T
ThoughtRiver

ThoughtRiver provides AI contract review for corporate legal teams and the law firms serving them. Its Lexible engine identifies provisions, risks and obligations against a customer's playbook, then supports proposed redlines and questions about the agreement. Contracts can enter by email, file upload or a Word add in. Reviewers share issues and edits with colleagues, while portfolio analysis brings recurring terms and obligations into reports.

The architecture combines a specialized legal model with general purpose language models. Legal professionals label and check training examples, and classification testing runs several times each week. An anonymization layer protects sensitive text before processing. The service runs on Microsoft Azure, with segregated customer data and separate encryption keys. Microsoft 365, Power BI, HighQ and iManage are named integration options.

Professional and Enterprise plans include unlimited users and distinguish monthly contract volume. UK starting prices are £15,000 and £30,000 annually; non UK visitors see $20,000 and $35,000. ThoughtRiver Ltd is based in Cambridge, England. Its terms permit reuse of training data and anonymized contract text, expressly exclude legal advice and leave customers responsible for decisions based on output.

Compared with

ThoughtRiver, 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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Machine learning is the mechanism the customer pays for. A model reads the contract, answers the Lexible question set, scores the answers against a playbook and produces the risk rating, issues list and suggested redlines. Remove the models and there is no review, no issues list and no redlines, only a document store. The vendor has sold this as an AI product since 2016 and describes the current engine as a proprietary generative model on several large language models.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Lexible uses lawyer labeled concepts to identify contract provisions and assess them against a playbook. Its accuracy explanation reports 97% F1, 96% precision and 97% recall, with testing three times weekly against 750,000 verified data points. Legal specialists verify training examples, and sampling covers different contract types and domains. These figures concern classification and do not measure every generated redline or answer.

The underlying dataset, current model version and detailed failure results are not available for independent reproduction. The terms acknowledge that training can reduce accuracy, especially with incorrect labels, and that mistakes remain possible.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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 platform reads an agreement, identifies issues against a configured playbook and presents suggested redlines in Word. Users can share issues and changes with colleagues, while Lexible Assistant supports questions and remediation. The customer sets its risk policies and remains responsible for decisions based on the resulting analysis, including automated decisions. Terms expressly warn that output is not legal advice and may contain mistakes.

These features provide a review surface and organizational standards. The system does not specify when it can approve an agreement without review or how it must escalate and correct an incorrect conclusion.

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.

A named customer gives figures, without a date or method. Joe Stephenson, partner and head of technology at Shoosmiths, is quoted on the demo page saying the platform reviewed complex supply agreements in under three minutes at above ninety percent accuracy, where lawyers took four hours at 86 percent. A second, unnamed customer calls ThoughtRiver a clear winner for reviewing its appointments. No date, sample size or method accompanies the Shoosmiths figures.

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.

The agreement treats customer contract data as confidential and restricts disclosure by staff and subcontractors, with confidentiality continuing after termination. Customer accounts have separate encryption keys and segregated contract data. Anonymization removes sensitive information before model processing. The same agreement grants continuing use of training data and anonymized contract text, and the DPA includes machine learning training among processing purposes.

This is permission to reuse specified material, rather than a promise never to train. The terms do not cover internal matter walls or privilege handling directly, and ThoughtRiver gives no complete account of the underlying language model providers.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

The customer terms expressly say that output is not legal advice and must not be relied on as advice. They also warn that predictive technology makes mistakes and that incorrect training can worsen accuracy. Customers remain responsible for results, conclusions and automated or manual decisions. The license allows both internal business work and integrated managed services for legal clients, so law firms and other business users share that responsibility.

Product review surfaces support human checking, but jurisdiction specific practice limits and an explicit treatment of lawyers' competence and supervision duties are not set out.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner.

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.

ThoughtRiver describes lawyer verification of training examples, annotation that accounts for contract context and sampling across contract types and legal domains. Its evaluation program runs three times each week against 750,000 verified data points and reports separate precision, recall and F1 measures. Customers can set playbooks for their own risks and review proposed changes before further use. These are concrete training and evaluation practices.

The description does not identify an accountable AI governance owner, a mandatory release approval threshold or findings about uneven output across jurisdictions or populations. Its regulatory position is separate from those operating tests.

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.

The DPA names infrastructure, authentication, document conversion, email and support providers, and requires equivalent safeguards for subprocessors. Personal data breaches must be reported without undue delay, with cooperation in mitigation. Customer data is encrypted in transit and at rest, separated by account and protected by a dedicated encryption key. Authentication supports single sign on and multifactor controls.

At termination, personal data must be deleted or returned, with backup and legal exceptions. ThoughtRiver gives no in use retention period for prompts, no backup deletion deadline and no explicit list of the language models processing contract text.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

ThoughtRiver indemnifies customers against claims that permitted use of the platform infringes third party copyright, subject to control of the defense and exclusions for unapproved combinations. It can replace or modify the platform to address infringement. General liability is limited to the order term's fees, or £1,000 during a trial, with the copyright indemnity excluded from that cap. Death or injury caused by negligence, fraud and other legally unavoidable liabilities also remain outside the limitation.

Output errors carry no warranty or accepted liability, so the software indemnity does not amount to a guarantee of correct legal analysis.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Agreements enter through email, file upload or a Microsoft Word add in, with issues and redlines available for team collaboration. Microsoft 365 supports work in Word, Outlook and Teams, while Power BI receives contract data for analysis. HighQ and iManage are named connections for legal projects and document workflows. The platform also exposes the same public APIs used by its web application and follows the OpenAPI specification.

These connections have identifiable purposes, but per connector field mappings, authentication setup, permission inheritance and error recovery steps are not described in the integration overview.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Region and processing location are stated, and tenancy is described as segregation. The security page says data resides in Azure data centers managed and secured by ThoughtRiver in a single specified region, and the subprocessor table places Azure hosting in the United Kingdom. Each customer's data is held separately under its own key. ThoughtRiver does not say whether a customer may choose a region other than the UK or whether infrastructure is shared, and it does not address where the language models run inference.

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 stated and identified by number, without a route to the report. The security page gives certificate number 21188-ISMS-001 alongside encryption at rest and in transit. No certifying body, coverage period or route to the certificate or any SOC report is published, and no trust center is published.

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.

Lexible combines a proprietary legal model with general purpose language models for contract interpretation and generated responses. ThoughtRiver describes supervised learning from expert labeled concepts, legal validation of examples and repeated evaluation. An anonymization layer protects sensitive text before analysis, and a private model option is offered. The hosting environment is Microsoft Azure. ThoughtRiver does not name its external foundation model providers, their versions, its routing decisions or where each model processes data.

The subprocessor register covers infrastructure and support functions but does not resolve the generative model chain or commit to notice of each model substitution.

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.

Professional starts at £15,000 a year in the United Kingdom for teams reviewing fewer than 50 contracts a month; Enterprise starts at £30,000 for higher volume. Outside the United Kingdom, the page displays starting rates of $20,000 and $35,000 respectively. Both list unlimited users, a private database instance, Word access, Lexible Assistant, single sign on and dedicated success and professional services. A trial lasts 28 days.

The agreement bills order fees in advance and permits separate professional services charges. The published starting amounts therefore do not settle every implementation charge, volume adjustment or negotiated order term.

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.

Corporate legal, procurement and business teams use ThoughtRiver to review incoming agreements, and the license also allows managed services delivered to legal clients. Configurable playbooks apply the customer's negotiation standards to recurring contracts. Professional and Enterprise packages distinguish teams below and above 50 reviews per month, with unlimited users in both. Named examples include complex supply agreements and professional appointments.

The current site gives different totals for its trained concept library on different pages, so that total does not define a reliable coverage boundary. ThoughtRiver publishes no complete jurisdiction matrix and no list of unsupported contract types.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

7 public documents

The public pages on file for ThoughtRiver, 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

From £15,000 per year in the UK

GBP, as published, never converted
  • Professional starts at £15,000 a year in the UK.
  • Enterprise starts at £30,000 for higher review volumes.
  • Outside the UK, starting rates are $20,000 and $35,000.
  • Both plans include unlimited users; extra services depend on the order.

Professional starts at £15,000 annually for teams below 50 contract reviews per month; Enterprise starts at £30,000 for higher volumes. The pricing page displays $20,000 and $35,000 to visitors outside the United Kingdom. Both packages include unlimited users, a private database, Word access, Lexible Assistant, single sign on and dedicated support.

Implementation: Dedicated professional services are listed in both packages, while the agreement permits professional services to be invoiced separately under the order. A separate implementation amount is not stated.

Note: The default contractual currency is pounds sterling unless the order says otherwise. A 28 day trial is offered; the terms require timely written termination to avoid continuation. Orders renew for the same term unless canceled at least 45 days before expiry.

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.

The agreement licenses training data and anonymized contract text for use in the platform by ThoughtRiver and other customers, while excluding customer risk policies from that licensed material. Its DPA expressly lists machine learning training and feature enhancement among processing purposes. These permissions continue beyond the subscription and are separate from customer ownership of uploaded contracts. The public agreement does not provide a general option to exclude those uses.

Source: Vendor PublishedTraining Data and anonymised contract textAs of Oct 15, 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.

The DPA requires deletion or return of personal data at termination, except for backup copies and legally required retention. Trial data is deleted when a customer properly ends the trial. The general agreement separately preserves rights over licensed training data and anonymized contract text. None of these provisions gives prompts or generated answers a defined retention period during an active subscription, and the backup exception has no stated deletion deadline.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

Contract text and derived data are separated from other customer accounts and encrypted using a key specific to each account. Organization access can use single sign on with multifactor authentication. These are organization level protections. Although iManage and HighQ are named integration options, ThoughtRiver describes no mechanism that inherits their per user permissions during retrieval or separates opposing matters within one customer environment.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

When law requires ThoughtRiver to process personal data contrary to customer instructions, the DPA requires notice to the customer unless law prohibits it. That protection covers compelled processing of personal information in uploaded material. The agreement also permits legally required disclosure of confidential information, without a broader notice procedure for nonpersonal material. ThoughtRiver does not refer to any public report of government demands or its responses to them.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 15, 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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

The engine applies a lawyer developed concept library to customer agreements and risk policies. ThoughtRiver describes millions of labeled concepts and legal verification of training examples, while the agreement defines training data and anonymized contract text available for broader platform use. The concept library, the labeled concepts and the defined training data make up the main categories behind contract interpretation.

ThoughtRiver does not identify any external legal collections, their licenses or a refresh schedule for legal authority.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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.

ThoughtRiver's review concentrates on contract provisions, risk policies, proposed edits and obligations in customer agreements. A reviewer can work through issues in that agreement and use the resulting information for negotiation or reporting. The stated workflow does not include a licensed citator or a method for checking the subsequent treatment of a court decision. Classification accuracy and contract risk ratings do not supply that authority status check.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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.

Lexible flags contract risks, produces proposed changes and lets a reviewer inspect issues against a playbook. Its precision, recall and F1 figures describe aggregate classification performance rather than a confidence indicator attached to an individual answer. The terms warn that predictive output can be wrong. A stated no answer response, an abstention threshold or a route triggered specifically by insufficient support for a conclusion is not described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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 has no tool entry naming ThoughtRiver or Lexible as of October 15, 2026. The product's described work involves contract provisions, risk review, redlining and questions about agreements rather than preparing a litigation brief. That workflow context is separate from the court record: the absence of a named entry does not measure classification errors or establish that a generated answer is correct.

Source: Bar Guidance or Court RecordAs of Oct 15, 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.

The contract terms distinguish software output from legal advice and leave responsibility for decisions with the customer. They allow managed services for legal clients, and product controls let reviewers apply organizational playbooks and inspect proposed changes. These are general responsibilities and workflow controls. A named ethics opinion or jurisdiction specific bar rule governing a lawyer's use of Lexible is not identified in that position.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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.

The license expressly permits ThoughtRiver as part of managed services for a customer's legal clients. Marketing compares minutes of assisted review with hours of lawyer work, and the named Shoosmiths testimonial concerns complex supply agreements. Those savings can affect a client's bill as well as internal capacity. A record designed to allocate assisted work to billable time, or guidance on fees and client disclosure, is not described.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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 register identifies Microsoft Azure in the United Kingdom, SendGrid in the United States, and Okta, ABBYY Vantage and Zoho Desk in Europe. It gives functions, data categories and transfer safeguards for those providers. The list supports part of a client's data handling review, but does not name the general purpose language model providers or supply a ready made client AI consent and disclosure pack.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

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

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

The Digital Issues List preserves flagged issues, risk levels and resolution status and can be shared or downloaded. That gives a contract reviewer a record of what required attention and how the review progressed. Word changes and collaboration add further context. An export combining the exact model, retrieved sources and human verification for each generated passage is not described, so these records do not by themselves form a complete AI disclosure certificate.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
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