Product and intended use
Define the configuration, people, information and tasks being assessed.
Product and modules covered
Public claim only
The vendor's product page (checked 2026-09-27) publishes a core-feature table for Atto X covering contract extraction and review, configurable workflows and tasks, critical dates and calendar, daily priorities and 'Eagle View', document generation, settlement adjustments, Outlook email filing, a client onboarding portal, a referrer progress portal, operational analytics, PEXA integration and practice-management integrations. The same page states 'Availability varies by enabled modules, firm configuration and jurisdiction.' The vendor's llms.txt states Atto 'works alongside existing firm systems and is not practice management software'.
Ask: Which Atto X modules will be enabled on our order form, and which published features are unavailable for conveyancing in our state?
Deployment and hosting
Public claim only
Atto X is a web application signed into at au.app.atto.legal. The security page (checked 2026-09-27) states 'All application hosting, databases and processing run on AWS in Sydney' and lists backups as 'Daily + PITR'. No on-premises, private-cloud or self-hosted option appears on any page read.
Ask: Is every component of our tenancy - application, database, AI processing, backups, queues and logs - in the AWS Sydney region, and will that be warranted in the service agreement?
Where the AI sits
Public claim only
The product page does not use the words AI, artificial intelligence, machine learning, LLM or model anywhere. It describes extracting contract details so a user can 'review flagged terms and check source references before applying changes', figures 'extracted from certificates' for adjustment calculations, and follow-ups 'prepare[d] ... for your approval'. AI is named on the security page, which lists a 'Zero-training AI guarantee', and in the vendor's llms.txt, which describes 'contract extraction with source review'. Which steps call a model and which are deterministic is not published.
Ask: Which Atto X steps call a language model, which are rule-based, and where is that boundary documented for extraction, settlement arithmetic and follow-up drafting?
Jurisdictions covered
Public claim only
The product is published as 'The conveyancing engine for Australian law firms' with the caveat 'Availability varies by enabled modules, firm configuration and jurisdiction.' No state or territory list appears, and the pages read do not say which state conveyancing regimes the critical-date, adjustment and template logic covers, or who maintains them when a state changes its rules.
Ask: Which states and territories are supported for critical dates, settlement adjustments and document templates, and how quickly are template and date rules updated after a legislative change?
Vendor content addressed to AI systems
Public claim only
Atto publishes an llms.txt (fetched 2026-09-27, HTTP 200, plain text) that describes its pages and products to LLMs. It opens 'Atto provides automation and workflow solutions for Australian law firms. It works alongside existing firm systems and is not practice management software.' and closes with a 'Product summary' stating 'Lawyers and their teams retain review, approval and legal judgement.' It contains no instruction on how an AI should characterise the product. Separately /robots.txt (HTTP 200) carries access control only: 'User-agent: *', 'Allow: /' and Disallow lines for /admin, /founders, /ir/, /proposal/, /preview/, /billing, /ws/thankyou, /thankyou/ and /launch/. A request for /ai.txt returned the site's HTML application shell rather than a text file, and no /ai-info or /for-ai page appears in the 23-URL site map.
Ask: Which statements in your llms.txt are warranted in the service agreement, and who reviews that file when the product changes?
Data, controls and requirements
Compare the actual configuration with firm, client and jurisdiction requirements, supported by evidence.
Client authority and professional responsibility
Not confirmed
The terms state 'Atto is a technology provider, not a law firm', that the services 'do not constitute legal advice', and that 'Legal practitioners using our platform remain solely responsible for the legal advice they provide to their clients and for compliance with all applicable professional and regulatory obligations.' The client onboarding portal collects client details through branded, email-verified questionnaires and the referrer portal shares 'controlled updates on referred transactions, key conditions and settlement timing with referral partners'. Nothing is published on what a client is told about automated processing of their contract, or on what a referrer can see.
Ask: What client notice or consent do you expect us to obtain for automated contract processing, and exactly which matter fields can a referral partner see in the referrer portal?
Foundation-model providers and inference location
Not confirmed
No model, model family, provider or inference arrangement is named on the product page, the security page, the privacy policy, the terms or the llms.txt. The security page states 'Data sent for processing is not retained beyond the immediate request' without naming who processes it, while also stating that all application hosting, databases and processing run on AWS in Sydney.
Ask: Name every model and provider used for contract and certificate extraction and for drafting follow-ups, the legal entity and region of each inference endpoint, and whether any inference leaves Australia.
Subprocessors
Not confirmed
No subprocessor list or register is published and no such page appears in the 23-URL site map. The privacy policy names categories only - 'hosting, analytics, email delivery, payment processing' - plus Google Analytics and LinkedIn Insight (partner ID 10010012) for website measurement, which are website tools rather than platform processors. AWS is named on the security page as the host.
Ask: Provide a dated subprocessor register for the Atto X platform with entity, country, purpose and data types, and our notice and objection rights when it changes.
Training on customer content
Public claim only
The security page states, under 'Zero-training AI guarantee': 'Your firm's documents are never used to train AI models. Data sent for processing is not retained beyond the immediate request.' A summary row on the same page records 'AI training - Zero. Never.' Neither the terms nor the privacy policy contains a training prohibition, and the platform service agreement is not published, so the statement has no contractual backing in the documents available.
Ask: Will you put the zero-training statement in our service agreement, extended to any model provider and covering prompts, extracted data, embeddings and telemetry as well as documents?
Feedback and product improvement
Public claim only
The terms (clause 03, User content) state that content submitted 'through our Services (including enquiry forms, comments, or feedback)' carries 'a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce, and display such content for the purpose of operating and improving our Services'. That licence extends to improvement and is not limited by the security page's zero-training statement. Nothing is published about in-product ratings or corrections of extraction results.
Ask: Does the clause 3 user-content licence reach matter content, prompts or corrections made inside Atto X, and can it be narrowed to exclude model or product improvement?
Retention of documents, extracted data and logs
Public claim only
The privacy policy, incorporated into the terms by reference, retains personal information for as long as necessary for the service, legal and contractual obligations, disputes and professional record-keeping, with no stated period, then securely deletes or de-identifies it. The security page states data sent for AI processing 'is not retained beyond the immediate request' and lists backups as 'Daily + PITR'. No retention period is published for matter documents, extracted contract data, generated document versions, client-portal submissions or audit logs.
Ask: State default and configurable retention for matter documents, extracted data, generated document versions, portal submissions, audit logs and backups, and how long a backup can hold deleted matter data.
Deletion and certified erasure
Public claim only
The privacy policy gives individuals a right to request deletion 'subject to legal and contractual requirements' and says information no longer required will be securely deleted or de-identified. No deletion timeframe, no certified-erasure commitment and no process for deleting a closed matter or a whole tenancy appears in the documents read; the terms are silent on data return or destruction after termination.
Ask: On termination, what is deleted, within what period, including backups and any processor copies, and will you certify that deletion in writing?
Vendor access to firm content
Not confirmed
The security page states five defined roles enforce least-privilege access and that 'Every application action is logged with timestamp, user identity and IP address'; the privacy policy lists access controls, authentication requirements and staff training. Neither says whether Atto personnel or contractors can read a firm's matter documents and extracted data, under what approval, from which country, or whether such access appears in the firm's own audit log.
Ask: Can your staff or contractors read our matter documents and extracted data, under what ticketed approval, from which countries, and can we see those access events in our audit log?
Access control, authentication and audit
Public claim only
The security page publishes five defined roles with least-privilege access, per-action logging with timestamp, user identity and IP address, and multi-tenant isolation 'logically isolated at the database level, with tenant scope enforced on every query'. It lists authentication as 'Email OTP + JWT'. No SSO, SAML, SCIM or authenticator-app multi-factor option is published, and the client portal is described as email-verified.
Ask: Is SSO with our identity provider and enforced multi-factor authentication available, can the five roles be customised per matter type, and can we export the complete audit log?
Encryption and key management
Public claim only
The security page states 'AES-256 encryption for all stored data with KMS-managed keys' and 'TLS enforced on every connection: browser, server, database'. The privacy policy repeats encryption in transit (TLS/SSL) and at rest in general terms. No TLS version is stated and customer-managed keys are not offered on the pages read.
Ask: Confirm the minimum TLS version, whether keys are provider-managed or customer-managed, and whether data is decrypted outside the Sydney region at any point during processing.
Independent security assurance
Public claim only
The security page lists 'SOC 2 Type II' and 'ISO 27001' each as 'Q2 2026' and 'In progress', so on the page as read on 2026-09-27 neither certification is held, and names Vanta for 'continuous monitoring and automated evidence collection'. Two further rows, 'Australian Privacy Act' and 'Legal Profession Regulations', are marked 'Current' and 'Compliant' with no auditor named, so they are self-assessments. A 'security & data capability sheet' is offered on request and no penetration-test summary is published.
Ask: What is the current status, auditor and scope of the SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 work, and will you provide the capability sheet and the latest penetration-test summary under NDA?
Contract, entity, liability and forum
Public claim only
The terms (last updated 1 February 2026) are a binding agreement with 'Atto Pty Ltd (ACN 694 769 581 | ABN 66 694 769 581)', governed by the laws of New South Wales with exclusive NSW jurisdiction. Warranties are disclaimed to the maximum extent permitted, indirect and consequential loss and loss of data are excluded, and liability is limited to re-supply where the Australian Consumer Law applies. The same document says platform use is governed by separate service agreements executed with clients. No DPA, no liability cap figure and no AI-specific schedule is published.
Ask: Provide the platform service agreement and any data processing agreement, and state the liability cap, the AI-specific warranties and which document prevails over the website terms.
Cross-border transfers and APP 8
Not confirmed
The security page states 'All application hosting, databases and processing run on AWS in Sydney. Your firm's data stays within Australian jurisdiction.' The privacy policy, which is incorporated into the terms, is narrower: its security measures include 'Secure hosting infrastructure with Australian-based data centres where practicable', and clause 09 states 'Some of our service providers may be located outside Australia', with the user consenting to those transfers where necessary for the provision of the services. The two documents differ on whether any processing can leave Australia, and no country list is published.
Ask: Which statement governs our tenancy - Sydney-only processing, or Australian data centres 'where practicable' with overseas service providers - and will Australia-only processing, including support access, be warranted in writing?
Incident notification and history
Not confirmed
The security page publishes a headline '<4hr' incident-response figure. Neither the terms nor the privacy policy contains a breach-notification clause, a notification period, or any commitment on the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme; the privacy policy names the OAIC only as a complaints avenue. No incident history is published.
Ask: What is your contractual notification period from discovery, how will you support our own Notifiable Data Breaches assessment, and have there been any reportable incidents affecting the platform?
Change notice for terms, models and processors
Public claim only
The terms reserve the right to modify them 'at any time', with changes posted on the page under a revised 'Last updated' date and continued use constituting acceptance; the privacy policy may be updated the same way. Nothing is published about notice before a change of model, processor or hosting region, and the security page's certification rows carry target quarters that can move.
Ask: What written notice will we receive before a change of model, subprocessor or hosting region, and can we object to a change without terminating?
Export and exit
Not confirmed
The terms state that on termination 'your right to use the Services will cease immediately' and contain no export, data-return or destruction obligation. No export format for matters, extracted data, generated documents or audit logs is published. Document generation is described as retaining earlier versions inside the product, which is version history rather than an export route.
Ask: On exit, in what formats can we export matters, documents, extracted contract data, adjustment statements and audit logs, over what period, and at what cost?
Connectors and third-party services
Not confirmed
Integrations with PEXA, Clio, Actionstep, Smokeball, LEAP and Outlook 'require the relevant provider account and setup', and the terms state Atto has 'no control over, and assume[s] no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third-party websites or services', with use of third-party services 'at your own risk'. The permissions each connector requests, and whether a connector can act in the other system, are not published.
Ask: For each connector, list the scopes or permissions requested, the data written back, and whether Atto X can create or alter records in our practice management system or PEXA workspace.
Open-web retrieval
Not confirmed
Nothing on the pages read says Atto X retrieves from the open web. The inputs described are contracts, certificates, configured templates, matter data, Outlook email and PEXA workspaces. No web-retrieval feature, toggle or citation behaviour is published.
Ask: Does any Atto X feature fetch content from the internet at run time, and if so which, and can it be disabled for our tenancy?
Actions the product can take
Public claim only
Most steps are published as preparation rather than execution - 'prepare selected follow-ups for your approval', 'check source references before applying changes' - but the PEXA feature is stated as 'Create, manage and visualise your PEXA workspaces directly in Atto X, without having to log into PEXA's website', and document generation supports regeneration with earlier versions retained. Which PEXA, email or practice-management actions can be executed, and whether any run without a second confirmation, is not published.
Ask: List every action Atto X can take in PEXA, Outlook and our practice management system, which require a user confirmation, and whether confirmation can be made mandatory by role.
Human review before use
Public claim only
The product page states 'Your team stays in control of the decisions' and the vendor's llms.txt states 'Lawyers and their teams retain review, approval and legal judgement.' The review points named are flagged-term review with source references, approval of prepared follow-ups, and review of figures extracted from certificates. No configurable control is described that forces a named reviewer, and the published terms contain no human-oversight clause.
Ask: Which product settings can force a named reviewer before a generated document, adjustment statement or client communication leaves the firm, and can an administrator lock those settings on?
