S
Summize

Summize is a contract intelligence system for in house legal teams that works inside the tools a business already uses. It runs in Outlook, Teams, Slack, Gmail, Word, Salesforce, HubSpot and Jira, so a salesperson can check renewal terms without leaving Salesforce and a request can be raised from Teams. The product has three layers. A Knowledge Layer holds playbooks and policies, and a Contract Operations Layer covers the lifecycle from request to signature.

The third is an agentic AI layer called SIA, or Summize Intelligence Agents, which answers contract questions across the business. Summize holds ISO 27001 certification from ISOQAR under UKAS. It says customer prompts, completions and embeddings are exclusive to each customer and are not available to OpenAI or used to improve OpenAI models. Its published subscription agreement separately allows Summize to use Customer Data in aggregated, anonymized form to improve the software through machine learning.

The agreement includes an intellectual property indemnity and a warranty that the software will be free of material errors and defects. Its liability caps are set as the greater of a fixed sum or a multiple of charges. No price is published. Summize Ltd is a UK company, and the agreement is governed by English law.

Compared with

Summize, 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.

Build your own comparison

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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 product comes in three layers, and only the third is AI. A Knowledge Layer holds playbooks and policies. A Contract Operations Layer runs the lifecycle from first request to signature inside existing tools. The agentic AI layer, SIA, is described as surfacing that knowledge as instant answers. Without SIA, a working contract request, repository and operations system remains, embedded in Outlook, Teams, Slack and Salesforce. Summize presents the layers as distinct, each one powering the next.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

SIA is described as giving instant, reliable answers grounded in the customer's own knowledge and standards. That identifies the grounding source as the Knowledge Layer of playbooks and policies, but no retrieval method is described behind it. The security page says Summize evaluates the effectiveness, quality and security of its AI models on a consistent basis. No result, test set, cadence or scope is published for those evaluations.

Summize publishes no accuracy figure. Its materials do not discuss hallucination or name a failure mode, and the published performance figures all measure speed and volume rather than correctness.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Autonomy and Oversight ModelAutonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a mechanism. Human in the loop appears as a phrase rather than a described control.

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.

Summize says the business becomes more self sufficient while legal remains in full control. It says questions that used to reach legal's inbox are answered instantly by the people who needed them. Its materials do not say what SIA answers alone and what a lawyer approves, and they state no threshold. No review screen is described, and nothing covers what happens when an answer is wrong. Apart from the line that legal remains in full control, Summize describes no oversight arrangement.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Three named customers give attributed quotes. Steven McGeagh at Huel speaks to ease of adoption, Julia Trius at Edpuzzle to receiving agreements already in the required format, and Derek Ihnen at Boon Edam to reduced review time. Customer logos include Revolut, SeatGeek, Miami Heat, Matillion, Sigma Computing, CodeRabbit, KSE and IPC Systems. Summize cites three times faster contract creation, a 40 percent reduction in deal length, a 50 percent reduction in processing time and six times more contracts reviewed.

It puts an NDA at two minutes against two hours. A 4,062 percent ROI is attributed to Nucleus Research, a named analyst firm. None of these figures is tied to a named customer or dated. Huel, Edpuzzle and Boon Edam each also have a case study page.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Under clause 6.1 of the SaaS terms, Summize may store, transmit and process Customer Data only as needed to provide the services, and gets no other rights in it. Clause 6.2 requires physical, technical and organizational measures in line with good industry practice. Clause 6.5 imposes confidentiality with named exceptions. Clause 6.6 requires daily encrypted backups available to the customer on request, and clause 9.2 requires prompt deletion or return of all Customer Data at the customer's choice on termination.

Summize says prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are exclusive to each customer and not available to OpenAI or used to improve OpenAI models. Clause 6.4 reserves the right to use Customer Data in aggregated, anonymized form to improve the software through machine learning, so the agreement permits training. Separation between customers is described as siloed AI, without detail on how it is enforced. Summize's published materials do not address privilege or work product.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureNothing published on the advice line for a product that produces legal work, including where it is sold to people who are not lawyers.

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.

Summize markets contract answers to people who are not lawyers, in sales, finance, HR and procurement teams. It says questions that used to reach legal's inbox are taken care of, giving the examples of a salesperson checking renewal terms and a CFO querying payment performance without involving legal. Its materials do not say what the output is and is not, and no disclaimer separates information from legal advice. There is no competence or supervision language, and no jurisdiction limit is stated, although customers are in the UK and the US.

The SaaS terms contain warranties, indemnities and liability caps but no provision on legal advice. The website terms of use disclaim only the website. The marketing line that legal remains in full control describes workflow, not advice.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

The security page sets out four AI commitments, each in one sentence: siloed AI practices, regular assessments of effectiveness, quality and security, ongoing updates to AI capabilities, and a customer feedback loop. No one at Summize is named as accountable for AI outcomes. No testing regime before release is described, and no assessment result is published. Nothing addresses bias or uneven output across contract types or counterparties.

The company's General Counsel has written an explainer on the EU AI Act, which comments on the regulation rather than describing Summize's own governance. ISO 27001 is an information security standard and does not cover AI governance.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

On termination, clause 9.2 of the SaaS terms requires Summize to promptly delete or return all Customer Data at the customer's option. Retention after that is allowed only where law requires, and confidentiality obligations continue over anything retained. Clause 6.6 requires backups no less frequently than daily, secure and encrypted, in a commonly used machine readable format and available to the customer on request.

Access control rests on ISO 27001, with DevSecOps practices and internal password, equipment and data confidentiality policies described. Clause 3.2 gives an annual audit right over user and password compliance. Summize states that it runs regular third party penetration testing. The agreement sets no retention period for the term itself, only for its end. No subprocessor list is published. Clause 8.4 refers to Appendix 3 as defining Sub-Processors, but the appendix is not included in the published document.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

The SaaS terms give the customer an intellectual property infringement indemnity in clause 7.2, covering claims, liabilities, losses, damages and reasonable costs. Clause 7.3 sets one named carve out, for unapproved combinations. Under clause 7.4, which sets out how claims are handled, Summize may not settle without unconditionally releasing the customer. Each liability cap is the greater of a fixed sum or a multiple of charges, so the fixed sum sets a minimum.

Clause 8.3 caps general liability at the greater of £100,000 or 150 percent of total charges. Clause 8.2 sets a separate, higher cap for breach of the security and data protection obligations, at the greater of £500,000 or 500 percent of total charges. Clause 8.1 preserves liability for willful misconduct, and clause 8.4 makes Summize liable for its subcontractors and subprocessors as for itself. Clause 3.6 warrants that the software meets its specification in all material respects and is free of material errors and defects.

Clause 3.5 requires reasonable skill and care, clause 3.8 warrants against malicious code, and clause 7.1 warrants that Summize holds the rights to supply the service. The agreement does not disclaim output accuracy, and Summize publishes no insurance position.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

Summize works inside Outlook, Microsoft Teams, Slack, Gmail, Microsoft Word, Salesforce, HubSpot and Jira. It adds Summize Sign for e signature and a Claude integration, and each integration has its own dedicated page. The examples given are a salesperson checking renewal terms inside Salesforce and a CFO querying payment performance across the supplier base. Contract context and assistance are available in the tool, without a new login to manage.

Summize says there is no separate platform to adopt. Implementation runs in sprints of three to four weeks under a methodology Summize calls HERO, with in house implementation staff. A full rollout typically completes within twelve weeks.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

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.

On its home page Summize says data never leaves the customer's environment, and its FAQ says the platform is built on Azure enterprise infrastructure. That names the infrastructure provider, but no region is given and nothing says where customer contract data is stored. The only published hosting location is in the website terms of use, which say the Website is hosted on servers in the United Kingdom. That covers the marketing site, not the software.

Summize does not say whether the platform is single tenant or multitenant. Siloed AI, as Summize describes it, covers how prompts and embeddings are handled rather than a tenancy model.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

ISO 27001 certification is held, with a badge naming ISOQAR as the certification body and UKAS as the accrediting body. No certificate number, scope, statement of applicability, or issue and expiry dates are published, and there is no trust portal or route to a report. Penetration testing is described as regular and third party, with no firm or dates named. A security whitepaper by CTO Richard Somerfield is offered behind a form.

Summize does not hold SOC 2. It says it audits infrastructure in line with standards including SOC II and intends to work toward SOC II accreditation.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

The security page names OpenAI and states that customer prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are not available to OpenAI or used to improve OpenAI models. The FAQ adds that SIA is built on Azure enterprise infrastructure. No specific model or version is named, and Summize publishes no commitment to notify customers when a model or provider changes. No subprocessor register is published. Appendix 3, cited in the agreement as defining Sub-Processors, does not appear in the published text.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

The pricing structure sits in the published SaaS terms, and the site has no pricing page. The terms define the Order Form as setting out user numbers and the type of software license, so the charge is per user by license type. The initial term renews automatically for twelve month periods unless 90 days' written notice is given. Clause 2.2(b) limits any renewal increase to 10 percent over the previous twelve month term for the same plan, tier and package, unless a higher cap is agreed.

Payment is due 30 days from a valid invoice. Fees exclude VAT and sales tax but include other taxes, and expenses need prior written approval. No figure, band, tier name or feature split is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Five buying teams (Legal, Sales, Finance, HR and Procurement) and eight sectors each have a dedicated page. The sectors are Software, Sports, Finance, Manufacturing, Business Services, Media and Internet, Retail and Telecommunications. Four use cases are published as request, review, repository and analytics. NDAs are named as a specific contract type with a stated handling time. The buyer is a corporate in house function rather than a law firm, and law firms are neither claimed nor excluded.

No organization size is stated, and no contract types beyond NDAs are listed as supported. Government use is not addressed, and nothing says where the product stops.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

3 public documents

The public pages on file for Summize, 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.

Pricing

No published figure

  • Summize does not publish a price and has no pricing page.
  • The license is charged per user, and the type of license matters, both set out in your order form.
  • Contracts run for a fixed first term and then renew automatically every 12 months unless you give 90 days' notice.
  • At renewal, the price cannot rise by more than 10% for the same plan unless you agree otherwise.
  • Invoices are due within 30 days and prices exclude VAT.

The pricing structure is set out in Summize's freely available SaaS terms, and its site has no pricing page. The Order Form is defined as setting out user numbers and the type of software license, so the charge is per user by license type. Clause 2.2(a) sets an initial term that renews automatically for twelve month periods unless either party gives 90 days' written notice. Clause 2.2(b) caps any renewal increase at 10 percent over the fees for the previous twelve month term for the same plan, tier and package, unless a higher cap is agreed.

Clause 5.1 sets payment at 30 days from a valid invoice. Clause 5.2 makes fees exclusive of VAT and other sales or service taxes but inclusive of other taxes and levies, and clause 5.3 requires prior written approval for expenses. Clause 9.4 says implementation and other fees stay payable if the customer delays more than 21 days. No price in any currency, band, tier name or feature split is published. The agreement's liability caps are in pounds sterling.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Permitted, in the contract

The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.

Clause 6.4 of the published SaaS terms reserves Summize's right to use Customer Data in aggregated, anonymized form to improve the Services or Software through automated decision processing or machine learning analysis. The clause applies despite the security and data protection clauses before it. It names machine learning and applies to Customer Data, and the anonymization qualifier does not remove the permission. The marketing statements concern outside models.

The home page promises a contractual guarantee that data is never used to train external models. The security page says prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are not available to OpenAI or used to improve OpenAI models. Clause 6.4, by contrast, permits Summize's own machine learning on aggregated, anonymized Customer Data. The marketing does not mention clause 6.4, and the clause does not carry the commitment on outside models.

Source: Vendor PublishedSummize may use Customer Data in aggregated, anonymised formAs of Sep 4, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Backups are covered by clause 6.6 of the published agreement. It requires Summize to perform and maintain backups of all Customer Data no less frequently than daily, secure and encrypted, in a commonly used machine readable format and available to the customer on request. Clause 9.2 covers the end of the relationship. It requires prompt deletion or return of all Customer Data at the customer's option on termination. Retention after that is permitted only where and for as long as law requires, and confidentiality continues over anything retained.

The agreement does not state how long prompts, outputs or uploaded contracts are held during the term, and Summize describes no configurable retention window.

Source: Vendor Publishedregular (and not less frequently than daily) secure and encrypted back-upsAs of Sep 4, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

The security page describes siloed AI practices under which customer prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are available exclusively to that customer and not to other customers. The home page FAQ repeats this as a siloed AI approach that keeps each customer's prompts, data and outputs exclusive to them. Summize does not describe the isolation mechanism or the tenancy model. Beyond the agreement's user and password provisions, nothing says how access is administered. Nothing addresses separation between matters or contract sets inside a single customer.

Source: Vendor Publishedprompts, completions, embeddings and training data are only available exclusively to each customerAs of Sep 4, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

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.

Clause 6.5 of the SaaS terms requires both parties to keep the other's confidential information, expressly including Customer Data, confidential. Disclosure to a third party is allowed only if required by law or regulation, permitted in writing, or if the information has become public without default. The clause therefore covers compelled disclosure directly. The SaaS terms do not commit Summize to notify the customer of such a request, and reserve no discretion over notice either.

The agreement says a separate confidentiality agreement, if the parties have one, takes precedence over clause 6.5. Summize publishes no such template.

Source: Vendor PublishedRequired by applicable law or regulationAs of Sep 4, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

Summize grounds its answers in the customer's own Knowledge Layer of playbooks and policies and in that customer's contract repository, rather than retrieving primary law. It identifies no external corpus and names no external database, publisher or content license. No jurisdictional coverage is claimed.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Primary law sits outside what Summize retrieves. It works on the customer's own contracts, playbooks and policies to answer contract questions and run the contract lifecycle. Checking authority for subsequent history does not arise for a product of this kind, and Summize publishes nothing on it.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

SIA is described as giving instant, reliable answers grounded in the customer's own knowledge and standards, a claim about the normal case rather than the failure case. Summize does not say what the product does when it cannot ground an answer. It describes no abstention path, no behavior for when no answer is available, and no confidence or grounding measure shown to the user. Its materials, the dedicated security page included, do not discuss hallucination.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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 tracks decisions worldwide where a court addressed hallucinated AI content, and records the tool implicated where known. It records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Summize. Summize is a corporate contract intelligence system rather than a litigation tool.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

An explainer on the EU AI Act comes from Summize's General Counsel. It comments on the regulation and does not engage with bar or ethics guidance about Summize's own product. Its site and terms name no bar association, law society, regulator or ethics opinion. The buyer is a corporate in house function rather than a regulated practitioner in private practice.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

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.

Summize claims time and cost savings. It cites three times faster contract creation, a 40 percent reduction in deal length, a 50 percent reduction in processing time, six times more contracts reviewed, and two minutes against two hours for an NDA. It attributes a 4,062 percent return on investment to Nucleus Research. Its materials do not address billing or disclosure, including what happens to a bill when AI assisted work takes less time.

No record of AI assisted work by matter is described. The buyer is an in house department rather than a firm billing a client.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

The public security page names OpenAI as a model provider and says customer prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are not available to OpenAI or used to improve OpenAI models. The home page FAQ adds that the system runs on Azure. Together they say who handles customer content, without a sales conversation. No subprocessor register or forwardable pack for clients is published. Clause 8.4 of the SaaS terms cites Appendix 3 as defining Sub-Processors, but the appendix does not appear in the published document. Summize publishes no data processing agreement, and its security whitepaper sits behind a form.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 4, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

Summize publishes nothing on court disclosure or verification certification. Its materials describe no audit trail or activity export, do not disclose to the customer the model behind a given answer, and mention no record of human verification. The product is a corporate contract intelligence system rather than a litigation tool.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 4, 2026
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

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.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 19, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746