Compare legal AI: cost, data custody & liability
Commercial AI platforms hide where your client data goes, how it is routed, and who can access it. Answer a few questions about your practice to compare data custody, accountability, and cost across the different types of options.
This is not legal advice. It is a decision-support tool for comparing AI architectures.
It helps you compare sovereign open-source legal AI workspace tracks (Basic and Professional, built on Suzie Law), Claude pilots, and commercial platforms on equal footing. Flat-fee bands in the report are calibrated for solo, small, and mid-size firms; enterprise-scale sovereign deployments are modeled as custom projects beyond those baseline ranges.
See where your client data may go, who may be liable if something goes wrong, and estimated costs over 3 years, before you sign a vendor contract.
Five modules capture the variables that actually change your comparison: scale, practice focus, prioritized technical concerns, document repository, and IT capacity.
Your report will include:
What does the Rule26 legal AI stack comparison tool measure?
It compares selected legal AI architectures across a 3-year economic projection, document custody and data privacy, and an accountability matrix for professional liability. You also receive an infrastructure verdict and architecture diagrams for each stack.
Is this comparison legal advice?
No. It is a neutral decision-support tool for managing partners and IT leaders. It explains tradeoffs in plain English; your attorneys remain responsible for ethical and legal judgments.
Which AI stacks can I compare?
You can compare up to three tracks at once: Open-source legal AI workspace – Basic, Safe AI Drafting Cockpit, Open-source legal AI workspace – Professional, Cryptographic Fortress, Claude for Legal, Assisted Installation, commercial platforms (Harvey/Legora-style), and Claude Code DIY paths, depending on your intake answers.
How are multi-year costs estimated?
The tool models setup, SaaS, Preflight, and LLM token pass-through using your attorney count, usage intensity, and billing assumptions. Flat-fee bands are calibrated for solo, small, and mid-size firms; larger-firm sovereign deployments are treated as custom enterprise projects. All figures are planning estimates for comparison, not vendor quotes.
How is this different from vendor sales decks?
It is vendor-neutral and built for malpractice, custody, and total-cost questions litigation firms ask before signing. It foregrounds where client data may travel and what you can defend in a bar inquiry, not feature checklists.
