R
Rain Intelligence
Rain Intelligence sells litigation intelligence to law firms that want to reach a client before a complaint is filed. It ingests court dockets, plaintiff firm advertising, regulatory filings, SEC and corporate filings, news and other web signals from what it describes as more than 200 sources, enriches them into entities, forecasts, damages estimates, practice area and jurisdiction tags, and matches each opportunity to the attorney best placed to act on it by practice, prior matters and client relationships.
Subscribers receive a personalised daily intelligence report, real-time alerts, and a structured prediction database delivered into Outlook, Microsoft Teams, Salesforce, NetDocuments, iManage and Intapp; alerts arrive as dossiers setting out the fact pattern, the companies at risk, theories of liability and which of the firm's own clients are exposed. Plaintiff firms use it to originate class actions and mass torts, and defence firms to warn clients of litigation aimed at them.
Rain Intelligence LLC is based at 2 Embarcadero Center in San Francisco, and sells on an annual subscription with a services order form.
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 models turn a data feed into a forecast, and the data feed is half the product. Rain describes ingesting court dockets, plaintiff advertising, regulatory actions, SEC and corporate filings, news and web signals, then applying AI enrichment that produces entities, forecasts, damages, client matches, practice area and jurisdiction tags, with pattern recognition identifying companies at risk before a complaint exists and automatic matching of each opportunity to the best-placed attorney.
Section 2.6 of the subscription terms confirms that the services use AI algorithms including generative AI. Underneath that sits an aggregation and distribution business, which the company's own values page frames as its edge: finding data nobody else will find. Verified 20 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.
The product makes predictions about named companies and publishes nothing about how often they are right. The marketing figures describe commercial outcomes rather than accuracy: 200 million dollars of attorney fees generated, a 14-day average lead time, zero enterprise cancellations. No hit rate, false-positive rate or back-test of the forecasts appears anywhere, and the published example dossier, with its executive summary, companies at risk and theories of liability, shows no trail back to the signals it rests on.
What the record does contain is a candid warning in the agreement: section 2.6 says AI systems may not always be accurate or error-free and that users are responsible for verifying and cross-referencing anything the service provides. Verified 20 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.
The pipeline runs unattended and the only published control is the reader. Signals are scanned, forecasts generated, attorneys matched and reports delivered to inboxes, Teams channels and CRM systems with, in the vendor's words, zero effort required. Nothing published describes a confidence threshold for publishing a forecast, a human check before a dossier goes out, or what happens when a prediction about a named company proves wrong.
Section 2.6 of the terms places verification on the subscriber, which is a contractual disclaimer rather than a described control, and section 7.11 adds that attorneys using the service must comply with the professional rules that apply where they practise. Verified 20 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.
The customer list is named at length and the numbers are the vendor's own. Roughly forty firm logos run across the site, from plaintiff practices such as Milberg, Edelson, Morgan & Morgan and Levi & Korsinsky to defence and full-service firms including Cravath, Paul Weiss, Davis Polk, DLA Piper, Dechert and Morrison Foerster, with four attributed testimonials from named partners at Gibbs Law Group, Milberg, Hilgers Graben and Dechert describing origination and early client warning.
Against that, the headline figures are aggregate and unattributed: more than 150 firms, 30 or more AmLaw 200 firms, 200 million dollars in attorney fees generated, a 14-day average lead time and zero enterprise cancellations, with no method, period or named customer behind any of them. A six-month money-back guarantee is offered to qualifying firms. Verified 20 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.
To match opportunities to attorneys, Rain works from a firm's client list, its matter history and the expertise of individual lawyers, and nothing published says how that material is handled. The subscription terms of 1 October 2023 govern what the subscriber may do with Rain's materials rather than what Rain does with the firm's: there is no confidentiality article covering customer information, no statement on whether firm data trains or improves the models, nothing on separation between subscribing firms that compete for the same case, and no retention or deletion commitment.
The privacy policy of 4 March 2024 covers visitors to the website and job candidates and says so. Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the about page, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
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 agreement is clear about what the service is not, and it goes further than most by naming the user's own obligations. Section 7.11 states that the online services are not legal advice or a substitute for a professional, that no attorney-client relationship arises with Rain, that the subscriber assumes the risks of relying on the service, and that an attorney using it must comply with all court rules, disclosure rules and rules of professional and ethical conduct in the place where they practise.
That last clause matters for a product whose output is a prompt to contact a potential client. What is missing is any treatment of the solicitation rules that govern that contact, and any jurisdiction limit on the service itself. Verified 20 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.
Nothing published addresses governance of a system that names companies as likely defendants. No responsible AI page or policy exists, nobody is identified as accountable for the forecasts, nothing describes what is tested before a model change ships, no evaluation is published, and nothing addresses whether predictions fall unevenly across industries, company sizes or jurisdictions. The only related published statement is the acknowledgement in section 2.6 of the terms that AI may be inaccurate.
Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the about page, the blog index, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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.
The published policy covers the website, not the service. The privacy policy of 4 March 2024 describes administrative, technical and physical safeguards, access limited on a need-to-know basis, storage and processing in the United States with standard contractual clauses for European transfers, retention only as long as necessary, and it names AWS and Airtable for hosting and HubSpot for analytics as subprocessors. All of that is written for people who visit the site or apply for a job.
Nothing states what happens to the client lists, attorney profiles and matter history a subscribing firm provides, how long they are kept or who can reach them, and the subscription terms do not fill the gap. Verified 20 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.
There is a real published allocation of loss, and it does not reach the forecasts. Section 4 of the subscription terms excludes liability for errors or omissions in the services or materials, for the content, accuracy or completeness of materials, and for interruption or data loss, and caps aggregate liability at the lesser of actual direct damages or the fees paid in the preceding twelve months. Section 4.5 runs an indemnity from Rain to the subscriber for third-party claims that the services infringe patent, trademark, copyright or trade secret rights, with defined conditions and a right to procure, modify or terminate with a pro-rata refund.
So intellectual property risk is covered and the risk that a prediction is wrong sits entirely with the firm. No insurance position is published. Verified 20 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.
The connections are named and what travels through them is described. Personalised daily reports go to Outlook, urgent signals route to Microsoft Teams, and a structured prediction database is surfaced inside Salesforce, NetDocuments, iManage and Intapp, which covers the CRM, document management and business development systems a firm already runs; the vendor's pitch is that there are no new tools to learn. What is not published is depth: no integrations page, no documentation or API reference, nothing on what a firm must configure, how attorney and client data gets into Rain to drive the matching, or which direction data flows on each connection. Verified 20 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.
Nothing published states where the service runs or where subscriber data sits. No tenancy model, hosting region or residency option appears on any product page, and the subscription terms address geography only as a licensing restriction: section 2.3 says each subscription is country-specific and may not be used outside the country for which it is issued for more than 30 continuous days. The privacy policy says information about website visitors is processed in the USA, which is not a statement about the service.
Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the about page, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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.
No independent security attestation was located. There is no security page and no trust centre, and no SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test or auditor is named anywhere; the only security statement is the privacy policy's description of safeguards for website data. For a service that holds a firm's client relationships and origination pipeline, a procurement reviewer has nothing to read. Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the about and team pages, the blog index, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 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 agreement confirms that AI is used and never says whose. Section 2.6 of the subscription terms states that some of the online services use AI algorithms and technologies including generative AI, and the product pages refer to AI enrichment and pattern recognition; no model, version or provider is named, nothing says where inference runs, and no commitment to notify subscribers when the models change was located. The terms do name third-party suppliers of materials as a category, without identifying them. Verified 20 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 commercial structure is published in unusual detail and no figure appears anywhere. The subscription terms set out per-user subscriptions issued to named authorised users that cannot be shared, a services order form carrying the rates, a transactional pricing plan as an alternative, country-specific subscriptions, and charges for unauthorised use at order form rates. The fulfilment policy adds cancellation at any time with access to the end of the billing cycle, the option to pause for up to three months without billing, a full refund within 30 days of an initial purchase and pro-rata refunds after that at the vendor's discretion, and the site offers qualifying firms a six-month money-back guarantee.
What is not published is the price: no rate, tier or per-seat figure, with every route ending at a demo. Verified 20 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.
Who it is for is set out from three directions: plaintiff litigation teams originating class actions and mass torts, AmLaw partners and their business development leaders turning origination into a firm-wide process, and defence firms warning clients of litigation coming at them. The subject matter shown is complex litigation, antitrust, securities, consumer data privacy and mass torts, and the named customers span solo and boutique plaintiff practices through to global firms.
The limits are not drawn: nothing states which jurisdictions the signals cover, which practice areas the forecasts do not reach, or how far outside the United States the service works, and the country-specific subscription clause in the terms hints at boundaries the product pages never state. Verified 20 September 2026.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for Rain Intelligence, 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.
-
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour, Bar Guidance Alignment, Client Data in Training
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
rainintelligence.com/privacy-policy2 signals
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
rainintelligence.com1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
rainintelligence.com/predict1 signal
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 20, 2026
No published figure
- Rain sells a subscription. You do not see a price on the website.
- Each subscription belongs to one named person at the firm and cannot be shared.
- The actual rates sit on an order form you get from the sales team.
- You can cancel any time and keep access until the billing period ends, or pause for up to three months.
- A full refund is available in the first 30 days, and qualifying firms are offered a six-month money-back guarantee.
Per-user subscriptions issued to named authorised users, priced on a services order form, with a transactional pricing plan offered as an alternative. Subscriptions are country-specific. Cancellation takes effect at the end of the billing cycle, a pause of up to three months without billing is available, a full refund can be requested within 30 days of the initial purchase and pro-rata refunds afterwards at the vendor's discretion, and qualifying firms are offered a six-month money-back guarantee. No rate, tier or per-seat figure is published anywhere on the estate.
Note: Read from the subscription Terms & Conditions (effective 1 October 2023, sections 1.1, 2.1 and 5.2) and the fulfilment policy on the same page, plus the guarantee offer on the homepage and Predict page, on 20 September 2026. No figure appears on any page of the estate.
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.
The subscription terms of 1 October 2023 are silent on the question. They govern what a subscriber may do with Rain's materials, reserve the right to change the services, and assign feedback to Rain; no right to use a firm's own data, such as its client list or matter history, to train or improve the models is granted, and no policy page states a position either way. A firm that wants a commitment would have to negotiate one.
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.
Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the about page, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. No retention period is published for the client and matter data a firm provides or for the reports and alerts Rain generates; the terms limit how long a subscriber may store downloaded materials, which is the opposite direction, and the privacy policy's retention section covers website visitors.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Checked the same pages on 20 September 2026. Subscriptions are issued to named authorised users who may not share them, which is licensing rather than segregation. Nothing addresses separation between subscribing firms, which matters because firms competing for the same case buy the same service, or between teams inside a firm where a conflict would bar one group from a matter.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
The privacy policy of 4 March 2024 says Rain may disclose information to government or law enforcement officials as it believes necessary to respond to claims and legal process including subpoenas, and makes no commitment to notify anyone. It covers website visitors rather than subscriber data, and the subscription terms do not address legal process at all.
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 sources are described by class rather than by name: court dockets, plaintiff firm advertising, SEC and corporate filings, regulatory actions, consumer complaints, pricing patterns, news and social signals, said to number more than 200. The subscription terms confirm that third-party suppliers of materials exist and that Rain obtains materials under licences, without identifying either, and no update cadence or coverage date range is published.
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.
Checked the homepage, the Predict page and the subscription terms on 20 September 2026. The materials include court documents and agency issuances, but the product reports on emerging and filed litigation rather than citing authority for a legal proposition, and nothing addresses whether any authority surfaced is still good law.
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 describes the product declining to forecast, and no confidence score accompanies a prediction or an attorney match beyond the percentage shown in the marketing illustration. The published position is in section 2.6 of the terms: AI systems may not always be accurate or error-free, and authorised users are responsible for verifying and cross-referencing the information provided.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 20 September 2026 on the name Rain Intelligence. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product, which produces business intelligence rather than filed work.
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.
Section 7.11 of the subscription terms requires an attorney subscriber to use the service in compliance with all court rules, disclosure rules and rules of professional and ethical conduct applicable where they practise, alongside a statement that the service is not legal advice and creates no attorney-client relationship. That engages a lawyer's professional duties in general terms; no bar ethics opinion, professional conduct rule or bar guidance on AI or on client solicitation is named anywhere on the estate.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The product works before an engagement exists: it identifies litigation that has not been filed and the client a firm might act for, so no client is being billed for the work it does. The claims made are about the buyer's own revenue, including 200 million dollars in attorney fees generated and a six-month money-back guarantee tied to return on investment, and nothing addresses how a subscription cost reaches a client's bill.
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.
The privacy policy names the subprocessors behind the website and service delivery: AWS and Airtable for hosting and HubSpot for analytics. No AI or model provider is named, and no client-facing disclosure material was located, so a firm asked by a client what technology sees its matter data would have only the hosting list to hand.
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.
Checked the homepage, the Predict page, the subscription terms and the privacy policy on 20 September 2026. The product generates business development intelligence rather than filed work product, and nothing records which model produced a forecast, what it was based on or who reviewed it, so no disclosure record is available if a court asks about AI use.