T

TrialView

The models run through the product without being what makes it work. Take the AI out and a complete trial platform remains: court compliant bundling with OCR, pagination, indexing and cross referencing, evidence presentation synchronized across devices, video conferencing and real time transcription. Those are what courts actually buy it for, and none needs a model. What the AI adds is real and spans the whole lifecycle: timelines and chronologies tied to source documents, detection of patterns and inconsistencies across witness statements and depositions, plain language questions over the document set, transcript analysis, and live flagging during a hearing of material that supports or undermines a proposition. A mature platform hosts the model layer rather than depending on it.

Grounding is claimed throughout, and nothing behind it is published. The vendor says questions over the document set return sourced references, timelines are directly backed by source documents, and draft witness statements link automatically to cited evidence. This is the easier case. The source material is the closed case file, not the law, so a citation points to a document the user already holds and can open, and the risk is misattribution rather than invented authority.

No accuracy figure is published for inconsistency detection, no precision or recall for pattern finding, and no measure of how faithfully timelines are extracted. There is no statement on hallucination, no evaluation, and nothing on what the system does when the file does not support an answer. Inconsistencies flagged during a live hearing carry high stakes, and nothing published tells a barrister how often the flag is wrong.

The oversight is real but structural rather than stated. Output is consistently framed as suggestive rather than decisive: the AI identifies material that corroborates or undermines propositions, surfaces inconsistencies and proposes timelines, while the advocate marks up, annotates, tags and decides. Witness statement generation is explicitly a first draft. A legally qualified support team is stated to be available 24 hours a day through the dispute process, which is human oversight resourced with people who understand the work.

None of it is published as a model: no statement of where the system acts without review, no confidence indication, no escalation behavior, and no description of what the AI does unattended during a live hearing while attention is on the witness. The naming of a first draft carries the assumption of review without ever stating it.

Adoption by courts and tribunals is well evidenced. Named UK courts: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court, with wide use stated across UK and Irish courts. Named arbitral institutions: the ICC, the IAC and the DDRC, for which the vendor is described as a trusted provider of connected hearing services in domestic and international arbitration. It names one case, the Russian Aviation litigation, as well as large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries.

Outside recognition is dated and checkable: Digital Evidence Management Software of the Year at the 2025 LegalTech Breakthrough Awards, and recognition at The Lawyer Awards. No law firm or chambers is named, no usage volume is published, and no outcome is measured, whether hearing time saved, bundle preparation time or error reduction. The evidence shows that serious forums use it, not what happens when they do.

Access control is claimed, and the hardest confidentiality question this product raises is left unanswered. The vendor states user permissions and encryption, secure cloud storage, and selective sharing with colleagues, counsel, witnesses, solicitors, clients or third parties. Those are real controls, and the sharing model is described in the right terms. The open question is built into the product. It brings law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies into one workspace, so in a contested hearing opposing parties and the tribunal work inside the same system.

Nothing published describes how one side's privileged working materials, annotations, private markup and saved copy of proceedings are kept apart from the other side or the tribunal. No treatment of legal professional privilege or work product was found.

Not located. The product generates first draft witness statements from recorded interviews and produces analysis presented in live proceedings, and the buyer set includes judges and arbitral institutions as well as advocates. Nothing published addresses the professional responsibility framing of any of that: no statement on the advocate's duty to verify AI identified inconsistencies before putting them to a witness, no positioning on machine drafted witness evidence, and no engagement with Bar Council, Law Society, Law Society of Ireland or judicial guidance on AI in proceedings.

The gap is notable because the vendor supplies both advocate and tribunal, which is exactly the configuration professional guidance addresses.

Nothing published. No AI policy, no evaluation methodology, no bias or fairness assessment, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no model card, no named governance body and no external standard such as ISO 42001. The specific risk left unaddressed: a system that flags inconsistencies in witness statements and identifies material undermining propositions is making adversarial judgments about credibility, and any systematic tendency in how it does that would operate inside live proceedings without anyone being able to inspect it.

No position on stewardship of AI data was found. General controls are stated: secure cloud storage, user permissions and encryption. Nothing covers the model layer. Nothing says whether case documents, transcripts, recorded witness interviews or hearing material are used to train or improve any model, how long AI output and queries are kept, whether processing is separated by matter, or what happens to a case file after proceedings end.

This product takes in recorded witness interviews and complete litigation files, which is highly sensitive content, and its training and retention position is not published.

No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, indemnity, service levels or remedy. Two failure modes make the absence concrete rather than formal: an AI identified inconsistency that is wrong and gets put to a witness in cross examination, and a bundle compliance or pagination failure at hearing, since court compliant bundling is the operational spine of the product and a defective bundle has immediate consequences in front of a judge. No service level commitment is published for a platform used live in court.

Integration is real inside the hearing and absent outside it. Documented: video conferencing with breakout rooms, real time transcription feeds shown in the platform with AI analysis over them, speech to text for witness interviews, and evidence presentation synchronized across devices in the hearing room. Bringing a live transcript feed and evidence display into one synchronized environment is real integration work, and it is the core of a hearing provider's job.

Nothing public covers the rest: no named document management system, no practice or case management integration, no connector for an ediscovery platform where review happened elsewhere, and no API or export documentation beyond court bundle output. A firm cannot tell how material reaches the platform from the systems where it already sits.

Cloud storage is stated and nothing else. The vendor says data is stored securely on cloud servers accessible anywhere, which names no provider, region or residency commitment, and describes no single tenant, dedicated or on premises option. Residency matters for this product. It serves UK and Irish courts and international arbitral institutions including the ICC, so material from proceedings in several jurisdictions sits on one platform in undisclosed locations, and a tribunal or party may have residency rules of its own. A dedicated security features page linked from the site was not read and may give residency detail.

Controls are claimed, a dedicated security page exists, and no certification was found. The site claims secure cloud servers, user permissions, encryption and a secure workspace throughout. A separate security features page is linked from the product pages, which suggests deliberate attention to the subject. Searches combining the vendor name with ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials and GDPR certification found no certification, attestation, auditor or trust portal. The security features page itself was not read. It could show certifications or confirm there are none.

Nothing was found. No model provider is named, nothing separates proprietary from third party models, no subprocessor list exists, and the transcription and speech to text features are not attributed to any provider, though they almost certainly involve one. The vendor refers to the latest AI capabilities and intelligent technology without naming anything. For a platform used by courts and arbitral institutions, a tribunal may need to know who processed evidence in a case. The identity of the model and transcription providers matters procedurally, and public sources do not answer it.

No pricing at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure, and no unit of charge, which matters here because the plausible units are all different in kind: per matter, per hearing day, per user, per gigabyte of evidence, or per bundle. A litigation team cannot estimate the cost of a three week trial from anything published. Every route is a demo request. Independent software directories list pricing as available on request and carry no figure either. Checked the home page, the product overview and the site navigation. It is an absence a buyer cannot work around.

Forum coverage is stated in specific terms, and user types are listed. Proceedings named: litigation, arbitration, mediation, adjudication, conciliation, tribunals, depositions, large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries. Forums named: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court in the UK, with wide use stated across UK and Irish courts, plus the ICC, IAC and DDRC arbitral institutions and international arbitration generally.

Users named: paralegals, partners, counsel, barristers, solicitors, arbitrators, judges and arbitral bodies. Coverage is described rather than listed in full. There is no list of courts where the platform is available, no statement of limits outside the UK, Ireland and international arbitration, and nothing on whether the AI features are available in every forum.