Editorial Standards & Review Methodology
How we research, rate, and publish reviews of AI legal tools — and how we maintain editorial independence.
Editorial Independence
AI For Legal Research does not accept payment for tool reviews, ratings, or editorial placement. Our ratings and editorial conclusions are determined independently by our editorial team. Vendors may not preview or alter review content before publication. If we maintain affiliate relationships with any tool vendors, these are disclosed on our Disclosure page and do not influence review scores.
Our Research Process
Published sources only
Pages are written from material anyone can check: the vendor's own documentation and pricing pages, company announcements, court filings and regulatory records where relevant, and coverage in the legal and technology press. We have not run these tools against a test suite, and we do not claim to have.
Claims are checked against the source
A figure is used only when we can point to where it came from. Where a date or number is reported by a third party and we cannot find official confirmation, we say so on the page rather than presenting it as settled.
Facts first, opinion labelled
What a tool costs, who owns it and whether it still exists are facts, and we try to keep them current. Whether it is worth the money is an opinion, and we write it as one.
Corrections
Pages carry a last-updated date. When something changes — a shutdown, a price, an acquisition — we update the page rather than leave it standing. If you find an error, email us and we will fix it and say that we did.
What We Look At
These are the things we try to establish about a tool. They are not a scoring formula — the list is here so you know what a page is trying to answer, and what it is not.
What the star rating is — and is not
The number on a tool page is one person's editorial impression, formed from the published sources listed above. It is not an average of user reviews — we have none, and we do not publish review counts we did not collect. It is not a test score: we have not run these products against a benchmark. Treat it as a rough sense of how a tool reads against its peers, and treat the facts on the page — price, ownership, limitations — as the part worth relying on.
Corrections Policy
We are committed to accuracy. If you believe information in a review or article is incorrect, outdated, or misleading, please contact us at editorial@aiforlegalresearch.com with the specific details.
We investigate all correction requests. Confirmed factual errors are corrected promptly, with a correction note added to the page indicating what was changed and when. We do not silently edit material inaccuracies.
Important Limitations
Our reviews reflect publicly available information and may not capture proprietary features, enterprise-only capabilities, or recent product updates made after our last review date. Tool performance can vary significantly by practice area, jurisdiction, and use case.
Nothing in our reviews constitutes a recommendation that a specific tool is appropriate for your specific legal work. Always evaluate tools independently and consult your jurisdiction's bar ethics guidance on AI use before adopting any AI tool for client matters.