StrongSuit published StrongSuit for Outlook (version 1.0.0.0) on Microsoft Marketplace, an add in for Outlook on the web, Windows and Mac that drafts a reply to the open email using the documents and email history of the linked StrongSuit matter. Users can connect an Outlook folder to a matter so every reply in that folder starts with that matter's context, then refine the draft in one click or with their own instruction. The listing states the add in never sends email and never changes recipients, subject or attachments.
S
StrongSuit
StrongSuit is a legal AI platform for litigators and transactional lawyers, sold monthly to individual practitioners and on a firm plan to larger teams. Its research module runs agentic retrieval over a proprietary database of more than ten million US federal and state cases, enriched with metadata, summaries and issue tags, and returns answers, memos and early brief drafts with linked citations. A case validation feature launched in November 2025 checks whether cited cases have been overturned or superseded.
Around that sit a general legal assistant, contract drafting and redlining, a Microsoft Word add in for negotiation, discovery document review, a timeline and statement of facts generator in beta, proofreading and an oral argument simulator. StrongSuit says every draft, review and decision stays under the lawyer's control and no model is trained on user content, and that the platform runs in a private Microsoft Azure tenant with data stored only in the United States, using models from OpenAI, Google and Anthropic.
StrongSuit AI, Inc. of McKinney, Texas was called Callidus Legal AI until 12 November 2025. It publishes its terms, privacy policy and pricing openly and names ABA Formal Opinion 512 among the guidance it follows.
StrongSuit, 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 StrongSuit
Vendors in the same categories as StrongSuit 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.
- JJimini AIJimini AI is a legal AI assistant built for continental civil law, sold to French law firms, individual avocats and corporate legal departments.
- SSagaSaga is a legal AI platform from Saga International B.V. in Amsterdam, with Norwegian roots, used by more than 500 legal teams and law firms in over 25 countries.
- NNexLawNexLaw is an AI legal assistant for litigators in the United States from NexLaw Inc., a San Francisco company founded in June 2024 by Francis Lui with Bernie Law as chief operating officer.
- WWordsmithWordsmith is a legal platform built only for in house teams.
- LLucioLucio is a legal AI workspace built by lawyers at Zenlegal Technology Private Limited in Bengaluru, which contracts outside India through Lucio Inc and has users in 13 jurisdictions.
- MMagnarMagnar is a legal AI agent for lawyers in Latin America, built by Magnar SpA in Santiago, Chile.
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.
The AI is the product. Every module StrongSuit sells is generative or agentic: research over the proprietary case database, memo and brief drafting, the assistant, contract drafting and redlining, discovery review, the timeline generator, proofreading and the oral argument simulator. Its home page describes the foundation as frontier models with reasoning grounded in retrieval. The case database is the one asset that would survive without the models, and it is sold only as the data the research agents retrieve from, not as a search product. The company was built around AI from its founding in 2023 as Callidus Legal AI.
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 real and documented; the accuracy figures are asserted, not tested. Research output cites and links the authorities relied on. StrongSuit's home page claims 100 percent reference links to legal authorities and describes reasoning grounded in retrieval over a proprietary database of more than ten million federal and state cases with summaries and issue tags. Sample memos and a sample brief can be downloaded, and the Search Cases pages show the underlying case records.
Case validation, added at the November 2025 rebrand, checks whether cited cases have been overturned. Against that, the home page publishes 0 percent hallucinations of case names in the research module with no test set, sample size, period or method. The FAQ refers to proprietary checks against hallucination and rigorous evaluations without publishing any. A Vals AI benchmark from February 2025 covered the product under the Callidus name; it is third party work that predates the current product.
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.
StrongSuit commits in writing to having the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces and no full control structure. Its home page section on keeping the lawyer in the loop says every draft, review and decision stays under the lawyer's strategic control. The FAQ describes work traditionally handled by junior associates while the user keeps final judgment, and the terms of service make the user solely responsible for reviewing, verifying and editing generated work before relying on it.
The review surfaces are concrete: redlined Word files from proofreading, tracked edits through the Word add in, and inline citations on research output. No thresholds, modes or escalation rules are described, since the product does not act unattended, and nothing says what happens after an output is found wrong beyond the user's own correction.
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.
Named customers come without figures, and figures without named customers. Seven testimonials carry full names and roles: Erin Abrams, Chief Legal Officer at Via; Doug Johnston, a former general counsel; and five attorneys at solo or small firms, Yandy Reyes, Bryan Schwartz, Andrew Ayers, David Holt and Lindsey Lewis, each describing use in practice. Logos include Cooley and Klinedinst. None is tied to a measured change.
The figures sit elsewhere, unattributed: 80 percent time savings on a first redline, a 30 page memo in 15 minutes, and a CEO quote in the November 2025 awards release that many attorneys report doubling their output. A claim of more than 1,000 legal organizations is a count, not evidence.
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.
Every part of the position is in writing before signing, and privilege is addressed in the agreement itself. On training, section 5.6 of the terms of service says StrongSuit will not train any AI model with User Content, and the privacy policy of 16 March 2026 extends this to third party models, including subprocessors. On privilege, section 5.3 acknowledges that user content may be privileged, deems StrongSuit a confidential agent of the user for support and maintenance, and says any access is not intended to waive privilege, invoking Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
On separation, StrongSuit's FAQ says role based permissions confine access to specific projects or documents within an organization. On retention, unsaved inputs are discarded after output, and saved content is kept until the subscription ends and then deleted after a wind down given as, for example, 90 days. On providers, OpenAI, Google and Anthropic are named, processing occurs in a private tenant, and content is said never to enter their public training sets. Separation rests on an FAQ description rather than a documented mechanism.
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.
StrongSuit states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports supervision duties. Section 2 of the terms of service states in capitals that StrongSuit is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice and does not practice law, and that the services work only as a research, drafting and review tool. They are intended solely for use by or under the supervision of a licensed attorney aged 18 or over, no attorney client relationship is created, and the user is solely responsible for reviewing and verifying generated work.
The security and ethics page names ABA Formal Opinion 512, Model Rule 1.6 and Resolution 604, and says they require human oversight of AI generated work and reasonable safeguards. Jurisdiction is limited by scope: the case data is US federal and state law, and the terms bar use from sanctioned jurisdictions. There is no consumer product. The page also says the product is 100 percent compliant with every US state's ethical rules as of March 2025, which describes StrongSuit's own review rather than a published mapping.
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.
Statements on responsible AI come without a mechanism, a testing regime or anything open to audit. The security and ethics page has a section on Responsible Use of Generative AI, but its content is data handling: inputs are not trained on, not shared, and discarded after output. The home page refers to rigorous evaluations built for professional practice without publishing any. No governance framework, accountable owner, description of testing before release, or statement about uneven output across practice areas or jurisdictions is published, and no ISO 42001 or equivalent certification is claimed.
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.
Published policy covers most of the ground, short of an incident practice and a formal subprocessor list. On retention, the security page says inputs are processed to generate the output and then discarded unless the user saves them. Section 3 of the privacy policy keeps client data for an administrative wind down after the subscription ends, given as for example 90 days, then deletes it permanently, subject to legal hold; account data is deleted or anonymized within 90 days of closure, and billing records are kept seven years.
Deletion is stated as unrecoverable. On access, the privacy policy describes two factor authentication for staff who touch customer data, role based permissions, a least access support policy, and audit trails on infrastructure and application activity. On subprocessors, Microsoft Azure for hosting and OpenAI, Google and Anthropic for models are named in prose in the privacy policy and section 6 of the terms, with an open ended "and others" and no list, locations or change notice. No breach notice commitment or incident process is published.
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 published limitation clause disclaims the risk the product creates, so the allocation of loss can be read before signing. Section 7.1 of the terms of service disclaims all warranties, including any warranty about accuracy, completeness or reliability. Section 7.2 excludes indirect and consequential damages, including fines a court imposes, and caps total liability at fees paid in the twelve months before the claim.
Section 2 has the user assume all risk for decisions taken on the output, acknowledge that output may contain errors, and hold StrongSuit harmless for them. Section 7.3 provides beta features without warranty or indemnity, and section 8 is an indemnity from the user to StrongSuit only. There is no vendor indemnity, insurance or warranty on output, and the terms say a signed master services agreement, where one exists, governs over them; none is published.
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.
The only integration is Microsoft Word. A Word add in is sold as the Negotiate module and on the pricing page as seamless Word integration, and the terms define software add ins, such as for Microsoft Word, as part of the services. StrongSuit's home page says it drafts contracts in Word and offers insights and clause suggestions on an open document. That describes a feature rather than documenting it for implementers.
A Help Documents section exists. No document management, practice management, ebilling, filing or matter system integration is named, and the FAQ's answer on replacing a patchwork of tools describes consolidation inside StrongSuit rather than connection to the systems a firm already runs.
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.
Tenancy and region are both stated, with partial residency detail. The security page says the platform is hosted in a private Microsoft Azure tenant with high availability across several data centers, and the privacy policy says all client data is stored on geographically redundant servers located only in the United States and that model processing occurs within a secure private tenant. That gives the tenancy model, a single region and the processing location.
No region option beyond the United States is published, and no difference in deployment between the Individual and Firm plans, although the home page refers to flexible licensing and deployment without saying what varies.
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.
StrongSuit states its certification, but the evidence is not accessible. The security page says the company is SOC 2 certified with independent third party verification, StrongSuit's pricing page lists SOC 2 Type II as a feature of every plan, and the home page carries a SOC 2 Type II image. No auditor, coverage period, scope or route to the report is published, there is no trust center or request portal, and the security page's offer to walk through architecture and protocols is a sales conversation.
The control descriptions are specific: AES encryption at rest and in transit, two factor authentication, routine vulnerability assessments, blue green deployment and audit trails, plus an optional PII scrub and end to end encryption for customers with higher needs.
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.
Providers are named and the models are not. The privacy policy says the intelligence layer uses third party large language models from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and others under contracts requiring confidentiality, with processing in a private tenant so data never enters the providers' public training sets, and that hosting is on Microsoft Azure. Section 6 of the terms repeats OpenAI, Anthropic and Google as outside providers whose terms the user must respect, and StrongSuit's home page says the platform is powered by frontier models.
No model is named, the list is open ended, and there is no commitment to notify customers when a provider or 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.
Real prices are published for part of the range, and the firm tier is withheld. StrongSuit's pricing page lists an Individual plan at 249 dollars per month with its features, and a Firm plan on custom quote that adds onboarding, a success manager, centralized billing, user access management and collaboration. A five day free trial requires a card, and the FAQ repeats the figure and mentions volume discounts. Section 4 of the terms sets out the mechanics: monthly or annual automatic renewal, 30 days' notice of price changes, no refunds, a fair usage policy on plans marketed as unlimited, and usage caps on documents, module use and model tokens whose limits are not published. Nothing says what implementation adds, and the Firm price is not published.
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 of segments and practice areas is described in substance, while the limits stay open. Solos and boutiques are served on the Individual plan and larger firms on the Firm plan, with in house use shown by a chief legal officer testimonial. Practice pages exist for family law, litigation and corporate work, with an All Practice Areas page and a Topical Expertise page, and the case data is US federal and state law, more than ten million cases.
StrongSuit does not say where the product stops. No practice area, court or jurisdiction is named as unsupported, and coverage outside the United States is neither claimed nor excluded, beyond the terms barring use from sanctioned jurisdictions.
7 public documents
The public pages on file for StrongSuit, 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.
-
strongsuit.com/data-privacy-policy2 signals
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Prompt and Output Retention, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
strongsuit.com1 signal
Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
strongsuit.com/terms-of-service1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Good Law Verification
Read Sep 6, 2026
$249 per month
- One lawyer pays $249 a month and can use everything.
- You can try it free for five days, but you have to give a card, and you are charged unless you cancel.
- A firm has to ask for a price, and gets extras like onboarding and a support person.
- There are monthly usage limits, but the company does not say what they are.
- If you stop paying part way through, you do not get money back.
The Individual plan costs 249 dollars per user per month, published on the pricing page and repeated in the FAQ, and covers the full platform, the case database, the Word add in and support. A five day free trial requires a card and converts automatically unless canceled. The Firm plan is on custom quote and adds live onboarding, a success manager, early feature access, centralized billing, user access management and team collaboration; volume discounts are mentioned without figures.
Section 4 of the terms sets out the mechanics: monthly or annual automatic renewal, 30 days' notice of price changes, no refunds, a fair usage policy on unlimited plans, and usage caps on documents, module use and model tokens whose limits are not published. Promotional codes sometimes discount the first months.
Tracked changes at StrongSuit
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 terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The commitment is in the agreement. Section 5.6 of the terms of service, last updated 26 March 2026, says StrongSuit will not train any artificial intelligence models with User Content, defined in section 5.4 as the content and data the user provides to and creates with the services. The privacy policy of 16 March 2026 extends it as an explicit, non negotiable guarantee covering proprietary and third party large language models, including those of subprocessors, and the security page and pricing page repeat it.
Usage Data, defined in section 5.7 to exclude confidential information, may be used to develop and improve the services; that is telemetry, not customer content.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer sets the retention window and no retention is an available setting.
The customer decides what is kept, and keeping nothing is the default. The security page says the AI processes an input only to generate the output and then discards it unless the user chooses to save it to account history. Saved content falls under section 3 of the privacy policy, which keeps it for the subscription term and then for an administrative wind down, given as for example 90 days, before permanent deletion, subject to legal hold.
The customer is responsible for exporting before termination. The control is a choice to save each output rather than a configurable window, and StrongSuit sets the wind down after termination.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
Access follows a described permission model native to the product. The data privacy FAQ says role based permissions let only authorized users within an organization reach specific projects or documents, the Firm plan lists user access management, and the security page describes session management and encryption at the data level to prevent leakage between sessions. Nothing describes how walls are enforced at query time or whether the model's retrieval respects project permissions, and the product does not inherit a document management system's access model because it connects to none.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Disclosure to authorities is covered, but notice to the customer is not. Section 2 of the privacy policy lets employees access client data to comply with a legal order or regulatory obligation, and section 5 allows sharing user data to comply with laws, legal processes or other government requests. Section 5.4 of the terms of service licenses processing of user content as applicable law may require. No commitment or reservation on notice to the customer appears in the terms, privacy policy or security page, and no transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
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.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction and scale, without the underlying sources or their rights basis. The home page and pricing page state a database of more than ten million federal and state cases. The rebrand release adds that the company gathered the cases and built agents to enrich them with metadata, summaries and issue tags, and a Search Cases section shows individual case records. Nothing says where the opinions came from, under what license or public domain basis, or how often the database is updated. Statutes and local materials are mentioned in others' descriptions but not on StrongSuit's own pages.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.
StrongSuit computes and shows subsequent history itself. The rebrand release of 12 November 2025 introduces automated case validation, described as the most requested feature. It checks whether cited cases have been overturned, superseded or otherwise invalidated by later rulings, work the release says traditionally takes hours of tracing case history. No commercial citator is named, so the check is StrongSuit's own.
The method is described only at that general level: nothing says how the history is computed, what sources feed it or how a negative treatment is shown to the user.
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.
Nothing published describes what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. StrongSuit's home page refers to proprietary checks against hallucination and reasoning grounded in retrieval and publishes a 0 percent hallucination figure for case names, and the terms require the user to verify all output. Nothing describes an abstention path, a confidence signal or what happens when the case database returns no support for a proposition.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming StrongSuit or Callidus Legal AI. The sanctions it records involve general purpose chatbots and other named legal tools, none of them this product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.
StrongSuit engages with named ethics guidance. The security and ethics page says the company follows all ABA guidance, including Formal Opinion 512 of July 2024, Model Rule 1.6 and Resolution 604, and summarizes their requirements as confidentiality, human oversight of AI generated work and safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. It also claims the product is 100 percent compliant with every US state's ethical rules as of March 2025 and that every relevant rule has been reviewed and mapped, but the mapping is not published. The linked slides covering the ABA, Texas and Florida opinions are attributed to another panelist, not to StrongSuit.
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.
StrongSuit publishes time savings and says nothing about the bill. Its home page claims 80 percent time savings on a first contract redline, a well cited memo of up to 30 pages in 15 minutes and guidance on a legal question in one minute, and the awards release quotes the CEO saying many attorneys report doubling their output. The rebrand release describes checking that cases are still good law as often unbillable work that is now automated.
Customers are law firms and solo practitioners billing clients, so the product sits inside the fee relationship. No record of AI assisted work per matter is described, and no guidance on fees or disclosure is published.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
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 model providers that see client content are named, as prose rather than a register. Section 2 of the privacy policy names Microsoft Azure for hosting and OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and others for models, and says processing occurs in a private tenant and content never enters the providers' public training sets. Section 6 of the terms names the same three providers. The list is open ended, with no locations or change notice.
No disclosure pack for clients or data processing agreement is published for a firm to forward. The privacy policy's language on privilege and training would partly serve that purpose, but it is not written as an annex to forward.
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.
Some parts of a disclosure record exist, but no export for each document is described. Research and drafting output carries inline citations linked to the authorities relied on, the home page claims 100 percent reference links and full traceability, and the security page describes audit trails at the application level. Nothing says a record for each document of the model used, the sources retrieved and the human check can be exported, and no model is named anywhere. The terms require the user to verify output before relying on it but supply no certification template.