T
Turbo Law
Turbo Law is an AI litigation platform for defence law firms and insurance carriers handling complex matters such as medical malpractice, mass and toxic tort, transportation and business disputes. Turbo Law, Inc. is headquartered in San Mateo, California, per its newsroom, and its site terms and privacy policy give an Atlanta, Georgia contact address. The platform reads the whole matter file and builds a line-cited Fact Graph of parties, experts, treaters, admissions, defences and dates, then produces chronologies, deposition contradiction reports, privilege flags, motions and discovery responses, case evaluations and settlement-value models, carrier status reports, and answers to in-matter questions through an assistant that runs multi-step and scheduled tasks.
It says high-stakes outputs go to attorneys for review before anything leaves the firm, that client data is never used to train shared or public models, and that it runs in dedicated Microsoft Azure environments with tenant isolation and HIPAA business associate agreements. Turbo Law raised a $3.8 million seed round led by Revo Capital in June 2026 and reports more than 1,800 active matters on the platform.
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, which is the A band. Turbo Law reads the whole matter file with AI to build its Fact Graph, and every module (review, drafting, research, strategy and settlement, and the assistant) generates work product from it: chronologies, contradiction detection, privilege flags, motions, discovery responses, case evaluations and settlement-value models. There is no underlying case management system that works without the models. Verified 18 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.
Grounding is real and described, and accuracy testing is claimed without figures, which is the B band. The security page says fact-based outputs are line-cited to a source document or the public record and that the platform will not state what it cannot cite, and that every drafting and analysis workflow is measured against vertical-specific accuracy standards before it ships; the product pages say every output is line-cited to the file and case-law search cites the relevant holdings. No accuracy standard, test set or result is published. Verified 18 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.
A categorical review constraint on named high-stakes outputs, which meets the A band under R124(2). The security page says case evaluations, settlement recommendations and motion drafts surface for attorney review before anything goes external, and states the operating model as the platform proposes, the team verifies and partners decide; key conclusions are hyperlinked to source material for that verification. The assistant runs multi-step and scheduled tasks, but its output returns to the team as cited work product. No confidence threshold is published. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 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.
Outcome claims without named customers or method, which is the C band. Turbo Law reports more than 1,800 active matters on the platform and says firms using it report a 60 per cent reduction in non-billable hours per matter, 10 per cent fewer write-offs and profitability on alternative fee arrangements; no customer is named on the surfaces read and no method is given for the figures. Verified 18 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.
A substantive public position that addresses privilege, with the customer agreement unpublished, which is the B band. The privacy policy says Turbo Law does not use customer content to train or improve foundation models, that any fine-tuning happens only at the customer's direction, that third-party AI providers are contractually barred from training on customer data, that Turbo Law does not assert or waive privilege or work product on the customer's behalf, and that staff access is limited to authorised purposes; the security page adds tenant isolation that its own team cannot cross without a support ticket and client approval.
The security page says the no-training commitment is enforced in contracts, but the customer agreement and DPA are not published. Verified 18 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.
A clear statement that the product is software and not legal services, with the attorney's role stated, which is the B band. The Terms of Use say Turbo Law provides software, not legal services, that nothing creates an attorney-client relationship, and that legal decisions should be made by licensed attorneys exercising independent professional judgement; the security page says the platform is built to make litigators faster, not to practise law. The buyers are law firms and insurance carriers. No jurisdictional limits are stated. Verified 18 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.
A stated release gate with substance, short of testing results, which is the B band. The security page says every drafting and analysis workflow is measured against vertical-specific accuracy standards before it ships and does not ship if it fails; the Trust Center lists board oversight briefings, annual risk assessments and quarterly critical system reviews. The standards, results and any assessment of uneven performance are not published. Verified 18 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.
Real published practices with the contractual detail withheld, which is the B band. The security page describes tenant isolation, staff access only with a support ticket and client approval, encryption at rest and in transit, enforced two-factor authentication, exportable logs of every access, query and export with one-year retention by default, and HIPAA business associate agreements; the privacy policy says the subprocessor list is available from the account team.
Deletion and retention of customer content are left to the unpublished customer agreement, and the Trust Center's answer on incident notification is collapsed and could not be read. The privacy page carries two different policy texts, one covering the platform and one covering the website only. Verified 18 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.
No published position on what the vendor stands behind, which is the D band. The only published terms govern the website, cap liability for the site at $100, and say the platform is governed by separate customer agreements, which are not published. Nothing located addresses warranties, indemnities, caps or remedies for the platform or its AI output. Verified 18 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.
Integration is claimed without named systems, which is the C band. Press material says the platform plugs into existing case files, and a forward-deployed team stands it up inside each firm; no document management, case management, e-billing or carrier system is named on the surfaces read, and PACER and docket monitoring are listed as coming soon. Verified 18 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.
The host is named without regions or options, which is the C band. The security page says the application and data run in dedicated Microsoft Azure environments with tenant isolation; the Trust Center's answer on where data is stored is collapsed and could not be read, and no region, residency option or processing location for AI calls is published. Verified 18 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.
A named standard with a readable trust centre, short of dated reports, which is the B band. The Trust Center at trust.turbolaw.ai lists SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA as compliant, names Prescient Security, sets out control families and more than 150 documents available on request, and the security page says SOC 2 documentation is available under NDA. The security page describes controls as aligned to the Trust Services Criteria and continuously monitored; no audit period, report date or auditor opinion is published. Verified 18 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.
The model architecture is described without naming providers, which is the B band. The security page says Turbo Law routes each workflow to the model best suited to it and changes models as the state of the art changes, with no single-vendor dependency, on dedicated Azure infrastructure; the privacy policy says third-party LLM providers are contractually barred from training on customer data. No model or provider is named, and no notice of model changes is committed. Verified 18 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.
Nothing about pricing is published, which is the D band. The site has no pricing page and routes every buyer to a demo request; neither the unit, the structure nor any figure is stated. Verified 18 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.
Segments and matter types are set out with substance, short of stated limits on the AI, which is the B band. Turbo Law sells to defence law firms and insurance carriers and names medical malpractice, mass tort, toxic tort, transportation, mergers and acquisitions, business litigation, employment, construction and real estate, and says it builds one litigation vertical at a time; drafting follows the jurisdiction's local rules and case-law search covers federal and state courts. Where the models are weaker is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Turbo Law, 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.
-
turbolaw.ai/security4 signals
Court Disclosure Support, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation and 1 more
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
turbolaw.ai/privacy-policy3 signals
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness, Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 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 privacy policy and security page say customer content is never used to train shared, public or foundation models, by Turbo Law or any model vendor, and that any fine-tuning on customer content happens only at the customer's direction. The security page says this is enforced in contracts, but the customer agreement is not published, so no matching term was located.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is mentioned without a period for customer content or AI inputs and outputs. The one-year default sits under the audit-log heading on the security page, and the privacy policy says retention and deletion of customer content are governed by the unpublished customer agreement.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Tenant isolation between customers is claimed; walls within a customer are not yet available. The security page lists firm, practice-group and matter-level ethical walls under a coming-soon heading, and one version of the text says they are on the way. Roadmap items are not graded.
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 policy says information may be disclosed to comply with law or protect rights, with no commitment to notify the customer first. The customer agreement, which may address this, is not published.
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.
Searched the product overview, security page, Trust Center, privacy policy and newsroom on 18 September 2026. Case-law search covers federal and state courts and settlement modelling uses jurisdictional outcomes, but the sources and licences behind them are not named.
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.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Case-law search returns citations to holdings, but no check of whether cited authority remains good law is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.
The vendor states a behaviour rule: fact-based outputs are line-cited to the file or the public record, and a claim that cannot be cited is not made. No confidence signal shown to the user 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 and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from Turbo Law. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
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.
Searched the product overview, security page, Trust Center, Terms of Use, privacy policy and newsroom on 18 September 2026. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or bar guidance is referred to.
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.
Billing economics are marketed without disclosure guidance. The vendor says firms report 60 per cent fewer non-billable hours per matter, 10 per cent fewer write-offs and profitability on alternative fee arrangements, and generates carrier-ready status reports; nothing addresses how firms should bill or disclose AI-assisted work to clients or carriers.
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.
Disclosure material is available on request. The privacy policy says business customers can get the subprocessor list from their account representative, the security page says Turbo Law answers security questionnaires as part of deployment and signs BAAs, and the Trust Center offers more than 150 documents on request. No 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.
Parts of a record exist. Every access, query and export is logged and exportable, and outputs carry line citations to their sources; no record of which model produced an output or who verified it is described.