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, productions and handwritten notes in one upload, then categorises, names and extracts them, identifies the people who appear in footage and when, maps people, places, dates and entities across the record into a timeline, and answers plain-language questions with citations to the exact file, page or timestamp.
Each case runs in its own isolated environment with role-based access. Customers shown include the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, public defenders in Louisiana and Allegany County, New York, and law firms including Reed Smith. Pricing is custom and not published.
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. TrialKit's ingestion, categorisation and naming of files, extraction from phone dumps and handwritten notes, identification of the people in video footage, mapping of people, places and entities across the record, timelines and cited answers to plain-language questions are all model work. Without them, what remains is file storage. Verified 22 September 2026.
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. The home page says TrialKit answers questions in seconds and cites every claim to the exact file, page or timestamp, and describes every answer as traced back to its source. No accuracy figures, test set or error rate are published for answers, extraction or the identification of people in footage. Verified 22 September 2026.
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. Every answer cites the file, page or timestamp it relies on, so a lawyer can check it, 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 without measured results. The home page shows logos for the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, the Law Office of the Public Defender for Louisiana's 19th Judicial District, Allegany County, New York, the Capital Defense Project of Southeast Louisiana, Reed Smith and a range of defense and family law firms, and 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 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; that every case runs in its own dedicated environment, with search indexes, embeddings and AI outputs generated and stored per case and never queried across organisations; that access is role-based; and that customer inputs, outputs and documents are not used to train or improve general AI models, a commitment it says is reinforced through contractual terms.
Those terms are not published, and no position is stated on which outside AI providers, if any, see case material. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page, the Security and About pages and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home page, the Security and About pages and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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: encryption with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, role-based access, time-stamped audit logs of user and system activity, tested backups, continuous monitoring, vulnerability scanning and regular penetration testing, case-level isolation, and deletion or archiving of case data by authorised users. Two gaps remain: retention is stated only as long as necessary to support active use, and no subprocessor list or incident notification commitment is published. The home page also advertises zero data retention without explaining what it covers. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page, the Security page and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page and the Security and About pages on 22 September 2026. 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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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; location is not. The Security page says every case runs in its own dedicated environment that is never shared, reused or co-mingled, and that security testing covers all deployment environments. No hosting provider, region, residency option or processing location is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 without a report route. The Security page states that TrialKit is SOC 2 Type II certified and ISO 27001 certified, and lists HIPAA as coming soon. No auditor, certification body, scope or date is given, no trust centre is published, and no way to obtain the reports is described. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page, the Security and About pages and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. No model, model provider, architecture or processing location is disclosed, including for transcription or the identification of people in footage. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home page and the demo page on 22 September 2026. The home page says TrialKit offers custom pricing for litigation teams of every size; no price, tier or unit of charge is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 Sep 22, 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 the commitment is reinforced through contractual terms and internal controls. Those contractual terms are not published, and the commitment is framed around general models; case-specific indexes and embeddings 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 authorised 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 case-level isolation: each case runs in its own environment that is never shared, reused or co-mingled; metadata, search indexes, embeddings and AI outputs are generated and stored per case and never queried across organisations; and access is role-based, so attorneys, paralegals and staff see only what they need. The customer maintains the roles; 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.
Checked the home page, the Security page and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. 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.
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.
Checked the home page and the Security page on 22 September 2026. The product works on the discovery each customer uploads, and no body of primary law behind its output is identified.
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.
Checked the home page and the Security page on 22 September 2026. The product cites case evidence rather than legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
Checked the home page and the Security page on 22 September 2026. Answers cite their sources, but no confidence indicator for answers or for the identification of people in footage, and no path in which the system declines when the record does not support an answer, is described.
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 22 September 2026 for TrialKit, 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?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Checked the home page, the Security and About pages and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. No material refers to lawyers' professional or ethical obligations, including any statement that the product's output is not legal advice, and no ethics opinion is named.
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 home page quotes attorneys on saving weeks of preparation 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.
Checked the home page, the Security page and the site's terms of use on 22 September 2026. No subprocessor or model provider list is published.
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.
Every answer cites the file, page or timestamp it relies on, and the Security page describes time-stamped audit logs of 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.