V
Verbit
Verbit is a transcription and captioning platform whose legal line produces the spoken record of depositions, hearings, trials, arbitrations and witness interviews. Its proprietary speech recognition engine, Captivate, is trained on legal terminology and adapts to a customer's own vocabulary, speakers and acoustic conditions; a generative layer called Gen.V adds automatic summaries, chapters, keyword tagging and inconsistency detection over the resulting transcript.
Three legal products sit on that engine: Legal Capture, for court reporting agencies and digital reporters recording and transcribing proceedings live or from recordings; Legal Visor, which gives attorneys real-time transcription with case insights during depositions; and a self-serve Standard plan for straightforward legal transcription work. Output ranges from immediate rough drafts through AI-only transcripts, which the company states plainly are not court admissible, to human-reviewed and certified final transcripts with cover pages and jurisdiction-specific formatting for evidentiary use.
The platform handles digital evidence including body-camera footage and 911 calls, supports English and Spanish transcription with translation into more than 28 languages, and connects to Zoom, Teams, Relativity and a published API. Buyers are law firms, courts, court reporting agencies, corporate legal departments, law enforcement and government, alongside education, media and corporate customers outside the legal line.
The contracting entity is Verbit, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, and the company also operates the VITAC, Take Note and AST brands.
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 engine of the product and the business survives without them, which is B. Captivate is the vendor's own automatic speech recognition engine, trained on legal terminology, adapting to customer vocabulary, speakers and acoustic conditions, and Gen.V is a generative layer producing summaries, chapters, keyword tagging and inconsistency detection. Every legal plan is priced and described around that engine.
What holds it off A is that Verbit also sells the same output produced by people: human review, certified transcripts and the VITAC, Take Note and AST brands are human transcription operations, and the Terms describe the Services as processing live and pre-recorded media using ASR or human options. Remove the models and a transcription business remains, which is what the court reporting incumbents sell. Verified 12 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.
R15 governs: the product cites no legal authority, so the authority-grounding and citator limbs do not apply. What bites is grounding and measured accuracy. Grounding is unusually strong in the product's own idiom: output is time-coded and speaker-identified against the source recording, so every word resolves to the audio a reader can replay, and a published Post-Production Corrections Policy exists for fixing output.
The hallucination position is stated contractually rather than in marketing: Terms section 4(d) states that AI Analysis Features use probabilistic models that may produce inaccurate, incomplete or misleading results, do not constitute professional advice of any kind, are not a substitute for qualified human review, and that the customer is solely responsible for verifying all output before relying on it. What keeps this off A is measurement: no accuracy figure, test set or error rate is published on any surface read, and the accuracy commitments in section 7(f) are targets conditioned on reasonable audio quality as determined by the vendor. Verified 12 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.
Modes, the constraint, the review surfaces and the route back to human judgement are all published, which is the A band, and the constraint is stated more plainly here than anywhere else in this corpus. The modes are the product tiers themselves: AI-only transcription, AI with optional human review, and certified human-completed transcripts, each described and priced separately. The constraint is categorical rather than a numeric threshold and it is printed on the plan: the self-serve Standard legal plan states in its own feature list **Not court admissible**, so a buyer is told before purchase what the unsupervised output may not be used for, with court-admissible transcripts available by request on the higher tiers and an upgrade path to certified transcripts named on each.
The review surfaces are the editing workspace, immediate rough drafts against final transcripts, and the Post-Production Corrections Policy incorporated into the Terms. The route back to human judgement is contractual as well as commercial: Terms section 4(d) places verification of all AI output on the customer and states the features are not a substitute for qualified human review. R15 applies to the threshold limb: on a transcription product the boundary is a document-class boundary rather than a confidence score, and the vendor draws it explicitly. Verified 12 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.
Figures without the named customers, which is the B band's stated shape. The vendor publishes that it serves more than 3,000 businesses and institutions, operates the VITAC, Take Note and AST brands as its own, and states a 99.0% monthly platform availability target in Terms section 7(b) with defined exclusions, which is a measurable commitment rather than a claim. Turnaround times are committed in the Order or on the site and calculated in US Eastern business days.
What is absent is attribution: no named law firm, court or court reporting agency appears with a figure for what changed on any surface read, and no dated deployment case study for the legal line was located. Analyst and award placement is not treated as deployment evidence. Verified 12 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.
The first record in this corpus to satisfy the privilege limb R33 requires, and it does so contractually rather than in marketing. Terms section 5(c), headed Privileged Materials, applies where the customer submits files containing attorney-client privileged or work product materials and commits the vendor to four things: limit access to personnel with a direct need to know for providing the Services; not disclose to any third party except as required to provide the Services and then under equivalent confidentiality protections; not use them for any purpose other than providing the Services and customer-specific optimisation; and return or destroy them on termination or on request.
It adds that nothing in the agreement constitutes a waiver of any privilege held by the customer or its clients, and places responsibility for deciding whether submission is consistent with professional conduct rules and privilege law on the customer. Work product is named expressly, which is the limb MyCase and Clio were held at B for missing. The other A limbs are met: no generative AI training on customer content at all under section 4(c), and no general ASR training on law firm materials without written opt-in under 4(e); retention and deletion in DPA section 8, with delete or return within 30 days of termination at the customer's choice; access control documented control by control on the Trust Page; and an explicit position on third-party model providers, who may only be used if contractually prohibited from training on customer data and must not retain data beyond the minimum their own terms require. Verified 12 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 real published position on the advice line, short of the supervision and competence dimension. Terms section 4(d) states that AI Analysis Features do not constitute professional advice of any kind, are not a substitute for qualified human review, and that the customer is solely responsible for verifying all output before relying on it. Section 5(c) goes further than most by naming the customer's rules of professional conduct and privilege law as the customer's responsibility to assess.
The product-class equivalent of the advice line is the admissibility line, and the vendor draws it: the AI-only plan is marked not court admissible, certified transcripts are a named upgrade, and jurisdictional formatting and cover pages are described as what makes a transcript admissible. What is missing for A: nothing addresses the supervising lawyer's competence duties when relying on machine transcription of testimony, nothing states who may use the service, and nothing addresses the state-by-state licensure position for digital court reporting, which is the live professional-responsibility question in this product class. Verified 12 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 governance framework with real substance, short of testing results and a named owner, which is B. What is unusual is that the AI governance is contractual rather than a principles page: Terms section 4 is a dedicated Artificial Intelligence section covering customer-specific optimisation, general ASR training with de-identification requirements, a prohibition on generative AI training, generative AI features, legal-specific provisions and FERPA, and section 4(g) commits the vendor to technical and organisational measures to prevent re-identification of training data, restrict access to identifiable data, and ensure data in AI Analysis Features is encrypted in transit and not retained by third-party providers.
The DPA adds a commitment to ensure automated processing does not produce legal effects concerning or significantly affect data subjects without appropriate safeguards. Security governance is documented separately and in detail: an ISMS led by a named CISO role, risk assessments reviewed by senior leadership at least annually, policies reviewed annually, and annual plus quarterly internal audit programmes. What is absent: no accountable owner for AI is named, no evaluation or testing results are published, no model card exists, and nothing addresses uneven output across accents, dialects or speaker groups, which is the bias question that matters for a product transcribing testimony. Verified 12 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.
Four of the five A limbs are contractual and specific, and the fifth is the gap. Retention and deletion: DPA section 8 requires deletion or return of all personal data within 30 days of termination at the customer's choice, indicated through the Services or in writing, with one copy retained solely for the establishment or defence of legal claims, and the Trust Page states a customer can have data removed at any time through its account manager.
Access control is documented in unusual detail: encryption in transit by enforced HTTPS and at rest in AWS S3 using AES-256, two-factor authentication, customer-assignable roles, least privilege internally, regular access reviews, and joiner-mover-leaver rules. Incident practice is contractual: notification without undue delay after becoming aware of a data incident, with sufficient information for the customer to meet its own notification obligations, backed by a CISO-led incident response function and a 24/7 security operations centre.
The fifth limb holds it at B: **no subprocessor list is published**. The DPA commits the vendor to notify before authorising a new subprocessor, to make the then-current list available on request, and to a five business day objection window, but a buyer cannot see who processes its recordings before contracting. Verified 12 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.
Specific caps and a real indemnity, short of the exposure the product creates. Terms section 8 caps each party's liability at the lesser of USD 1,000,000 or fees actually paid or accrued in the 12 months preceding the claim, excludes indirect and consequential damages, and carves out intellectual property violations and the customer's payment obligations from the cap. Section 6(b) is a three-limb supplier indemnity covering third-party IP infringement arising from authorised use, unauthorised disclosure of confidential information or personal data to the extent caused by the vendor's negligence or failure to adhere to its published Security Standards, and violation of law caused by the vendor's provision of the Services; the second of these is a genuine indemnity tied to the Trust Page as the standard.
Service levels are committed at 99.0% monthly availability and a Post-Production Corrections Policy is incorporated for defective output. What keeps this off A is the exposure that matters here: nothing allocates the loss when a transcript of testimony is wrong. Section 4(d) does the opposite, placing verification of all AI output on the customer, and section 7(g) disclaims all warranties including fitness for purpose. No insurance position is published. Verified 12 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.
Real integrations, documented, short of depth across the legal stack. A public API with developer documentation is published at verbit.readme.io, which is more than most records in this corpus offer, and API access is named as an inclusion on the Custom plans. Named integrations include Relativity on the Legal Visor plan, which is the one that reaches an eDiscovery platform where litigation work already lives, plus Zoom and Teams for live capture, cloud storage destinations, and a mobile application for recording on the move.
The legal transcription material states API support to connect transcripts directly to case management and document systems. What is not established: the case management and document systems are not named individually, the integrations page was not opened, and the recurring phrase dozens of video platforms, video conferencing and cloud storage integrations describes breadth without a list an implementer could work from. Verified 12 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.
Real residency detail, short of a full picture, which is B. Delivery is cloud on AWS, stated on the Trust Page, with platforms replicated across multiple availability zones and regions behind the AWS uptime SLA. The privacy policy names the processing locations: the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, Israel and other locations as necessary to deliver the Services, and states that customer data may only be processed in the locations permitted in the data processing addendum and other commercial agreements, so residency is a contractable term rather than a fixed one.
Cross-border transfers are handled in DPA Schedule 2 with the EU Standard Contractual Clauses under Modules Two and Three governed by Irish law, the UK Addendum, and Swiss adjustments, plus Part 4 additional safeguards including a commitment to resist bulk surveillance requests. What is absent for A: the tenancy model is never stated, no region menu or single-region option is published, and the split between where data is processed and where it is stored is not described. Verified 12 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.
Certifications are real, named with versions and scoped, and the evidence is gated, which is B. The Trust Page states that ISO 27001:2022 certification and SOC 2 attestation are available for certain services and configurations, and directs a buyer to an account manager or support for details; the scoping caveat is itself a disclosure and is recorded rather than penalised. Around it sits the most detailed published security programme of any record in this pull: infrastructure monitoring through GuardDuty, CloudWatch and CloudTrail, cloud security posture management with infrastructure-as-code scanning, a SIEM, a CISO-led incident response team with a 24/7 external security operations centre, published vulnerability remediation targets of 48 hours for critical and 14 days for high severity, a documented secure development lifecycle with code review and OWASP Top 10 alignment, and an independent external penetration test commissioned at least annually.
The DPA adds a contractual audit right on 14 days' notice once every 12 months, including by the customer's own third-party auditor. What holds it off A: the certificate and report are obtainable only through a sales or support conversation, no auditor is named, no report period or certificate number is published, and there is no self-serve trust portal. Verified 12 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 vendor's own engine is named and what sits underneath the generative layer is not, which lands on C. Captivate is named as the proprietary automatic speech recognition engine and its behaviour is described, including domain adaptation and customer-specific optimisation. Beyond that the disclosure stops at a category: the data policy states that Verbit integrates large language models to enhance transcription and analysis, and Gen.
V is named as the generative suite, but no model and no model provider is identified anywhere on the estate. What partially offsets this, and is recorded rather than credited to the band, is that the position is contractual: Terms section 4(c) permits only third-party AI model providers that are prohibited from training on customer data, and the DPA requires any such provider to be listed as a sub-processor with notification before it begins processing and a five business day objection window.
So a customer can learn who the providers are and object to them, but only after asking, and the sub-processor list is not published. Verified 12 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.
Real pricing published for part of the range, with the structure published across all of it. The legal Standard plan is priced at $24 per month for 100 hours, being 50 live and 50 post-production, with a self-serve registration path rather than a sales conversation, and the plan page sets out four legal tiers side by side with a line-by-line feature comparison covering hours, languages, integrations, user counts, security inclusions, admissibility and upgrade paths.
The same structure is published for the media, corporate and education verticals. Commercial terms sit in the Terms rather than in a sales call: payment in advance unless an Order says otherwise, 30 days' prior written notice of any price change taking effect only at the next renewal, a 60 day billing dispute window, interest on overdue amounts at the lower of 1.5% monthly or the legal maximum, suspension on 10 days' notice for non-payment, and termination for convenience on 60 days' notice.
What holds it off A is that three of the four legal tiers, including both products an attorney or agency would actually buy, carry no figure and route to a demo. Verified 12 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.
Who the product serves is documented precisely and the limits are stated, which is the A band. Dedicated pages address law firms, courtrooms, law enforcement and government alongside corporate, education and media, and within the legal line the buyer types are named separately and served by different products: attorneys and litigation teams by Legal Visor, court reporting agencies and digital reporters by Legal Capture, courts and agencies by the courtroom material, and corporate legal departments in their own material.
The proceeding types supported are enumerated rather than gestured at: depositions, trials, bench hearings, jury trials, arbitrations, witness interviews, dictation, and digital evidence including body-camera footage and 911 calls. The limits are the part that earns the grade, because they are published at the point of sale rather than buried: the entry plan is marked not court admissible, capped at one user, English transcription only, with basic export and integrations, and the higher tiers state where Spanish is added, where certified transcripts are an upgrade, and where court-admissible output is by request.
R15 applies to the practice-area limb, which does not bite on a product whose unit of work is a proceeding rather than a practice area. Verified 12 September 2026.
6 public documents
The public pages on file for Verbit, 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.
-
verbit.ai/terms-and-conditions5 signals
Client Data in Training, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Primary Law Corpus Provenance and 2 more
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
verbit.ai/customer-dpa2 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
verbit.ai/pricing-package1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
Good Law Verification
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 12, 2026
-
verbit.ai/trust1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 12, 2026
From $24 per monthUSD, as published, never converted
- The cheapest legal plan is $24 a month and you can sign up online without talking to sales.
- That buys 100 hours a month, split evenly between live and recorded work, for one user, in English.
- Its transcripts are labelled not court admissible, so for anything going before a court you pay to upgrade to human review or a certified transcript.
- The three plans built for attorneys, courts and reporting agencies have no published price and need a demo.
- Prices can change on 30 days' notice but only from your next renewal, and you have 60 days to dispute a bill.
A published figure for the entry tier and published structure across the whole range. The legal Standard plan is $24 per month for 100 hours, being 50 live and 50 post-production, one user, English transcription with translation into 28+ languages, Captivate legal ASR, automatic Gen.V insights, basic live integrations with Zoom and Teams, support for digital evidence including 911 calls and body-camera footage, email and chat support, encrypted storage, and output expressly marked not court admissible, with human review available as an upgrade.
It is bought through a self-serve registration flow rather than a sales conversation. Three further legal tiers are described feature by feature with no figure and a demo route: Legal Capture, for unlimited hours of live recording, transcription and editing for digital reporting, with court-admissible transcripts by request, multiple users and SSO; Legal Visor, unlimited usage with live AI transcription and case insights for attorneys, adding a Relativity integration; and a Custom plan with tailored usage, the full product suite including certified human transcription, custom integrations and API access, and custom transcript templates meeting jurisdictional and client-specific requirements.
Equivalent tier tables are published for media, corporate and education. Commercial terms are in the Terms rather than in a quote: payment in advance unless an Order provides otherwise, pricing changes on no less than 30 days' written notice and effective only at the next renewal, a 60 day billing dispute window, interest on overdue undisputed amounts at the lower of 1.5% per month or the legal maximum, suspension on 10 days' notice for non-payment, termination for convenience on 60 days' notice, and a 99.0% monthly uptime target.
Confidentiality and data terms: A Business Associate Agreement is available and is required before protected health information may be submitted: Terms section 1(c)(f) bars files containing PHI except where the parties have executed a BAA, and the vendor's legal material states that HIPAA requirements are met for legal transcription work involving PHI such as treating physician depositions and medical record exhibits, with the BAA to be put in place at scoping. A customer DPA is published in full and incorporated into the Terms, with the EU Standard Contractual Clauses, the UK Addendum and Swiss adjustments.
Note: Figure and tier structure read from the vendor's own plans page on 12 September 2026, last modified 11 September 2026. Commercial terms read from the Terms of Use, last updated 5 June 2026. The $24 figure is the published legal Standard rate with a self-serve registration path; the three higher legal tiers route to a demo and carry no figure.
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?
Training occurs only where the customer has affirmatively enabled it.
For the legal buyer the position is opt-in, and it is set out in the agreement rather than a policy page. Terms section 4(e) provides that files and output in connection with deposition transcription, Legal Visor, or other services provided directly to law firm customers shall not be used for general ASR training unless an authorised representative gives written opt-in. Around that sit three further terms a reader should weigh together.
Section 4(c) prohibits the vendor, and any of its providers, from using customer files or output, identifiable or de-identified, to train, fine-tune or incorporate into the weights of any generative AI model or large language model whose output is exposed to a third party, and permits only third-party model providers that are contractually barred from training on customer data. Section 4(b) permits general ASR training for customers outside the law firm carve-out on an opt-out basis, after segmenting audio into clips of a few seconds insufficient to convey substantive content and disassociating them from the account, with no re-identification permitted; opt-out is prospective and does not require retraining.
Section 4(a) reserves customer-specific optimisation using files in identifiable form to tune recognition for that customer, which is not covered by any opt-out and is the term a buyer should read most carefully.
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.
Retention is under the customer's control, with the mechanism stated in the agreement and the period tied to termination rather than to a default in-service schedule. DPA section 8 requires the vendor, within 30 days of termination and at the customer's choice indicated through the Services or in written notice, to delete or return all personal data processed on the customer's behalf and to delete existing copies, subject to legal retention requirements, with one copy retained solely for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
Terms section 5(c) adds that privileged materials are returned or destroyed on termination or on request, and section 9(c) gives 30 days of post-termination export assistance. The Trust Page states data can be removed at any time by contacting the account manager. What is not published is a default retention period for material held during the subscription, and Terms section 1(b) reserves the right to retain customer data after account deletion as reasonably necessary to comply with law.
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.
A separation model is documented, at the customer and material level rather than the matter level. Terms section 5(c) requires access to privileged materials to be limited to personnel with a direct need to know for providing the Services, and bars disclosure to third parties except as needed to deliver them under equivalent confidentiality. DPA section 2(f) prohibits combining personal information received from one customer with personal information from any other person, except for the de-identified segments used in general ASR training.
The vendor's data policy states that models cannot access or learn from other customers' data, and the Trust Page documents customer-assignable roles so no user has more access than their part of the work requires, alongside internal least-privilege access and regular reviews. What is not addressed is segregation between matters inside a single customer's account: nothing published describes a wall between one firm's cases, which is the question a firm with adverse-party depositions on the same platform would ask.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notifying the customer where lawfully permitted, and a transparency report is published.
Notice is committed and a reporting mechanism exists, both with qualifications the reader should see in the vendor's own words. The Trust Page states that governmental authorities are not permitted access unless required under applicable law and on legitimate grounds, that any disclosure is limited to what is strictly necessary and is reviewed by the vendor's legal and privacy teams, and that the vendor will do its best to notify the customer before disclosure unless notification is prohibited by law.
DPA Part 4 goes further and is contractual: unless legally prohibited the vendor will redirect the authority to the customer and inform it that the vendor is not authorised to disclose, will use commercially reasonable legal mechanisms to challenge the demand, and where urgent access prevents a challenge will notify the customer as soon as possible afterwards. It also commits the vendor, once every 12 months on the customer's written request, to report the types of binding legal demands it has received, including any under section 702 of FISA.
Terms section 5(a) separately requires prompt prior notice of any compelled disclosure of confidential information to allow a protective order to be sought. The report is annual, on request, and to the customer rather than published, and the notice commitment is best efforts.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The product answers from the customer's own recording rather than from a corpus, so the provenance question lands on the training corpus, and there the source is named without a separate licensing basis. Terms section 4(b) identifies the corpus explicitly: data derived from customer files and output, segmented into clips of a few seconds insufficient to convey substantive content, disassociated from the account, and used solely to correlate acoustic speech patterns with text sequences across a large aggregate training corpus.
Law firm materials are excluded unless the customer opts in. No third-party or licensed speech corpus is identified, and no statement covers what else the general engine was trained on before or alongside customer-derived data. The permission basis is the agreement itself rather than a separate licence, and customer warranties in section 3(a) place responsibility for lawful acquisition of the files on the customer.
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 no legal authority and produces no legal analysis, so nothing addresses checking subsequent history and nothing would be expected to. The currency mechanisms it does publish concern the accuracy of the record rather than the standing of law: a Post-Production Corrections Policy incorporated into the Terms, human review and certification tiers, and jurisdictional formatting for admissible transcripts. Recorded so the row states the position rather than leaving a reader to infer it.
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 hand-off to a person is documented, in the agreement and in the product structure, short of anything demonstrable. Terms section 4(d) states that AI Analysis Features use probabilistic models that may produce inaccurate, incomplete or misleading results, are not a substitute for qualified human review, and that the customer is solely responsible for verifying output before relying on it. The product expresses the same boundary structurally: AI-only output is marked not court admissible, human review is an upgrade on every plan, and certified transcripts are the tier for evidentiary use.
Section 7(f) adds a genuine refusal behaviour at the input end, since the vendor may reject files that do not meet reasonable audio quality levels rather than transcribe them badly. What is not published is anything measurable: no confidence scoring exposed to the user, no uncertainty marking within a transcript, no rate at which files are rejected or escalated, and no evaluation demonstrating the behaviour.
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 on 12 September 2026, on both the product name and the company name, against published trackers of AI hallucination decisions including coverage of the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database, for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in this product's output. None located. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject as of that date, and this signal does not record other litigation.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Professional obligations are referenced generically and no guidance is named. Terms section 4(e) makes the customer solely responsible for determining whether use of AI Analysis Features on legal materials is consistent with its privilege, confidentiality and professional conduct obligations, and section 5(c) repeats the point for privileged materials, adding that submission must be assessed against applicable rules of professional conduct and privilege law.
That is a real acknowledgement that professional conduct rules govern the customer's use, and it is more than most records in this corpus carry, but it names no authority. No bar opinion, no ABA Formal Opinion 512, no state guidance and no court rule on AI-assisted transcription is cited anywhere on the estate, and nothing maps the product's use to any jurisdiction's requirements. The nearest thing to jurisdictional engagement is transcript formatting and certification described as meeting jurisdictional standards, which is court practice rather than professional responsibility guidance.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.
Nothing located addresses what happens to the bill, and unlike most records that take this value the product sits squarely inside a fee relationship rather than outside one. Deposition and hearing transcripts bought by a law firm are conventionally charged on to the client as a disbursement, and the vendor's own pricing is built on units a firm could pass through: a monthly plan with an hours allowance, per-proceeding capture, and certified transcripts as a priced upgrade.
Despite that, no published material addresses disclosure of the charge to the client, no guidance covers how a firm should treat the cost of AI-generated versus human-certified output, and nothing addresses the compression question this signal exists for, being what happens to the bill when a transcript that took a reporter days is produced in minutes. The absence is recorded as a gap rather than as an absence of relevance.
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.
The pack a firm would forward is substantially published, but the one artifact a client AI clause usually demands by name is not. Published and forwardable: a full DPA with the EU Standard Contractual Clauses under Modules Two and Three, the UK Addendum and Swiss adjustments; a Trust Page that the DPA designates as the Security Documentation and Annex II; a contractual prohibition on generative AI training and on any third-party model provider that trains on customer data; an opt-in requirement before law firm materials enter ASR training; a named data protection officer; and a contractual audit right.
What is missing is the list itself. DPA section 5(b) commits the vendor to make its then-current sub-processor list available on request, to notify before a new sub-processor begins processing, and to a five business day objection window, and third-party AI model providers must be listed there, so the identities exist and are obtainable, behind an email. A firm asked to name who processes its deposition audio cannot answer from the public record.
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.
Substantial elements of a record exist and they are built for transcript authentication rather than for disclosing AI use. Published: time-coded and speaker-identified transcripts tied to the source recording; support for chain-of-custody requirements on Legal Capture; certified transcripts with cover pages and jurisdictional formatting for evidentiary use; the distinction between rough drafts, AI output and certified final transcripts; and a Post-Production Corrections Policy incorporated into the Terms.
Together those let a party show where a transcript came from and who completed it. What is absent is the AI-specific disclosure a certifying lawyer would need: nothing states that the record identifies which engine or model produced a passage, which portions were machine-generated against human-corrected, or who reviewed them, and no disclosure template or court-facing guidance was located. The most useful published fact for this purpose is negative and sits on the plan page, being that AI-only output is marked not court admissible.