TrialView

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 run through the product without being the thing that makes it work. Strip the AI out and a complete trial platform remains: court compliant bundling with OCR, pagination, indexing and cross referencing, evidence presentation synchronised across devices, integrated video conferencing and real time transcription. Those are the capabilities courts actually buy it for and none of them requires a model. What the AI adds is genuine and spans the lifecycle rather than sitting in one module: timeline and chronology construction backed to source documents, pattern and inconsistency detection across witness statements and depositions, natural language question answering over the document set, transcript interrogation, and live identification during a hearing of material that corroborates or undermines a proposition. Same shape as Everlaw and Relativity, both B, where a mature platform hosts the model layer rather than depending on it.

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.

Grounding is claimed consistently and nothing behind it is published. The vendor states that question answering over the document set returns sourced references, that automated timelines are directly backed by source documentation, and that first draft witness statements carry automatic hyperlinking to cited evidence. Architecturally this is the easier case: the corpus is the closed case file rather than the law, so a citation resolves to a document a user already holds and can open, and the failure mode is misattribution rather than invention of authority. That distinction is credited here. What is absent: no accuracy figure for inconsistency detection, no precision or recall for pattern identification, no measure of timeline extraction fidelity, no hallucination statement, no evaluation, and no account of what the system does when it cannot support an answer from the file. Searched the home page, the AI litigation page, the case preparation page, the hearing services page, the case management page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026. Inconsistency detection presented during a live hearing is a high consequence output and nothing published tells a barrister how often 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 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 and is uncommon enough to name. Held at C because none of it is published as a model: no statement of where the system acts without review, no confidence indication, no escalation behaviour, 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.

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.

The strongest forum level adoption evidence in the litigation category and the third record in this pull with public authority adoption. Named UK courts: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court, with the vendor stating wide use across UK and Ireland courts. Named arbitral institutions: the ICC, the IAC and the DDRC, described as a trusted provider for connected hearing services in domestic and international arbitration. A named piece of litigation, the Russian Aviation litigation, plus large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries. Independent recognition that is dated and checkable: Digital Evidence Management Software of the Year at the 2025 LegalTech Breakthrough Awards, and recognition at The Lawyer Awards. Held at B rather than A because no law firm or chambers is named, no usage volume is published, and no outcome measure of any kind exists: nothing on hearing time saved, bundle preparation time, or error reduction. The evidence establishes that serious forums use it, not what happens when they do.

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.

Access control is claimed and the hardest confidentiality question on this index is left unanswered. The vendor states user permissions and encryption, secure cloud storage, and the ability to collaborate selectively with colleagues, counsel, witnesses, solicitors, clients or third parties. Those are real controls and the sharing model is described in the right terms. The unanswered question is structural to the product: this platform deliberately brings law firms, barristers, judges and arbitral bodies into one workspace, and in a contested hearing that means opposing parties and the tribunal operating inside the same system. Nothing published describes how one side's privileged working materials, annotations, private mark up and preserved digital copy of proceedings are separated from the other side's or from the tribunal's. No treatment of legal professional privilege or work product was located. That is not a hypothetical concern for a product whose selling point is a shared workspace. Checked the home page, the case management page, the hearing services page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 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.

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. Checked the home page, the AI litigation page, the case preparation page, the hearing services page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026. The gap is notable because the vendor supplies both advocate and tribunal, which is exactly the configuration professional guidance addresses.

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.

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 judgements about credibility, and any systematic tendency in how it does that would operate inside live proceedings without anyone being able to inspect it. Checked the home page, the AI litigation page, the case preparation page, the case management page and the product overview on 29 Aug 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.

No AI specific stewardship position located. General platform controls are stated, being secure cloud storage, user permissions and encryption, and those are graded on the Security axis and not double counted here. What is missing is everything about the model layer: nothing states whether case documents, transcripts, witness interview recordings or hearing material are used to train or improve any model, how long AI generated output and queries persist, whether processing is segregated by matter, or what happens to a case file after proceedings conclude. This product ingests recorded witness interviews and complete litigation files, which is among the most sensitive content on this index, and the training and retention position is not published. Checked the home page, the case management page, the case preparation page, the hearing services page and the product overview on 29 Aug 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.

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 was located for a platform used live in court. Checked the home page, the product overview, the case management page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.

Integration is real inside the hearing and absent outside it. Documented: an integrated video conferencing platform with breakout rooms, real time transcription feeds viewable in platform with AI transcript analysis over them, speech to text for witness interviews, and evidence presentation synchronised across multiple devices in the hearing room. Bringing a live transcript feed and evidence display into one synchronised environment is genuine integration work and is the core of what a hearing provider must do. What does not exist in public material: no named document management system, no practice management or case management integration, no ediscovery platform connector for matters where review happened elsewhere, and no API or export documentation beyond court compliant bundle output. A firm cannot tell how material reaches the platform from the systems where it already sits. Checked the hearing services page, the case management page, the case preparation page and the product overview on 29 Aug 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.

Cloud storage is stated and nothing else is. The vendor states that data is securely stored on cloud based servers accessible anywhere, which names no provider, no region and no residency commitment, and describes no single tenant, dedicated or on premise option. Residency is a live question for this product specifically: it serves UK and Irish courts and international arbitral institutions including the ICC, so material from proceedings in multiple jurisdictions sits in one platform under undisclosed geography, and a tribunal or a party may have residency requirements of its own. Checked the case management page, the home page, the hearing services page and the product overview on 29 Aug 2026. Correction candidate: the site links a dedicated security features page which was not read in this pass and may carry residency detail.

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.

Controls are claimed, a dedicated security page exists, and no certification was located. Published claims: secure cloud based servers, user permissions, encryption, and a secure workspace as the repeated framing across the site. The vendor maintains a distinct security features page linked from product pages, which is more than a passing mention and indicates deliberate attention to the topic. Searches on 29 Aug 2026 combining the vendor name with ISO 27001, SOC 2, Cyber Essentials and GDPR certification terms returned no certification, attestation, auditor or trust portal for this vendor. Held at C rather than D on an explicit and important limitation: the security features page itself was not read in this pass. Grading D would assert an absence on the one surface most likely to contradict it, which is the error pattern this pull has already corrected twenty five times. Flagged as a correction candidate in both directions, since reading that page could establish certifications that raise this grade or confirm their absence and lower it.

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.

Nothing located. No foundation model provider is named, no distinction is drawn between proprietary and third party models, no subprocessor list exists, and the transcription and speech to text capabilities are not attributed to any provider despite almost certainly involving one. The vendor refers to the latest AI capabilities and intelligent technology without identifying anything. For a platform used by courts and arbitral institutions, where a tribunal may need to know which parties processed evidence in a proceeding, the identity of the model and transcription providers is a question with procedural weight and it cannot be answered from public sources. Checked the home page, the AI litigation page, the case preparation page, the hearing services page and the product overview on 29 Aug 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.

No pricing at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure, and no unit of charge, which matters more than usual 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 on 29 Aug 2026. Common for hearing services providers and still an absence a buyer cannot work around.

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.

Forum coverage is stated with unusual specificity and the user types are enumerated honestly. Proceeding types named: litigation, arbitration, mediation, adjudication, conciliation, tribunals, depositions, large investigations, regulatory hearings and statutory inquiries. Named forums: the Commercial Court, the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Court in the UK, with stated wide use across UK and Ireland courts, plus the ICC, IAC and DDRC arbitral institutions and international arbitration generally. User types named: paralegals, partners, counsel, barristers, solicitors, arbitrators, judges and arbitral bodies, which is a genuinely wider set than any other record in this category addresses. Held at B rather than A because coverage is described rather than enumerated: no list of which courts have the platform available, no statement of jurisdictional limits outside the UK, Ireland and international arbitration, and no indication of whether the AI features are available in every forum or only in some.