S

SmartDepo

The models are what the buyer pays for. The product is an AI deposition summary produced in minutes from a transcript, which the vendor says rests on patent pending technology. The newer platform layer is entirely model work: chat across every deposition in a case, a contradiction finder, theme extraction and automated memos. Human quality review sits on top of model output as a check, not as the production method. Remove the models and what remains is the manual page and line summarizing the product exists to replace.

Grounding is real and documented. Summaries carry hyperlinked page and line citations to the source testimony, the vendor publishes a comparison of its precise citations against competitors' broad topic ranges, and every summary is said to be reviewed by legal professionals before delivery. Those are design and process controls, not a claim alone. Against them sits a conflict between marketing and agreement, and the agreement governs.

The site advertises 100 percent guaranteed accurate page line citations and patent pending technology that can guarantee 100 percent accuracy. The governing terms at the same domain say the Services may contain errors, disclaim any warranty on the quality, accuracy, currency or completeness of the platform or its results, and make the customer solely responsible for checking work product before acting on it. A guarantee the agreement disclaims is not a measured accuracy figure, and no test set is described.

The failure modes the agreement names are audio quality, background noise, cross talk and speaker accent, which belong to transcription rather than summarizing.

A real review step is committed, and the controls around it are not published. The vendor says legal professionals review every summary before it reaches the customer and lists humans in the loop as one of three trust pillars, a documented gate on every output. Section 6 of the governing terms adds a second check by making the customer solely responsible for verifying accuracy and completeness before acting. Nothing around those two points is published.

There is no threshold at which the system defers, no description of what reviewers check or against what standard, no stated reviewer qualification, and nothing on what happens when an error reaches a filed brief.

Real deployment evidence with substance, short of measurement. Eleven customer firms appear as logos, including Mueller Law, Mann and Potter, Explico, Windsor Troy Law, the Hernandez Legal Group, Rencher Law Group, Amini and Conant, Struble Cohen Trial Lawyers, Broussard Knoll and Conforto Law Group. Four testimonials carry names tied to firms: Wolfgang Mueller of Mueller Law, Delaney J. Miller of Windsor Troy Law, Matthew Struble of Struble Cohen, board certified in civil trial and appeals, and a reviewer at Conant.

The quotes include operational detail, such as about 30 minutes to process a transcript and only minimal changes needed on review. No time or cost saving is tied to a named firm, nothing is dated, and a customers page was not opened and may say more.

Confidentiality is covered in general commercial terms, and nothing addresses client confidences as such. Section 9 of the governing agreement is a conventional mutual confidentiality clause: customer content is the customer's confidential information, the recipient must use reasonable care, and disclosure is limited to staff and subcontractors under equal obligations. That can be read in advance. Privilege and work product are never mentioned, on a product whose entire input is deposition testimony.

Nothing addresses separation between customers or matters. No retention period is stated; section 2.2 instead reserves to the vendor the right to set how long it keeps customer content. Section 4.2 permits training rather than barring it. Section 2.3 bars submitting protected health information or sensitive personal data unless an Order expressly allows it, a live constraint for medical malpractice and personal injury depositions.

Nothing published addresses the advice line, and this rests on a document read in full. The governing terms of service, retrieved, contain no statement that output is not legal advice, no competence or supervision language, no reference to any rule of professional conduct, and no jurisdiction limit. Section 6 requires the customer to verify accuracy before acting, framed as an accuracy precaution rather than a professional one.

The marketing says the product was built by attorneys for attorneys and founded by a practicing civil rights attorney. Its output is meant to be copied into motions and briefs and submitted to courts, which raises the professional responsibility question rather than answering it. The site's claim that legal professionals review every summary is a quality control statement, not a position on advice.

No governance position is published for a system whose output is copied into court filings. There is no responsible AI statement, no governance framework, no named owner, no description of pre-release testing, no evaluation results and nothing whatever on bias. The nearest published material is section 4.2 of the agreement, which describes where the models sit and who may see them, stating that Rev's speech recognition and other AI models are proprietary, maintained locally and not shared with any third party; that is a data handling statement rather than a governance regime.

The governing agreement covers the product without addressing what happens to transcripts after processing. Retention is acknowledged and then left open: section 2.2 reserves to the vendor the right to establish general practices and limits including the maximum period it will retain customer content, and no period is published anywhere. No deletion commitment is stated. Security is addressed only at the level of section 9.3, which promises measures in accordance with industry standards and applicable law, with no controls named.

No incident or breach notification practice is published. Subcontractors are acknowledged in section 1.3, including individual freelancers who perform human-based services, with none named. A data processing addendum and a business associate agreement are incorporated by reference at the parent's domain and were not opened. Section 2.3 places the backup obligation on the customer and excludes vendor liability for loss of data.

A real published position, carried mostly by an insurance clause. Section 10 commits the vendor to keep insurance at stated minimums for the term: commercial general liability of one million dollars per occurrence and professional errors and omissions cover for the Service, including network security and data protection liability, of at least two million dollars per claim and four million in aggregate. The rest is thin.

The indemnity in section 7 runs only from customer to vendor, with nothing to the customer, including for third party infringement. Section 8 caps liability at fees paid in the previous twelve months for the services behind the claim. Section 6 disclaims all warranties, including accuracy. It carves out a warranty said to be at section 6.2, but no such subsection appears in the published document, so the one promised warranty cannot be read. No insurance certificate or carrier is named.

No integration into practice systems is published. No document management system, case management platform, transcript repository, word processor or electronic signature product is named on the pages read, and there is no integrations page or developer documentation in the navigation or footer. The only connectivity evidence is indirect: section 1.2 of the agreement mentions APIs made available to use the services without saying what they connect to.

The workflow described is manual: upload a transcript, receive documents, copy and paste citations into briefs. A Court Reporting Solutions page in the Products menu was not opened and may say more.

Nothing is published about where the software runs or where transcripts sit. No region, country, hosting provider or data center is named on any surface, and no tenancy model is described: nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant or how one customer's transcripts are separated from another's. The agreement is silent on both, referring only to Rev's servers in the context of storage allocation limits at section 2.2. There are no deployment options, no private or dedicated tier, and no residency commitment of any kind.

No independent security attestation is published. No SOC 2, ISO, HIPAA certification or any other framework is claimed anywhere on the site, there is no trust center or security page, no auditor is named, and no report is offered at any access tier. The site carries no security badges at all, so there is nothing unsupported on display either, which is why this sits at the floor rather than in the badges-without-scope band.

The agreement offers only section 9.3, promising security measures in accordance with industry standards and applicable law without naming a standard. A published customer testimonial refers to extensive discussion with the team on security before purchase, which indicates that security assurance here is a sales conversation rather than a published artifact.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, in two fragments on different pages. The home page carries an icon labeled OpenAI Zero Data Retention among its three trust pillars. It names a third party model provider and the retention terms agreed with it, though no text explains the scope or which features it covers. Section 4.2 of the agreement describes the other half: the vendor's own speech recognition and generative models, stated to be proprietary, kept locally and not shared with any third party.

So both a named external provider and proprietary internal models are in use. No specific model or version is named, no location is given, no subprocessor or model provider list is published, and no commitment to notify customers of model or provider changes is published.

A buyer can price the product completely without speaking to anyone. Two purchase routes are published side by side. The platform subscription is 99 dollars per user per month and reduces summaries to a flat 25 dollars each at any volume, with the included capabilities itemized as AI deposition chat, automated memos, contradiction finder, and theme extraction and clips. Standalone summaries are published as a volume table with five bands: 85 dollars for one to nine, 75 for ten to nineteen, 65 for twenty to thirty, 55 for thirty-one to forty, and 50 for forty-one and above.

An interactive estimator on the page computes a monthly total against the pay-per-summary alternative and shows the saving. A seven-day free trial is offered with no credit card required and cancellation at any time, and signup is self-serve. The unit is unambiguous throughout, being one summary per deposition transcript. What is not published is any figure for implementation, since none is required.

Coverage is asserted at the level of a whole profession without practice detail or boundaries. The buyer is described as attorneys and litigators generally, with the marketing framed as built by attorneys for attorneys, and a second segment is addressed through a Court Reporting Solutions page for court reporting agencies, which was not opened. No practice area is named anywhere as supported: the named customer firms span trial and personal injury practices but the vendor itself claims no area of specialization, no matter type and no transcript type.

Firm size is not addressed, in-house and government use are not mentioned, and nothing states where the product stops. The product is narrow by nature, covering deposition transcripts only, but that scope is implied by the offering rather than stated as a limit.