S
SimplyConvert
SimplyConvert is an intake, client relationship and case management platform for plaintiff and mass tort firms, founded by a mass tort lawyer, covering first contact through intake, filing and resolution. Its core is the Instant Case Evaluator chatbot, which screens potential cases around the clock against criteria set by lawyers, gives instant legal guidance, and automatically retains qualified clients and rejects unqualified leads.
Around it sit a legal CRM, referral management with tracking of communications and fee agreements, live chat and contact form replacements, call center integration, scripts that guide staff through manual intakes, and email drip campaigns by litigation area. Litigation products include Mass Torts 360, a Camp Lejeune Litigation Platform for intake, data management and administrative filing, and the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier, built with lawyers and trauma specialists and paired with trauma informed client outreach and claim form population.
The vendor claims up to 400 percent more engagement than live chat and an audit finding that up to 75 percent of paid live chat leads were unreachable or had already hired another lawyer. Its Camp Lejeune claim work was featured on NBC News. Pricing is not published. It is not Case IQ (caseiq.com), which is investigations software.
SimplyConvert, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to SimplyConvert
Vendors in the same categories as SimplyConvert 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.
- CCasefloodCaseflood is an AI intake platform, sold with an advisory engagement, for plaintiff and consumer law firms that run their own intake teams.
- LLawmaticsLawmatics is a client relationship management and marketing automation platform built for US law firms, founded in 2017 by a team including practicing attorneys and a cofounder who…
- KKalindaKalinda is an AI intake agent for personal injury law firms from a San Francisco company founded by Sayan and Sohil Bhatia, two former AI researchers, and part of Y Combinator's Summer 2025 batch.
- IIntakerIntaker is a cloud intake and client relationship management platform for law firms, built around website chat that qualifies leads around the clock.
- SSmith.aiSmith.ai is an outsourced front office service combining AI receptionists with a network of live human agents, positioned as AI and people handling every call together.
- LLawDroidLawDroid is an AI legal automation platform for law firms, legal aid organizations, courts and government agencies, operating since 2016.
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.
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.
An intake engine and case management platform driven by rules, with AI framing on top. The Instant Case Evaluator runs on criteria written by lawyers, which is authored logic rather than learned judgment, and the vendor describes its conversations as criteria based. The CRM, referral management, drip marketing, call center integration and litigation filing workflow are all rule based. The vendor does say AI qualifies cases and notifies lawyers, and the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier and the Camp Lejeune claim work featured on NBC News involve real analytical modeling of settlement value and claim evidence. Without the models, a working criteria engine, CRM and litigation platform remain, which is what a firm buys.
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 serious. The Boy Scout TDP Quantifier is stated to capture the detail of a survivor's account and apply it to maximize 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 are published for either. The vendor states criteria based conversations deliver instant legal guidance, and nothing describes how the guidance is bounded or verified.
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 setup is highly autonomous, stated plainly and bounded nowhere. The vendor says the platform automatically retains qualified clients and automatically rejects unqualified leads. Automatic rejection turns a person away with no human in the path. Automatic retention matters just as much, since retaining a client creates a relationship with professional duties from that moment. Nothing describes a threshold, escalation path, human review of rejections, appeal, or what a rejected person is told.
Lawyers write the criteria in advance, and staff doing manual intakes get real time guidance rather than being replaced, but writing the rules is not oversight of an individual decision.
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 vendor's AI work substantiating Camp Lejeune claims was featured on NBC News, which can be checked independently. The deployments are tied to the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Litigation and the Boy Scouts of America trust distribution procedure, both real proceedings with public dockets. Published figures: up to 400 percent more engagement than live chat, and an audit finding that up to 75 percent of paid live chat leads were unreachable or had already hired other counsel.
No law firm customer is named, no case study with a method exists, and both figures carry up to qualifiers with no sample, baseline or period, the engagement claim being the weaker.
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 was found, on a platform holding extremely sensitive intake content. The Boy Scout TDP Quantifier is said to capture every detail of every survivor's story, paired with a Trauma-Informed Client Outreach service, so the platform takes in detailed accounts of childhood sexual abuse 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 describes how survivors are approached, not how their data is protected.
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.
Not located, and the vendor's own language states the exposure directly. 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. Guidance and retention are both automated in the same flow.
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.
Nothing published, and no fairness evaluation exists for a product that assesses prospective clients. 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 is published 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 data stewardship position was found. Nothing says 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 says it securely maintains data for real time analysis, which names no mechanism and describes a use of the data rather than a limit.
The content is highly sensitive: accounts of childhood sexual abuse, military service and health histories, and claim documents for administrative filing.
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 is sharp because the system makes final 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.
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 cites call center integration and replacement of live chat and contact forms, which describe how the platform connects to or replaces intake channels, and the product is itself a CRM and case management system through to filing, so less handoff is needed than for a point solution. No case management system is named: no Filevine, Litify, SmartAdvocate or CASEpeer connector, though those are what mass tort firms run, and no API or export documentation was found. A firm with an existing case management system cannot tell whether SimplyConvert connects to it or replaces it.
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.
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 center or security page was found: no SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA statement, business associate agreement, named auditor, penetration testing partner or encryption statement. The only security language is that the platform securely maintains data for real time analysis, which names no standard and cannot be checked. The missing HIPAA statement stands out because the Camp Lejeune platform handles health and service records for a claims process.
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 center 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.
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: no price, range, tier or unit of charge, and nothing on whether the platform is priced per firm, seat, qualified lead, litigation or claim, which are very different models for a product spanning a chatbot, CRM, referral management and filing platforms. No independent estimate was found. The vendor's own case against live chat is about cost, that firms could not quantify it and up to 75 percent of paid leads were wasted, yet it discloses no cost of its own, so a buyer cannot make the comparison it invites.
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 stated at the level of named litigations, not just practice areas. The focus is personal injury and mass tort, with the platform built by a mass tort lawyer and Mass Torts 360 as a dedicated product. It ships a Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Litigation platform covering intake, data management and administrative filing for that proceeding, and a Boy Scout trust distribution procedure quantifier built for that settlement's claim structure.
A firm can check those against its own docket. No jurisdiction or firm size is stated, and nothing says how quickly new litigations are supported or how many are covered beyond the two named.
1 public document
The public pages on file for SimplyConvert, 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.
-
simplyconvert.com1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Aug 29, 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 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.
Silent. The quoted phrase is the vendor's fullest data statement, and it commits to security while describing an analytical use of the data rather than a limit on it. Nothing either way was found on whether intake conversations, survivor accounts, health and service records, claim form data or qualification outcomes train or improve models. The content is highly sensitive: the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier is said to capture every detail of every survivor's story, and the Camp Lejeune platform holds health and military service history.
The people supplying it are claimants at first contact, not customers, and cannot consent, object or ask. Checked the home page, platform solutions page, product pages and site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
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.
Not addressed. No retention period is published for intake conversations, survivor accounts, claim documents or qualification outcomes, and no deletion right is described. Because the platform does administrative filing and keeps data through to resolution, records persist for the life of a litigation and beyond. Nothing says what happens to the record of a person who was automatically rejected and never became a client, a large group on a platform that rejects outright. Checked the home page, platform solutions page, Instant Case Evaluator page and site navigation on 29 Aug 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.
Not addressed, and referrals add a further question. No permission model, access limit or segregation description was found. Beyond prospective client conflicts, the platform includes referral management: firms keep the cases they want and refer out others, tracking communications and fee agreements across parties. A potential client's intake information therefore moves between law firms through the vendor's system, and nothing describes what is shared, what consent supports it, or how the referring firm's data is separated from the receiving firm's. In mass tort, where firms work as cocounsel and refer at volume, that is the key segregation question. Checked the platform solutions page, home page and product pages on 29 Aug 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.
Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The material held includes accounts of childhood sexual abuse given for trust distribution claims and health and military service records for a federal claims process, and the Camp Lejeune platform performs administrative filing, which puts the vendor in an operational relationship with a government claims regime while holding the underlying claimant records.
Nothing published addresses requests from any direction. Checked the home page, the platform solutions page, the Camp Lejeune material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Not addressed, and inapplicable in the usual sense with a live residue. The platform has no primary law corpus: qualification runs on lawyer created case criteria, so the substantive content is customer authored. The residue is what the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier was built on. Assigning settlement value under a trust distribution procedure requires a model of how that procedure values claim characteristics, and nothing published states whether it encodes the published TDP matrix directly, was fitted on prior determinations, or draws on claimant data processed through the platform.
The vendor states the tool was developed with lawyers and sex abuse trauma specialists, which describes who advised on its construction and not what it was built from. Checked the platform solutions page, the product pages and the home page on 29 Aug 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.
Not addressed, and inapplicable on the facts. SimplyConvert performs intake, qualification, CRM, referral management and administrative filing, and produces no legal research or citation to authority, so there is nothing for a citator to check. This is a fact about scope, not a disclosure failure. Checked the platform solutions page and the home page on 29 Aug 2026.
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.
Not addressed, and here the gap is serious. The system automatically rejects unqualified leads, so an uncertain case is declined rather than flagged. Nothing says whether a borderline evaluation goes to a person instead, whether incomplete answers count as unqualified, or what a rejected person is told and whether they are directed elsewhere. In mass tort litigation with filing deadlines and trust distributions with claim windows, a wrongly rejected claimant may not get another chance.
The vendor says the chatbot gives instant legal guidance, and nothing describes what it does when a question falls outside its criteria. Checked the Instant Case Evaluator page, platform solutions page and home page on 29 Aug 2026.
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.
None located. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction and complaint terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026; no docket database, court record tracker or state consumer protection register was searched. This records what the search found and is not a clearance. The product generates no legal authority, so the comparable risks are a wrongly rejected claimant, a contested quantifier valuation in a trust distribution, or a Camp Lejeune filing error, the first two of which would appear in the dockets of the litigations this vendor serves, making a targeted docket search worthwhile later.
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.
Not addressed, though three parts of the product engage professional rules. Automated drip marketing to people who have not signed falls under advertising and solicitation rules. Referral management with fee agreement tracking engages fee sharing and referral fee rules, which are prescriptive and vary by jurisdiction. Automatic retention forms an attorney client relationship by machine, which engages the rules on when representation begins.
No ethics opinion, ABA Formal Opinion 512 or state bar guidance is cited or engaged. Checked the home page, platform solutions page, product pages and site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
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, and its savings claim is about wasted spend rather than time saved. The vendor says firms auditing their live chat spend found up to 75 percent of paid leads were unreachable or had already hired another lawyer, and that its engagement runs up to 400 percent higher, with no sample, period or source given. Nothing addresses the client side: whether automated intake or retention is disclosed to the potential client as machine driven, or any record of which part of an intake or claim valuation the machine produced, which matters when a quantifier result shapes what a survivor is told their claim is worth.
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.
Not addressed. No trust center, security page, named certification, subprocessor list, named model provider, data processing agreement or document request route was found, so a firm has nothing to forward. A firm asked by a claimant, cocounsel or a court how survivor accounts and health records are protected could offer only the vendor's own statement that it securely maintains data. Checked the home page, platform solutions page, product pages and site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Part of a record exists, and this product's output reaches formal proceedings. The Camp Lejeune platform does administrative filing and the Boy Scout TDP Quantifier fills in claim forms under a trust distribution procedure, so documents go into claims processes with adjudicators on the other side. Real time reporting and tracked communications and fee agreements give a process record. Nothing shows that a filed claim identifies machine generated content or which model produced a valuation, and no record shows a lawyer reviewed a quantifier result before it went into a claim form. A claims administrator asking how a valuation was derived would find no evidence either way.