R
Rescript
Rescript is a Washington, DC company, founded in 2023, that sells AI for legal and public policy work. Its platform researches, tracks and organizes laws and policy across federal, state and local jurisdictions. It answers natural language questions with citations, monitors legislation, proposed regulations, hearings and comment windows by client or issue, and produces 50 state surveys, memos and reports. It transcribes hearings as they happen and turns them into memos with speaker identification.
It flags relevant changes among thousands of new bills and rules, with redlines between versions, and groups public comments on proposed rules by theme and stakeholder position. The vendor says it tracks more than 50,000 bills across all 50 states and lists AmLaw 100 law firms, Bloomberg Government, top 10 lobbying firms and Fortune 100 companies among its users. Its Terms of Use state that some outputs are written with GPT-4 from OpenAI.
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 AI is the product. Rescript is sold as an AI system that researches law and policy, transcribes hearings as they happen and writes the memo afterward. It also filters thousands of new bills and rules for what matters to a client, groups public comments by theme and position, and builds 50 state surveys. The feeds of bills, rules and hearing recordings underneath are public. What the buyer pays for is the analysis the models do on them.
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.
Grounding is claimed and accuracy is not measured. The vendor says every memo, survey and answer stays connected to the evidence behind it, and shows answers carrying statutory citations, such as a California breach notice survey citing Civil Code section 1798.82. It does not describe how sources are retrieved or checked, and publishes no accuracy figure or evaluation. Its own Terms of Use warn that outputs may contain hallucinations and may be inaccurate. No measured error rate exists for the 50 state surveys and hearing memos that go to clients.
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.
Review is left to the customer rather than built into a described control. The Terms of Use make the customer solely responsible for evaluating outputs, including by human review as appropriate, and the company page says its workflows are designed so teams can trace answers back to their sources. The product flags relevant bills for a person to track or dismiss. What is not described is any threshold, confidence signal or checkpoint in work the agents run on their own, such as a 50 state survey the product reports building over twenty minutes.
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.
Figures are published without named customers. The vendor reports that two lobbying firm customers doubled the speed of their hearing coverage in their first year and expanded legislative coverage by 40 percent. It also claims more than 1,500 hours saved per customer each year and responses to regulatory change three times faster. The testimonials come from a policy director at a top 30 lobbying firm and a partner at a top 10 lobbying firm, neither named.
The logo row names Bloomberg Government alongside unnamed AmLaw 100 firms and Fortune 100 companies. No method is given for any figure, and no law firm customer is named.
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.
A contractual confidentiality promise sits beside a contractual right to train. The Terms of Use treat the customer's inputs and outputs as the customer's confidential information for the subscription and five years after. The same terms license that content to Rescript for training and improving the service, and allow hosting and subcontractors anywhere in the world. Nothing addresses what OpenAI may keep, privilege or work product, retention of client material, or separation between customers, for a product law firms use on client matters.
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.
A boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the product answers legal questions for users who are often not lawyers. The Terms of Use say that any legal advice provided through the service is for informational purposes only, should not be construed as professional advice, and should not be acted on without independent advice. The product itself researches the law, writes statutory surveys and memos, and is sold to lobbying firms, policy teams, trade associations and compliance managers as well as law firms.
Nothing addresses who should review a survey before it reaches a client or how the product supports a supervising lawyer.
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.
Working principles are published without a mechanism. The company page says Rescript invests in building and maintaining data sources teams can review, designs its workflows so answers can be traced to sources, and builds alongside the lawyers, policy professionals, lobbyists and compliance managers who use it. Nothing names who is accountable for the AI's output, what is tested before a release, or how errors or uneven coverage across jurisdictions are found.
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.
A generic privacy policy covers the product without saying what happens to client material. The Privacy Policy, last updated August 2025, addresses account, payment, usage and support information, and describes security measures that may include access controls, encryption and intrusion detection. It does not address the documents, style guides, prompts and reports customers put into the service. It names subprocessors only by category, such as hosting and cloud providers, and states no incident practice.
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.
A real position is published in the agreement, and it stops short of the output. The Terms of Use cap Rescript's total liability at the fees paid in the 12 months before the claim, except for fraud and willful misconduct, and exclude indirect damages except for breach of confidentiality, fraud or willful misconduct. Rescript defends the customer against third party claims that the software infringes intellectual property, and warrants reasonable skill and care and professional, workmanlike services.
For the AI's output it disclaims all liability and puts responsibility on the customer, including for reports shared with third parties, and the customer indemnifies Rescript for claims arising from its inputs or its use of any output.
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.
No integration into practice systems is published. Users add files to the platform, set alerts by client or issue, and share surveys, memos and reports with stakeholders, but no document management, email, calendar, matter management or API connection is named anywhere on the site or in the terms.
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.
Location is not committed anywhere. No tenancy model, hosting provider or region is stated, and the Terms of Use reserve the right to provide the service from host locations and through subcontractors worldwide. Nothing is published for a law firm or company with residency obligations to rely on.
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 is published. The site names no SOC 2 report, ISO certification or penetration test, and there is no security page or trust center; the Privacy Policy describes security measures only in general terms.
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 model and provider are named in the agreement, with no commitment to notice of change. The Terms of Use name GPT-4, OpenAI's language model, in an attribution condition attached to certain AI services Rescript uses, which identifies what sits underneath for at least part of the product. The terms do not say which other models are used, if any, where they run, or that customers will be told when the model changes.
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 is published at any level. Purchases run through a purchase order, the terms say renewal prices are subject to change, and the route to a price is a demo request.
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.
Coverage is described with substance, and its boundaries are mostly left open. The site covers legislation, regulations, hearings, public comments and statutes across all 50 states and federal policy, with more than 50,000 bills tracked, and the Terms of Use date the congressional hearing archive from January 1, 2023. The buyers named are law firms, companies, lobbying and public affairs teams, and trade associations.
What is not stated is how deep local coverage goes, which state hearings are transcribed, or which practice areas the research is built for.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Rescript, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Primary Law Corpus Provenance and 2 more
Read Sep 27, 2026
-
rescript.ai4 signals
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Good Law Verification, Bar Guidance Alignment and 1 more
Read Sep 27, 2026
-
Prompt and Output Retention, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 27, 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?
The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content. The Terms of Use, last updated December 27, 2025, grant Rescript an irrevocable, perpetual, transferable and sublicensable license over the customer's inputs and outputs, solely for its internal business purposes, which include providing the service and training and improving it. No way to opt out was located as of 27 September 2026. The same terms treat that content as the customer's confidential information, and summaries of public hearings are not the customer's content and may be generated for other customers.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is acknowledged without a period. The Privacy Policy says personal information is kept as long as necessary for its purposes or as the law requires, and then deleted or anonymized. Nothing states how long customer inputs, prompts or reports are kept, and the perpetual license in the Terms of Use carries no retention limit. Checked 27 September 2026.
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.
No published material addresses access control between users, clients or matters inside a customer's account. Alerts can be set by client or issue, but nothing says who in a firm can see which client's watchlists, memos or files. Checked the site and Terms of Use on 27 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?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The agreement commits to notice. The Terms of Use let either party disclose the other's confidential information where required by law or court order, provided it uses reasonable efforts to notify the other party promptly beforehand so it can seek a protective order, and they deem the customer's inputs and outputs its confidential information. No transparency report is published. The Privacy Policy points the other way for personal information, allowing disclosure for legal requirements without further notice unless the law requires it, so notice for account data is weaker than for content. Checked 27 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 license or rights basis.
Sources are identified by type, and the rights basis is stated for part of them. The site names statutes, regulations, executive orders, legislation, proposed regulations, public comments, hearings and the web as sources, and the Terms of Use say retrieved hearing recordings and government materials are in the public domain, with congressional hearings covered from January 1, 2023. No provider is named for any source, the web material has no rights basis stated, and no update schedule is given. Checked 27 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.
As of 27 September 2026, no published material addresses whether statutes or cases cited in surveys and memos are checked for later amendment or treatment. The product tracks bills and redlines one version against the next, which is change tracking for pending legislation rather than a check on the authority an answer cites.
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.
As of 27 September 2026, nothing describes what the product does when it cannot find support for an answer. The hallucination warning in the terms acknowledges the risk without describing any refusal or uncertainty signal.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated citations produced by Rescript was located as of 27 September 2026.
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 published material engages with bar or ethics guidance on AI use, in general terms or by name, although law firms are among the named buyers. Checked the site, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on 27 September 2026.
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.
Time savings are claimed and billing is not addressed. The hours saved figure and the faster hearing coverage come from a customer base that includes law firms and lobbying firms billing clients for that work, and one testimonial speaks of increasing the content sent to clients. As of 27 September 2026, nothing published addresses how AI assisted work should be billed or disclosed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor or model provider list is published. The Terms of Use name GPT-4 from OpenAI only in an attribution requirement and reserve worldwide hosting and subcontracting, and the Privacy Policy lists service providers by category. Nothing beyond that is available without asking the vendor. Checked 27 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The vendor publishes disclosure guidance or a template without product support for producing the record.
The vendor supplies disclosure wording and no record behind it. The Terms of Use require customers to include in reports a statement that the organization wrote the text with the assistance of GPT-4, reviewed, edited and revised it, and takes ultimate responsibility for it. That is a ready disclosure template. Nothing in the product, as described on 27 September 2026, records which parts of a report the AI produced, which sources it used or who verified it.