T
TrialKit
TrialKit is an AI discovery platform from TrialKit Inc. of Clifton, New Jersey, built by attorneys for criminal defense and litigation teams. It takes documents, body camera and surveillance video, audio, phone extractions, transcripts and handwritten notes in one upload, then categorizes, names and extracts them. It identifies the people who appear in footage and when, maps people, places, dates and entities across the record into a timeline, and answers questions in plain language with citations to the exact file, page or timestamp.
Each case runs in its own isolated environment with access set by role. Customers shown include the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, public defenders in Louisiana and law firms including Reed Smith. Pricing is custom and not published.
TrialKit, 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 TrialKit
Other products that do the same kind of work as TrialKit, and what each one does.
- JJusticeTextJusticeText is an evidence review platform for criminal defense attorneys, built mainly for public defender offices by JusticeText Inc.
- WWexler AIWexler is a fact intelligence platform for disputes and investigations teams. It reads a document set and turns it into structured facts, each tied to its source, that can be searched and tagged.
- MMateyMatey is an AI discovery analysis platform from MateyAI, Inc. of Austin, Texas, built for criminal defense.
- CCloud CourtCloud Court makes Gibson, testimony intelligence software that turns deposition and trial transcripts into searchable, analyzable data for litigation teams.
- AAltumatimAltumatim sells altumatimOS, an AI platform for eDiscovery, investigations and litigation built around review by multiple AI agents.
- EEverchronEverchron is litigation management software for case teams, operated by Icebox Inc. of Los Angeles. Its founders practiced as litigators at Irell & Manella, and the product entered the wider market in 2016.
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 models are the product. Ingestion, categorization and naming of files, extraction from phone dumps and handwritten notes, identification of people in video, mapping of people, places and entities, timelines and cited answers to questions are all model work. Without them, what remains is file storage.
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 are tied to the record at a fine grain. TrialKit says it answers questions in seconds, citing every claim to the exact file, page or timestamp, with every answer traced back to its source. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published for answers, extraction or the people it identifies in footage.
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.
Oversight rests on traceability and roles. Cited sources let a lawyer check each answer, and workspaces have roles and tagging. Nothing describes a review step, a limit on relying on an answer or an identification without checking, or what happens when the system is 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.
Named customers are shown without measured results. The home page shows logos for the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, the Capital Defense Project of Southeast Louisiana and Reed Smith, among other defense and family law firms. It quotes named attorneys such as Zach Boyd of Tyroch Boyd PLLC on saving weeks of preparation and Patrick Beasley of Beasley Law Group on identifying a discovery violation. No customer outcome is measured, dated or explained.
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.
Specific commitments sit on a policy page. The Security page says case files, work product and privileged communications are scoped to the office or firm and never pooled across customers or shared, and that case data is isolated per case with access by role. It also says customer material does not train general AI models, reinforced through contractual terms. The contract itself is not published, and no position is stated on which outside AI providers, if any, see case material.
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.
Nothing states what the product is and is not, that its answers and analysis are not legal advice, or how it supports a defense lawyer's supervision and competence duties. The only published terms govern use of the website, not the product.
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.
No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure is published. The home page says TrialKit identifies the people in video footage and shows when each one appears and for how long. Nothing published explains how that identification works, how accurate it is, whether accuracy differs across groups of people, or how its use is limited. The home, Security and About pages and the site's terms of use were checked.
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 Security page covers much of the ground: AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, access by role, audit logs of activity, tested backups, continuous monitoring, vulnerability scanning and regular penetration testing, and deletion or archiving of case data by authorized users. Retention has no stated period, and no subprocessor list or incident notification commitment 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.
No customer agreement is published, so nothing states who bears the loss when an answer, extraction or identification is wrong. The site's terms of use cover only the website.
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.
Discovery arrives by upload. The home page describes the product as needing no setup or plugins, and no integration with a review platform, case management or document management system is named.
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.
Isolation is described, and location is not. Cases run in dedicated environments of their own, and security testing covers all deployment environments. No hosting provider, region, residency option or processing location is published.
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.
Named attestations are claimed, without a report route. The Security page claims SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification and lists HIPAA as coming soon. No auditor, certification body, scope or date is given, no trust center is published, and no way to obtain the reports is described.
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.
No model, model provider, architecture or processing location is disclosed anywhere on the site, including for transcription or for identifying people in video.
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.
No price, tier or unit of charge is published; the home page offers custom pricing for litigation teams of every size. The home and demo pages were checked.
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 core buyers are clear: public defender offices, capital defense projects and private criminal defense firms, with civil litigators and family law firms also shown, from solo practitioners to national firms. The evidence types covered are set out in detail, from body camera footage and phone extractions to handwritten notes. What the product does not handle, by file type, volume or matter type, is not stated.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for TrialKit, 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.
-
trialkit.ai/security3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Nov 9, 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 public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The Security page states that TrialKit does not use customer inputs, outputs or uploaded documents to train or improve general AI models, and says contractual terms and internal controls reinforce this. Those terms are not published, and the commitment is framed around general models; indexes and embeddings for each case are described as stored per case.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
The Security page says data is kept only as long as necessary to support active use, and that authorized users may delete case data or archive it under the company's retention policies, which are not published. The home page advertises zero data retention without saying what it applies to.
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.
The Security page describes isolation by case: each case runs in its own environment that is never shared, reused or commingled, and metadata, search indexes, embeddings and AI outputs are generated and stored per case and never queried across organizations. Access is set by role, so attorneys, paralegals and staff see only what they need. The customer maintains the roles, and no inheritance from a document management system is described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No product privacy policy or customer agreement is published, and nothing addresses how requests from authorities or other third parties for case data would be handled. The home and Security pages and the site's terms were checked on 22 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
The product works on the discovery each customer uploads, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified. Checked on 22 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
The product cites case evidence rather than legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for later history, as of 22 September 2026.
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.
No confidence indicator is described for answers or for identifying people in video. Nor is any path in which the system declines when the record does not support an answer, as of 22 September 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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming TrialKit as the tool used.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No material refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations, and no ethics opinion is named, on the home, Security or About pages or in the site's terms as of 22 September 2026.
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.
Attorneys are quoted on time saved, and a journalist on work that took 30 hours taking 30 seconds. Nothing addresses how private defense firms bill or disclose work done with the product; public defender offices bill no client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor or model provider list is published, as of 22 September 2026.
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.
Answers cite their sources at file, page or timestamp level, and the Security page describes logs with timestamps for user and system activity. No export of a record showing the model used, the sources and the human check is described, and no disclosure guidance is published.