The Brief· October 19→
The week in one line

LegalOn and CaseBlink shipped agents that start work on their own when a matter changes or a deadline closes in, and Legora let in house teams name the requests, like a standard NDA, that its agent may finish without a lawyer. Microsoft announced Copilot for Legal, and court data, dockets and precedent moved in the same day. CaseMark put confidentiality on its price list, making its plan page the rare one that doubles as a privilege memo. Read the issue →

Independent Reference · Legal Technology

The index of AI vendors in legal

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It grades the vendor and its product rather than the underlying model, the law firm, or the lawyer, which is what separates it from the other rankings in this territory. Legal is the one professional market where a confident wrong answer is a disciplinary matter, so every vendor is assessed on the same fifteen capability axes and twelve legal signals, built for the questions a general counsel, a firm risk committee and a practice group leader ask before they sign: what happens to privileged material, where the law in this product came from, what it does when it does not know, and whether the vendor can produce the record a judge might ask for. Everything is drawn from public sources, every record carries a verification date, and no vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Change Wire

What changed at these vendors, this week

Every entry is dated, attributed to a named vendor and carries a live source. Product announcements that change nothing a buyer can verify are not logged, and neither are funding rounds, valuations or awards.

Full change log →
Oct 19, 2026
Phaselaw now surfaces black outs and improperly created redactions already present in uploaded documents as suggested redactions, so a reviewer makes an explicit decision on each one inside the redaction workflow. The same release lets case wide redactions match case, so redacting a term in capitals leaves the ordinary word alone.
Medium
Oct 19, 2026
Thirdfort launched an AI Screening Agent that reviews sanctions, PEP and adverse media hits in about 35 seconds each. It compares the client's verified identity details with the hit, applies the firm's own screening policy and checks public sources such as Companies House. Firms choose between sending every recommendation to a reviewer and letting the agent dismiss hits it is confident are not the client, with scheduled random sampling and an audit log of those reviews.
High
Oct 19, 2026
IP Author is now available inside ChatGPT. After signing in with an IP Author account, users can run prior art searches across 183 million patent publications and research papers, US freedom to operate checks with claim by claim readings, claim charts, landscape counts and USPTO prosecution history and examiner statistics in a chat. Results export as Word, Excel or PDF reports, while drafting and saved projects stay in the IP Author web app.
Medium
Oct 19, 2026
LexisNexis launched the Intelligize+ AI Disclosure Management Suite, which takes the product from SEC research into reviewing 10-K and 10-Q filings. Disclosure Analyzer checks a prior filing or a current draft against SEC rules, GAAP guidance and peer filings, and flags language to add, remove or revise with sources, reasoning and suggested wording. A new SEC Checklist for Regulation S-K and S-X adds scoping, assignments, review and sign off.
High
Oct 19, 2026
Lefebvre released a new generation of GenIA-L that becomes the entry point to all of Lefebvre's services in Spain. The LexON practice management software, Client Link and Centinela become GenIA-L capabilities, so matters, clients, calendar, tasks and billing sit in the same AI workspace as research and drafting, and the system decides which capability to use for each request. Users can also work with up to 50 documents in one conversation and add documents as it goes.
High
Oct 19, 2026
LegalOn started a beta of Agent Builder in Japan, in which a legal AI agent runs a chain of tasks on its own when conditions the customer sets are met. The first phase triggers on matter management events, such as a new matter or a change in status or assignee, and automates work like handling legal consultations and assigning matters, with automatic first pass contract review planned. Admins set what the agent can draw on, including whether web search is allowed, and can block actions such as emailing the requester.
High
What this index grades that others do not

Two axes nobody else in this territory grades

Thirteen of the fifteen axes are the standard the family applies to every vendor market it covers. Two exist only here, because they are the two questions that decide whether a legal AI product can be used at all rather than how well it performs.

AI Capability

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.

Compliance and Risk

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 Legal Signals

Twelve things recorded on every vendor, not graded

Every signal in full →

Some questions do not have a grade, they have an answer. Whether a vendor trains on client data is not a B. Whether a court record exists is a fact about the public record. These are recorded with a source and a date, and the value set for each one is published so a reader can see exactly what the alternatives were.

Confidentiality and Privilege

What happens to client material once it enters the product, and what the vendor has committed to in writing.

  • Client Data in Training
    Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
  • Prompt and Output Retention
    How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
  • Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
    Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
  • Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
    If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Accuracy and Authority

Where the law comes from, whether it is still good law, and what the product does when it does not know.

  • Primary Law Corpus Provenance
    Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
  • Good Law Verification
    Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
  • Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
    What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
  • Fabricated Citation Record
    Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

Professional Responsibility

The obligations that attach to a lawyer rather than to software, and whether the vendor has engaged with them in public.

  • Bar Guidance Alignment
    Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
  • Billing and Fee Posture
    Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
  • Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
    Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
  • Court Disclosure Support
    If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Standing

What a grade on this index means, and what it does not

A grade measures what a buyer can verify from public sources on the date shown. It is not a rating of how good the product is. A vendor can build an excellent system and grade low on an axis because it publishes nothing an outsider can check, and the index says so rather than crediting a claim it cannot test.

The reverse is also true and worth stating plainly. A vendor with no located court record is not thereby safe, and a vendor that publishes its accuracy figures is not thereby accurate. The index measures disclosure and evidence, which is the only thing an outside party can honestly measure, and it dates every judgment so a reader can see how old it is.

Sourcing

Every record carries one of five source bases, shown on the record itself.

  • Vendor Published. The vendor’s own documentation, terms or trust materials.
  • Third Party Estimated. An outside source the index could corroborate, marked as an estimate.
  • Practitioner Interview. A named practitioner speaking to use in production.
  • Bar Guidance or Court Record. An ethics opinion, a court order, or a disciplinary record, cited.
  • Operator Verified. Checked directly in the product or against a live artifact.

9 categories, 15 axes and 12 signals on every published vendor.

Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 21, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746