SimplyConvert

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.

A criteria based intake engine and case management platform where the automation is rule driven and the AI framing sits on top of it. The Instant Case Evaluator runs on lawyer created case criteria, which is authored qualification logic rather than learned judgement, and the vendor's own description of what makes it work is criteria based conversations rather than adaptive ones. The wider platform is CRM, referral management, drip marketing, call centre integration and litigation specific filing workflow, all deterministic. The vendor does state that AI qualifies cases and instantly notifies lawyers of qualified potential clients, and the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier and the Camp Lejeune claim substantiation work featured on NBC News involve genuine analytical modelling of settlement value and claim evidence, so the bar is cleared. Graded C because removing the models leaves a working criteria engine, CRM and litigation platform, which is what a firm buys. Six of seven records in this category now sit at C on this axis, with Perspective AI the sole A.

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.

Nothing published, and one product makes the omission more serious than elsewhere in this category. The Boy Scout TDP Quantifier is stated to capture the detail of a survivor's account and apply it to maximise settlement value under a trust distribution procedure, which is a quantitative valuation of an abuse claim, and the Camp Lejeune platform substantiates claims for an administrative filing regime. Both produce outputs on which a claimant's recovery depends and both are testable in principle. No accuracy figure, no validation methodology, no error rate, no evaluation and no statement of how a quantifier output is checked were located for either. The vendor states criteria based conversations deliver instant legal guidance, and nothing describes how the guidance is bounded or verified. Checked the home page, the Instant Case Evaluator page, the platform solutions page, the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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 most autonomous configuration in this category, stated plainly and bounded nowhere. The vendor states that the platform will auto retain qualified clients and auto reject unqualified leads. Auto rejection is the significant half and no other record in this pull states it: on Gideon and Lawmatics the qualification decision routes or deprioritises, and here the system declines the person outright without a human in the path. Auto retention is equally consequential in the other direction, since retaining a client establishes a relationship with professional obligations attaching from that moment. Nothing published describes a threshold, an escalation path, a human review of rejections, an appeal, or what an auto rejected person is told. The counterweight recorded fairly: criteria are lawyer created, so a human authored the rules in advance, and staff conducting manual intakes receive automated real time guidance rather than being replaced. Rule authorship is not oversight of an individual decision. Lowest autonomy grade in the category.

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.

National broadcast coverage of the product in use, and named litigations rather than named customers. The strongest element is independent and verifiable: the vendor's AI powered work substantiating Camp Lejeune claims was featured on NBC News, which is national journalism covering the product's application to a specific mass litigation and is checkable without the vendor. Named litigation deployments are themselves evidence of a kind no other record in this category offers, being the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Litigation and the Boy Scouts of America trust distribution procedure, both real proceedings with public dockets. Published figures are specific: engagement increased over live chat by up to 400 percent, and an audit finding that as many as 75 percent of paid live chat leads were unreachable or had already retained other counsel. Held at B rather than A because no law firm customer is named, no case study with methodology exists, and both published figures carry up to or as many as qualifiers with no sample, baseline or period, the 400 percent engagement claim being the weaker of the two.

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.

Nothing located, and this record holds the most sensitive intake content in the category. The Boy Scout TDP Quantifier is stated to capture every detail of every survivor's story, paired with a Trauma-Informed Client Outreach service, which means the platform ingests detailed accounts of childhood sexual abuse from claimants at first contact. The Camp Lejeune platform holds health and service history. Nothing published addresses confidentiality, encryption, access control, privilege or work product for any of it. Trauma informed outreach is a service design commitment about how survivors are approached and is not a data protection statement, and the record should not read as though it were. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the product pages, the Instant Case Evaluator page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

Not located, and the vendor's own language states the exposure more directly than any other record in this category. The platform is described as delivering instant legal guidance through criteria based conversations, and separately as auto retaining qualified clients. Providing legal guidance to a member of the public and forming an attorney client relationship are both acts with professional consequences, and the vendor describes its system doing both without a lawyer in the interaction. Nothing published states that the guidance is not legal advice, addresses what the chatbot may say when a potential client asks a substantive question, describes who is responsible for an auto retention decision, or engages any bar authority. Distinguished from LawDroid, which markets guidance as a saleable service; here guidance and retention are both automated in the same flow. Checked the home page, the Instant Case Evaluator page, the platform solutions page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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, and this is the sixth of seven records in the category assessing prospective clients with no fairness evaluation. Two systems here make the untested risk concrete rather than structural. Auto rejection means the qualification model determines which injured people are turned away from a firm entirely, and nothing indicates whether rejection rates have been examined across any population. The Boy Scout TDP Quantifier assigns value to an abuse survivor's account under a trust distribution procedure, so a model is scoring the compensable weight of a person's trauma, and no bias testing, validation methodology, evaluation, model card, governance body, AI policy, ISO 42001 or EU AI Act positioning was located for it or for anything else on the platform. The vendor states the quantifier was developed with sex abuse trauma specialists, which is subject matter expertise in its construction and is not an evaluation of its output.

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.

No stewardship position located. Nothing states whether intake conversations, survivor accounts, health and service records, claim form data or qualification outcomes are used to train or improve models, no retention period is published, and no deletion right is described. The vendor states that it securely maintains data for real time analysis, which is an assurance naming no mechanism and describing an analytical use of the data rather than a limit on it. The content at stake is the most sensitive in this category and among the most sensitive on the index: accounts of childhood sexual abuse, military service and health histories, and claim documentation for administrative filing. Nothing published addresses any of it. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

No published position located on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy, and the exposure here is the sharpest in the category because the system makes terminal decisions. An auto rejected potential client is turned away without a human review, and in mass tort litigation with filing deadlines and trust distribution procedures with claim windows, a wrongly rejected claimant may lose the claim entirely rather than simply going to another firm. Nothing published addresses who carries that. A quantifier output that undervalues a survivor's claim produces a lower settlement with no described correction path. And auto retention creates a client relationship by machine, with no published statement of what happens when it retains someone the firm should not have taken. Checked the home page, the Instant Case Evaluator page, the platform solutions page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

One integration category is named and no system is. The vendor states call centre integration, live chat replacement and contact form replacement, which describe how the platform displaces or connects to intake channels, and the product is itself a CRM and case management system through to filing, so the integration burden is structurally lower than for a point solution that must hand off. That is the same architecture argument credited on Gideon. What is absent is every specific: no case management system is named, no Filevine, Litify, SmartAdvocate or CASEpeer connector, which is notable because those are the platforms mass tort firms run and this vendor is built for mass tort, and no API or export documentation was located. A firm running an existing case management system cannot tell from public material whether SimplyConvert connects to it or replaces it. Checked the platform solutions page, the home page, the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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 located. No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no deployment options are described. The vendor states that it securely maintains data, which addresses neither location nor tenancy. The gap matters here in a specific way: the Camp Lejeune platform performs administrative filing for a federal claims process and holds military service and health records, and nothing states where that material is processed or stored. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the Camp Lejeune material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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 certification, attestation, trust centre or security page was located. No SOC 2 of either type, no ISO 27001, no HIPAA statement, no business associate agreement offer, no named auditor, no penetration testing partner and no encryption statement were found. The only located security language is that the platform securely maintains data for real time analysis, which names no standard and cannot be verified. Under the three tier test the artifact is absent rather than gated. The HIPAA omission is specifically notable: the Camp Lejeune platform handles health and service records for a claims process, which is the same category of material that led every plaintiff category vendor on this index to publish at least one credential, and this vendor publishes none. SEVEN of seven records in legal-intake-and-client-development sit at D on this axis. The category is complete and the pattern is unbroken.

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.

Nothing located. No foundation model provider, model family or version is named, no distinction is drawn between proprietary and third party models, and no subprocessor list was found. The vendor names its development team composition, being lawyers, sex abuse trauma specialists and award winning legal technology developers, which describes who built the products and identifies nothing in the processing chain. Email marketing automation and call centre integration both imply third party service providers and neither is named. For a platform holding survivor accounts and health records, the identity of every processor is a question a firm's own diligence would ask and none can be answered from public material. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

No pricing published at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure and no unit of charge, and no indication of whether the platform prices per firm, per seat, per qualified lead, per litigation or per claim, which for a product spanning a chatbot, a CRM, referral management and litigation specific filing platforms are materially different models. No independent reconstruction was located either. The absence has a category specific edge: the vendor's own published argument against live chat is a cost argument, that firms found the real cost of live chat unquantifiable and that up to 75 percent of paid leads were wasted, and it makes that argument without disclosing its own cost, so a buyer cannot perform the comparison the vendor invites. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the pricing navigation and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

The most specifically characterised coverage in this category, stated at the level of named litigations rather than practice areas. Practice coverage is personal injury and mass tort, with the vendor built by a mass tort lawyer for mass tort lawyers and Mass Torts 360 as a dedicated product line. What distinguishes this record is litigation level specificity: a purpose built Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Litigation platform covering intake, data management and administrative filing customised to that proceeding, and a Boy Scout trust distribution procedure quantifier built for that settlement's claim structure. Naming individual litigations and shipping product configured to their specific claim procedures is a coverage claim a firm can verify directly against its own docket, and no other record in this category or in plaintiff-and-claims does it. Held at B rather than A because no jurisdiction is stated, no firm size is characterised, and nothing indicates how quickly new litigations are supported or how many are covered beyond the two named, which is the question a mass tort firm would ask next.