Ruli is an AI legal platform from Ruli, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for in house legal teams. Its Assistant answers research questions across US, EU and UK laws and regulations and the team's own playbooks, policies and precedents, with citations, and drafts memos. A Word and Google Docs extension reviews contracts against playbooks, flags risks and deviations with a pass, partial or fail status, and applies preferred or fallback language as tracked changes.
Tabular Review extracts clauses and risks across hundreds of contracts for due diligence, and Monitor tracks legal and regulatory change against the company's risk profile. The platform runs on Amazon Web Services in the United States, and OpenAI is among its listed subprocessors for AI models. Named customers include Sequoia, MasterClass and Newsweek. Pricing is not published.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Ruli 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.
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.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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 are the product. Research answers, memo drafting, playbook generation, redlining clause by clause, issue spotting, extraction across hundreds of contracts and regulatory monitoring filtered to the company's risk profile are all model work. Without them, what remains is storage for playbooks and documents.
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.
Answers cite their sources, and the limits are stated. The Assistant page says every research result includes citations so users can verify accuracy, with primary source citations across the covered law and the team's own knowledge base, and the Word extension's Assistant answers with citations too. The Platform Terms warn that outputs may be incomplete, inaccurate or outdated and may not reflect the most current law. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published.
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 placed on the user in writing, with real surfaces to do it. The Platform Terms make the user solely responsible for reviewing outputs and require independent judgment; in Word and Google Docs, playbook edits arrive as tracked changes to accept or reject, and every flagged issue carries a pass, partial or fail status so the reviewer can prioritize. No threshold, categorical limit on use without review, or account of what happens after a wrong output is published.
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.
Named customers stand behind the stories, and the results are testimony rather than measurement. The customers page carries stories from eight companies, among them Sequoia, MasterClass and Newsweek, with named legal leaders quoted. The figures are reported by the customers themselves: a general counsel's estimate of 25 to 30 hours saved a month, and a claim that MasterClass's lean team now covers twice the function.
A third, that 75 percent of Sequoia's reviewed contracts will run through the redlining tool, is a goal rather than a result. The stories carry no dates and no method.
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 published agreement carries real commitments. Training on customer data is off by default, customers keep ownership of their data, and the confidentiality clause allows disclosure required by law only with notice where the law permits. The home page promises strict isolation of each customer's data, and the Privacy Notice, last updated 12 August 2026, describes Ruli as the processor of enterprise workspace content. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, or separation between matters within a customer.
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 disclaimer scoped to the product comes with a review duty. The Platform Terms state that the services and outputs are for general guidance and workflow assistance, do not constitute legal advice or professional counsel, and create no attorney client or fiduciary relationship. They require users to review outputs and use independent judgment. The terms also admit individual consumer accounts, including users aged 13 to 17 with a parent's consent, without saying how legal output should be treated by people who are not lawyers. No ethics obligations or jurisdiction limits are named.
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 AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias finding is published. The Platform Terms warn that AI systems may produce unpredictable or biased results, a disclaimer rather than a governance position.
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.
Deletion, access and hosting are published in reviewable form, while incident practice is thin. Deleted data is removed within set periods under the Platform Terms. The Security Policy describes encryption at rest and in transit, access on a least privilege basis with quarterly access reviews, single sign on and two factor authentication where available, and a subprocessor table with locations. Incident handling is a single statement of a process with escalation, mitigation and communication, with no commitment to notify customers of a breach. The Security Policy was last updated on 13 March 2025.
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.
Liability is handled only by standard clauses that leave the risk of output with the customer. The Platform Terms provide the services and outputs as is, without warranties, cap Ruli's total liability at the greater of $100 or the fees paid in the preceding 12 months, and require the customer to indemnify Ruli, with no indemnity running the other way. Disputes go to individual arbitration under Texas law.
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.
Real integrations with some depth described. The extension works inside Microsoft Word, listed on Microsoft Marketplace, and Google Docs, applying playbook edits as tracked changes and generating issues lists in place; the Privacy Notice describes a Google Workspace integration with scoped access to files; and DocuSign appears among the subprocessors. No integration with a document management, matter or contract lifecycle system is named, and no integration documentation is published.
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, in one stated region. The Security Policy says all services are hosted on Amazon Web Services with all databases in the United States, the Privacy Notice says personal information is hosted in the United States, the home page describes each customer's data as kept separate, and the subprocessor table places the AI model provider in the United States. No residency option, private deployment or tenancy choice is offered.
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.
A named attestation without a report route. The home page and Security Policy state that Ruli is SOC 2 Type 2 certified, with independently audited controls for security, availability and confidentiality. No auditor, report period or scope is given, no trust center is published, and no way to obtain the report is described.
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 provider is named. The Security Policy's subprocessor table lists OpenAI for AI models through the OpenAI API platform, located in the United States, alongside Microsoft Azure. The specific models and versions are not named, and no commitment to notify customers when the models change is published.
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 price, tier or unit of charge is published. The terms mention monthly and annual plans and trials in general terms, and the Microsoft Marketplace listing says a paid subscription is required and points to a demo.
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 buyer and the work are clear: in house legal teams, from fast growing technology companies to the Fortune 500, handling regulatory research, employment and privacy questions, contract review and redlining, due diligence and regulatory monitoring. The Microsoft Marketplace listing also names law firms and individual legal professionals, and the terms allow consumer accounts, without saying how the product differs for them. What it does not cover is not stated.
The public pages on file for Ruli, 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, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 1 more
Read Sep 22, 2026
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 22, 2026
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 22, 2026
Ruli published its results from the 2026 Legal Benchmarks evaluation, a test designed by lawyers that uses real in house contract and extraction tasks. It reports an overall score of 72.0 against a legal AI average of 63.7, a full task pass rate of 31.1% against 24.7%, and 41.7% of data extraction tasks fully correct against 31.3%.
A 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.
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Training occurs only where the customer has affirmatively enabled it.
The Platform Terms of Service, last modified 2 February 2026, exclude customer data from training by default. If a customer opts in through an express mechanism, Ruli may train on deidentified data only. The customer can opt out at any time, though training already done cannot be reversed, and customer data is never shared with third party AI providers for training. Ruli may also use deidentified, aggregated analytics to improve the service.
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.
Users can delete content or their account, after which the Platform Terms say most data is deleted within 30 days and backups are typically removed within 90 days, with some information kept for legal compliance, disputes and enforcement. A setting that retains nothing is not described.
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.
Each customer's data is described as kept separate from other customers', and nothing addresses walls or permissions between matters or users within a customer. Checked the product pages, the Platform Terms, the Privacy Notice and the Security Policy on 22 September 2026.
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 confidentiality clause of the Platform Terms allows confidential information to be disclosed when required by law only with notice where the law permits. The Privacy Notice adds that information may be disclosed to comply with valid legal process.
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
The research coverage is described by jurisdiction: US, EU and UK federal and state laws and regulations, with trusted sources from the rest of the world cited and primary source citations. No database, publisher or license behind that coverage is named.
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product instructs the reader to check the citation without performing the check.
Results carry citations for the user to verify, and the terms warn that output may not reflect current law. No citator or check on whether cited authority remains good law is described; the Monitor feature tracks regulatory change for the company rather than checking cited authority.
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.
Flagged contract issues carry a status, but no confidence indicator is described, nor any path by which the Assistant declines a question it cannot answer. Checked the home page, the product pages and the Platform Terms on 22 September 2026.
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 22 September 2026 for Ruli; the cases returned matched only on words such as ruling, and none names the product. 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.
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.
The no legal advice statement in the Platform Terms, with its direction to consult qualified professionals as appropriate, is the only professional reference. No bar or ethics opinion is named on any surface read.
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 is built for in house legal teams, whose work bills no client, and its savings claims concern the buyer's own spend, including a customer story on replacing outside counsel for research. Law firms are among the users named on the Marketplace listing, and nothing addresses how a firm would bill or disclose work done with the product.
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 Security Policy publishes a subprocessor table with each provider's service and data center location, from Amazon Web Services for hosting and OpenAI for AI models to Pinecone. No disclosure pack on AI use for clients is published.
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.
No record of AI involvement in a document, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described on the home page, the product pages or the Platform Terms, checked on 22 September 2026.
Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.