T
Top24 Diritto AI
Top24 Diritto AI is the online legal database of Il Sole 24 Ore Professionale, Gruppo 24 ORE's division for professionals, with an AI assistant built in. The database brings together Court of Cassation and lower court rulings with authorial maxims, national, regional and European legislation, collective labor agreements, annotated codes and the group's law journals, among them Guida al Diritto. 24Ai Legal Assistant, developed by Il Sole 24 Ore, answers legal questions asked in plain Italian from that content, showing its reasoning and the sources it used, which open inside the database.
Answers can be saved or downloaded as PDF or Word files, and each subscription carries a limited number of questions. A semantic search engine, practice forms, calculators and a daily newsletter complete the service. It is sold by subscription to lawyers, magistrates and legal consultants, online or through local agents. The database was previously sold as PlusPlus24 Diritto and Lex24. It is published by Il Sole 24 ORE S.p. A. of Milan, owned by Confindustria, the Italian employers' federation.
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 assistant heads the product and its name, on top of a database that worked without it for years. The product page calls Top24 Diritto AI the publisher's complete legal database with an integrated AI assistant, and the FAQ describes 24Ai Legal Assistant as a chatbot built into the database that answers legal questions in natural language with its reasoning and sources shown. The brochure adds a semantic search engine whose results can be sorted by relevance or date.
The same FAQ says Top24 Diritto is the new name of PlusPlus24 Diritto and Lex24, databases sold before any assistant existed. Rulings, legislation, journals, forms and calculators would all remain if the models were removed.
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.
Answers point to sources the lawyer can open inside the database, and no measure of how often they are right is published. The product page says answers indicate references to the database content so the user can verify them and go further, and the FAQ says the answers always rest on the database's sources. The brochure says each answer comes with the cited sources and related commentary, consultable within the database, and shows the reasoning used to build it.
Grounding in a closed collection maintained by editors is therefore documented. The FAQ and brochure call the answers accurate, but no accuracy figure, test set, error rate or account of failure modes is published, and retrieval is not described beyond answers drawn from the database.
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 assistant answers questions and takes no action, and the publisher says in writing that it supports rather than replaces the lawyer's reasoning. Asked in its FAQ whether the AI replaces consulting the sources, the publisher answers no. The review surface is real: each answer shows its reasoning and the sources used, which open in the database, and it can be saved, downloaded, copied or printed. The group's AI code sets a human in the loop principle.
Not published: any point at which the assistant declines to answer, or what a subscriber should do when an answer proves wrong.
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.
No deployment of the assistant is published, by name or by result. No law firm, legal department, lawyer or court is named as a user, no testimonial or case study appears, and no figure for time saved, questions answered or subscribers is published. The brochure's benefits come with no result attached. The only located record of a buyer is outside the publisher's own pages: Piemonte Region's determination n. 1047 of 28 October 2025 buys a three year subscription to the TOP24 Diritto platform and Smart24 Tributi Locali from Il Sole 24 ORE S.p.
A. for its tax policy and administrative litigation office, at 8,877 euros before VAT. It does not say whether the assistant is included. The product and AI solutions pages, brochure, catalog and about page were all checked.
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.
Confidentiality is promised in general terms in a group privacy notice, and nothing addresses privilege or what happens to client facts typed into the assistant. The privacy notice, updated 28 April 2025, says the company pays the utmost attention to the security and confidentiality of users' personal data. It lists data on interactions with the company's AI systems among service usage data, processed to perform the contract and, with the user's consent, to build a profile for targeted marketing.
The database conditions contain no confidentiality clause and say nothing about content a subscriber enters. No surface says how long questions are kept as distinct from personal data generally, who inside the publisher can read them, or whether a model provider receives them. Professional secrecy and work product are not mentioned.
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 line between tool and professional judgment is drawn clearly, in a FAQ rather than in the terms. The product is addressed to legal professionals, and its FAQ says 24Ai Legal Assistant supports research and analysis and is not a substitute for the professional's legal reasoning. The database conditions of 6 April 2021, though, are written for any adult subscriber, with disputes heard where a consumer lives under the Italian Consumer Code (article 11.1), and carry no advice disclaimer or restriction to professionals; article 9.2 limits use to personal use, not collective or for profit.
The brochure promises support for decisions and advisory work and help extending a lawyer's competence beyond their own specialization. No jurisdiction limit is stated.
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.
A group code of AI principles is published, and nothing shows how it applies to the legal assistant. Gruppo 24 ORE announced its Codice di Autodisciplina IA on 4 June 2024 for all of the group's editorial and professional activities. Its six principles include reliable, verified data sources, a human in the loop, and constant review of algorithms and datasets to prevent bias. It also says AI output is potentially imperfect and must be verified before use, and the announcing release mentions a system for monitoring and periodically verifying the measures adopted.
No owner, committee or reviewer is named, the human in the loop principle is worded for journalists, and no testing protocol for 24Ai Legal Assistant is described. No result of any bias or quality review is published, by practice area, court level or source type.
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.
A detailed group privacy notice covers the product, and nothing specific to the assistant's questions and answers sits on top of it. Il Sole 24 ORE's privacy notice, updated 28 April 2025, sets retention periods by purpose and then anonymizes or securely destroys what is no longer needed. Access is limited to authorized staff and to outside controllers and processors. No subprocessor or hosting provider is named, no breach notification commitment appears, and no access control inside the platform is described. The database conditions of 6 April 2021 say nothing about data.
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.
Liability is handled by a general exclusion in conditions written for database subscriptions before the assistant existed. Il Sole 24 ORE's conditions for database subscriptions, updated 6 April 2021, commit the company only to do what is within its means to keep the service working (article 7.1). Article 8.1 excludes, within the limits of article 1229 of the Civil Code, all liability for direct or indirect damage to the subscriber or third parties from using the content it distributes, and article 8.2 excludes interruptions outside its technical control.
Article 9.4 has the subscriber indemnify the company against claims from the subscriber's own breach. No cap, warranty on content, publisher indemnity or insurance is stated, and nothing addresses answers generated by AI. The FAQ's claim about sourcing is not a promise the conditions carry.
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.
No connection into the systems where legal work already lives is described. No integration with practice management software, document management systems, Microsoft Word or Outlook, electronic court filing or billing systems appears for Top24 Diritto AI or its assistant. What exists is convenience inside the product: answers can be downloaded as PDF or Word files, printed, copied and saved to a personal area, and users can set notifications on searches.
Il Sole 24 Ore sells practice software separately, such as Valore24 AI Office for tax and legal work, and nothing located says it connects to Top24 Diritto AI. The product pages, brochure, related AI product pages and database conditions were checked.
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.
Online delivery is plain, and the only location statement is a hedged line in the group privacy notice. The database conditions describe a database consulted online with a username and password per subscriber (articles 1 and 2.1), reached at top24diritto.ilsole24ore.com. The privacy notice says personal data will be processed mainly within the European Economic Area, that some tools may involve a residual transfer outside the EU or the EEA under Chapter V of the GDPR, and that data sit on the company's protected servers or on its suppliers'.
No data center, hosting provider, region, tenancy model, private deployment or location for the assistant's model processing is stated.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No information security attestation is published. No ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 or similar is named for the product, its division or the publishing company, and there is no trust center, security page or route to request an audit report. The one certification named is for quality. The product and about pages cite quality management system certificate n. 50 100 14765, and the linked document is a one page quality policy dated 12 September 2019, signed by Eraldo Minella.
It covers the Professional area's editorial offices and refers to UNI EN ISO 9001. That concerns how editorial content is produced, not how subscriber data is protected. The privacy notice's security section describes suitable measures and protected servers without naming a standard.
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 publisher says it built the assistant and names nothing underneath it. The FAQ calls 24Ai Legal Assistant an AI assistant developed by Il Sole 24 Ore and built natively into the database, and the Aziende24 Ai page says the 24Ai assistants are designed by the publisher and answer from its own content. Trade coverage of 7 February 2025 described a Gruppo 24 ORE generative AI platform based on proprietary content, with assistants for lawyers to follow by April 2025.
None names a model, model family, provider or hosting location, and the privacy notice names no AI provider. No subprocessor list or commitment to notify subscribers of a model or provider change is published.
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.
How the subscription works is public, and the price is not. The FAQ says a subscriber can buy online by choosing the available plan or through a local agent offering tailored rates, and that an online subscription renews automatically and can be canceled up to one day before expiry. Questions to 24Ai Legal Assistant are capped, with more available through customer service. The database conditions of 6 April 2021 add renewal for the same period (article 6.1), price changes notified by email at least 15 days before renewal (article 6.2), and a 30 day right to withdraw after any unilateral change (article 13.2).
No price, plan name, question allowance or per user rate is published. A public body's 2025 purchase record shows what one buyer paid, which is not a published price.
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.
The audience and subject range are set out in detail, and the limits of what the assistant answers are not. The product page addresses lawyers, magistrates, legal consultants and all legal professionals. The brochure lists sixteen specializations, among them tax, criminal and labor law. The same assistant is sold to companies inside Aziende24 Ai and in the Smart24 Lex Ai database, whose brochure limits its questions to civil and criminal law. What the Top24 Diritto AI assistant does not cover is never stated, nor whether it serves practice outside Italian law.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Top24 Diritto AI, 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.
-
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 1 more
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Good Law Verification, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 2, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The privacy notice does not say whether the AI interaction data it lists trains any model. No improvement right over that data is granted, since the service improvement purpose uses identity, contact, purchase and interest data only. The database conditions of 6 April 2021 and the product pages are silent on training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
The privacy notice of 28 April 2025 keeps data used to perform the contract, a category that includes AI interaction data, for the contract's term and no more than 10 years after, and profiling data for 24 months from collection. No period specific to questions and answers saved in the user's personal area is stated, and no deletion setting is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Nothing addresses shared workspaces, separation between users or matters, or who inside a firm can see saved answers. The conditions tie each subscription to a personal login (articles 2.1 and 2.6). The product pages, conditions and privacy notice were read on 2 October 2026.
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.
The privacy notice of 28 April 2025 processes data to meet legal obligations and requests from authorities empowered by law or from oversight and control bodies, and the group's site privacy policy says data may be communicated to carry out orders of public authorities or to defend rights in court. No commitment or reservation on notifying the subscriber was located in either notice, the database conditions or the product pages.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
The product page and brochure name the collection: Cassation and lower court rulings with authorial maxims, Cassation judgments in PDF, national, regional and EU legislation and practice, collective labor agreements, annotated codes, and the group's journals, among them Guida al Diritto, Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto and Modulo24. Il Sole 24 Ore's editors are said to update content constantly; the rights basis for official sources and a set update cadence are not stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product instructs the reader to check the citation without performing the check.
Answers carry references users are invited to verify, and no check of later history is described. Codes are annotated with Supreme Court maxims, and nothing describes flagging a ruling that has been overturned or a provision that has been amended or repealed.
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 describes what the assistant does when the database holds no answer or a question falls outside its coverage, beyond the FAQ's assurance that answers always draw on the database. The product, AI solutions and related assistant pages were checked on 2 October 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 2 October 2026 for Top24, 24 Ore, Sole 24 and Plus Plus 24, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
No ethics opinion, National Bar Council guidance, article of the lawyers' code of conduct, Italian Law 132 of 2025 or the EU AI Act is named on any surface located. The only references to professional duty are general: the assistant is described as no substitute for legal reasoning, and the group's AI code requires output to be verified.
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.
The brochure promises to optimize the time spent on legal analysis and the AI solutions page for lawyers speaks of reducing research time, for a product sold to lawyers whose clients pay for that work. Nothing addresses how AI assisted research is recorded, billed or disclosed to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The privacy notice of 28 April 2025 lists recipients only by category and offers the list of those to whom personal data are transmitted on request, by email to the privacy office. No subprocessor or model provider list and no client facing disclosure material is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in a court filing. Answers and their sources can be exported to PDF or Word and kept in a personal area. Checked on 2 October 2026.