Project your firm’s three-year cost, data custody, and accountability before you commit.
Choosing legal AI is no longer simply a software decision. It affects governance, confidentiality, professional responsibility, long-term cost, and your firm’s ability to defend how AI is used.
This assessment compares leading approaches using the factors that matter most to litigation firms, including governance maturity, data custody, implementation effort, verification capability, and three-year cost of ownership.
Receive a clear recommendation based on your firm’s priorities.
Estimated implementation and operating costs.
Identify legal and operational governance gaps.
Understand where firm and client data resides.
Visual comparison of implementation approaches.
Recommended next steps based on assessment results.
Answer a small number of questions about your firm, current AI usage, and priorities. Most firms complete the assessment in about five minutes.
The assessment is divided into five short modules. Your responses are used only to generate your report and are never shared with vendors.
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.
