the drafting assistant or the office action assistant. Searched the Trusted AI page, the AI Policy, the AI assistants entries for patent and trademark, and the AI-in-IP solutions page on 1 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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin at HEC Paris, together with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, on 1 September 2026, on the company name and on the product names Orbit, Sophia and Qthena. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Questel or any of its products was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The failure mode fits this suite only partly: most of the AI here classifies, searches or manages registry data, but the generative patent drafting and office action response assistants do produce text that enters patent office proceedings, so the risk is not entirely absent even though it sits outside the litigation filings this tracker principally captures.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Professional responsibility is engaged in general terms with no guidance named. AI Policy Article 5 states that the use of Questel's Services remains under the professional responsibility of each client, that the Services are not intended to replace or substitute the expertise and judgment of legal professionals, and that clients should seek professional legal advice before relying on AI-generated outputs. That is a real acknowledgement of the obligation and it names no source for it. No reference to ABA Formal Opinion 512, USPTO practitioner guidance on artificial intelligence, EPO or national patent attorney conduct rules, or any bar opinion was located, which is a notable gap for a vendor selling prosecution assistants into law firms across roughly 30 countries. The EU AI Act is named in Article 1, but that is technology regulation binding Questel rather than the professional conduct guidance binding its buyers.
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.
Time savings are claimed and the client's side of the bill is never addressed. The home page invites the reader to imagine how much time could be saved with an AI-driven integrated IP management system, and the resource library carries pieces on saving time in prosecution work and on how Equinox Law Firm helps a firm save time and build relationships. Nothing accompanies this on how a firm should bill for or disclose AI-assisted drafting, office action responses or search work. Worth noting that Questel sells invoice management, cost management and fee audit services, but those address the client's own IP spend with outside agents rather than the treatment of AI-assisted time on a law firm's invoice, and no audit record of AI-assisted work was located for any product.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A model provider list is published and a subprocessor list is not, so a firm can answer half of what a client's AI clause asks. The Trusted AI page names OpenAI as the generative provider, links the OpenAI API Platform, and identifies the open-source families Mixtral, Falcon and Llama 2 as additionally used and fine-tuned in-house, which is the disclosure that carries this value. Against that, no subprocessor list covering the products exists: the Data Privacy Policy's third-party section names thirteen website marketing and analytics tools and no processor touching customer IP data. No data processing addendum or client-facing disclosure pack is published and no route to obtain one without an agreement was located. AI Policy Article 2 claims full transparency on third-party providers as outlined in the personal data policy, and on the surfaces read that claim is not met.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Nothing located addresses producing an AI-use disclosure or a verification certification. The Trusted AI page states a principle adjacent to it, that Questel needs to clearly disclose when content has been autonomously generated by an AI, but that is user-facing labelling described as an obligation the company recognises rather than an exportable record, and no product is said to implement it. No export tying a passage to the model that produced it, the sources it drew on, or the person who reviewed it was described for Sophia, Qthena, the drafting assistant or the office action assistant. Searched the Trusted AI page, the AI Policy and the patent and trademark AI assistant entries on 1 September 2026. The obligation fits prosecution work imperfectly, but the row is recorded rather than skipped.