Product and intended use
Define the configuration, people, information and tasks being assessed.
Product, tools and what sits outside this profile
Public claim only
This profile covers the one platform at legal-ai.com.au and the four tools published on it, checked 2026-09-27: the Legal-AI Research Assistant, described as the only paid subscription; ATO Agentic Research, labelled 'Free Utility'; Contract Reviewer, labelled 'Open Access'; and Structure Builder, labelled 'Open Access'. The home page states 'All legal monographs, structural diagrams, and consulting precedents on Legal AI remain 100% free and open-access'. The sibling sites named in the vendor's own navigation - tdocs.com.au, smsf-centre.com.au, companies-centre.com.au and aml-centre.com.au - are separate products and are not covered here, although the vendor states one login works across them.
Ask: Which of the four tools would our subscription cover, and does the account that reaches them also reach the sibling sites' data?
Release stage
Public claim only
The Research Assistant is published as being in beta. The home page reads 'Open Beta Access - $5 / Month AUD' and the navigation label is 'Legal-AI Assistant $5/mo Beta'; the Research Assistant page reads 'Open Beta Access - Free While Payment Gateway Is in Testing' and offers 'Join Free Beta' and 'Create Free Beta Account'. Checked 2026-09-27. No beta terms, no end date for the beta and no change log are published.
Ask: What terms govern beta use, when does the beta end, and what changes at the end of it for price, features and data?
Deployment model and where the components sit
Public claim only
The platform is a web application reached in a browser, with the Research Assistant behind a sign-in. The Research Assistant page publishes 'Data Source: T Legal Curated Archive | Qdrant tdocs-cluster (Sydney)' and 'Backblaze B2 Source-Verified - No live scraping - Self-sovereign archive', checked 2026-09-27. The only location published anywhere is the '(Sydney)' label on the Qdrant vector cluster, which names a store rather than committing to where the service or its inference runs; no cloud provider, region, data centre or inference location is published for the application itself, so the hosting region is recorded as unknown and Australian residency is recorded as unknown rather than read off that label.
Ask: Which provider and region host the application and run inference, and is the '(Sydney)' Qdrant cluster label a contractual data-residency commitment or a configuration note?
What the vendor publishes that the tools do
Public claim only
From the vendor's own pages, checked 2026-09-27. Research Assistant: 'Autonomous multi-agent research across Australian superior court judgments, Commonwealth statutory provisions, and judicial precedents'; 'Autonomous Case Law Agents: Superior court judgment screening across AustLII'; 'Semantic Brain Graph: Synthesizes key legal concepts, patterns, and ratio decidendi'; 'Judicial Interpretations: Compares upheld vs invalidated deed and contract clauses'; '1-Click PDF Dossiers: Comprehensive case analysis reports with statutory citations'. ATO Agentic Research: 'Autonomous crawler dedicated to the ATO Legal Database. Search Public Rulings, Determinations, Practical Compliance Guidelines (PCGs), and Private Binding Rulings (PBRs)'. Contract Reviewer: 'Instant clause-level risk analysis for Australian commercial and conveyancing agreements. Identify high-risk indemnities and generate compliant redlines'. Structure Builder: 'Design complex Australian corporate structures, SMSF setups, and multi-tier discretionary trust relationships with AI-assisted diagram generation'.
Ask: For each of the four tools, what is the published scope of the corpus it reads and the output it produces, and where is that documented outside the marketing page?
Who the vendor says may use it
Public claim only
The Research Assistant page states 'Autonomous superior court precedent screening and Backblaze B2 source-verified retrieval is reserved for registered Australian practitioners' and that 'Your login works seamlessly across SMSF Centre, Product Webpages, AML Centre, and Legal-AI', with 'Already have an account on SMSF Centre or TaxSmart? Use your same email and password.' The home page describes the other tools as 'Open-access practice utilities engineered for solicitors, accountants, and commercial advisors'. Checked 2026-09-27. How practitioner status is checked at sign-up is not published.
Ask: How is 'registered Australian practitioner' verified at sign-up, and what happens to an account that does not meet it?
Jurisdiction and legal content covered
Public claim only
The vendor names Australian superior court judgments and judicial precedents 'across AustLII', Commonwealth statutory provisions and 'Full Commonwealth Acts', the ATO Legal Database for the tax tool, and Australian commercial and conveyancing agreements for the contract tool. Checked 2026-09-27. No currency date, coverage date range, court list, state or territory coverage statement, or update frequency is published for any corpus, and the vendor states the archive is its own curated copy: 'Data Source: T Legal Curated Archive' and 'No live scraping - self-sovereign archive'.
Ask: How current is the curated archive for each source, how often is it refreshed, and which courts and which statutory instruments are in and out of it?
Check for vendor content directing how AI describes the product
Not confirmed
Checked 2026-09-27. A map of legal-ai.com.au returned 20 URLs and no /llms.txt, /ai-info, /ai or /for-ai path; the home page, the Research Assistant page and the practice About page were searched for 'instructions for ai', 'ai assistant', 'llms' and 'for ai models' and carry no heading or block addressed to AI models, assistants, crawlers or LLMs. No content directing how AI should describe the product was found, and no llms.txt was found in the map result; crawler allow and disallow directives were not examined. The vendor publishes no FAQ or question-and-answer block answering a comparative or superlative question about itself, so no self-ranking answer was found. Recorded for completeness without reproducing it: the home page carries ordinary comparative marketing prose about other kinds of supplier, and none of it is carried into this profile.
Ask: Does the vendor publish any file or page addressed to AI models, assistants or crawlers, including an llms.txt, and what does it say?
Data, controls and requirements
Compare the actual configuration with firm, client and jurisdiction requirements, supported by evidence.
Authority to put client information into the tools
Not confirmed
No terms of service and no privacy policy are published for this platform - both footer links return 404, checked 2026-09-27 - so nothing states whether a user may enter client facts, client documents or matter detail into the Research Assistant or the Contract Reviewer, or what the vendor's position is on confidentiality of what is entered. The Contract Reviewer is published as accepting commercial and conveyancing agreements for clause-level review, which implies document upload, but no document-handling statement accompanies it.
Ask: May we upload a client's contract to the Contract Reviewer or enter matter facts into the Research Assistant, and which document records that permission and its conditions?
Model and model provider
Not confirmed
No model, model family, model provider or cloud AI service is named anywhere on the pages read, checked 2026-09-27. The vendor describes the mechanism in its own terms only - 'autonomous multi-agent pipelines', 'Autonomous Case Law Agents', 'Deterministic AI engines', 'a Deterministic AI Rules Engine' and 'Semantic Brain Graph' - and prices the subscription on the stated basis that 'The Legal-AI Research Assistant requires multi-agent computing to query, screen, and synthesize thousands of court decisions'. The three third-party services the pages do name - Qdrant, Backblaze B2 and eWAY - are a vector store, an object store and a payment gateway, and none is recorded as a model provider.
Ask: Which model and which model provider generate an answer and a PDF dossier, and would we be notified before either changed?
Subprocessors and third parties in the chain
Not confirmed
No subprocessor list, DPA or third-party schedule is published, and there is no privacy policy for the platform to carry one - the footer link returns 404, checked 2026-09-27. The three third parties the product pages name are Qdrant (vector store, cluster labelled Sydney), Backblaze B2 (object store) and eWAY Australia (payment gateway); they are named as part of the architecture and pricing panel rather than in any processor list. The practice's privacy policy names Google as the host of its online order forms, the Australian Business Registration Service and the State Revenue Office of Victoria, but it describes the document-ordering service and does not mention this platform.
Ask: Can you provide a current list of every processor and hosting provider behind the platform, including any model provider, and confirm which hold user queries and uploaded documents?
Use of user input to train models
Not confirmed
Nothing published states whether queries, uploaded contracts or generated output are used to train, fine-tune or evaluate any model. There is no privacy policy or terms document for the platform to address it: both footer links return 404, checked 2026-09-27. The practice privacy policy, which covers the online document order forms rather than this platform, makes no statement about model training.
Ask: Are user queries, uploaded documents or generated dossiers used to train, fine-tune or evaluate any model, by you or by any provider behind the platform?
Use of feedback and correction signals
Not confirmed
No feedback mechanism is published for any of the four tools - no rating, correction or report-an-error feature is described - and no document states what would be done with feedback if given. Checked 2026-09-27.
Ask: Is there any in-product way to report an incorrect answer, and what is captured and done with it?
Retention of queries, uploads and output
Not confirmed
Nothing published states what the platform retains, or for how long: queries, uploaded contracts, generated dossiers, structure diagrams and logs are all unaddressed, and there is no privacy policy or terms document for the platform - both footer links return 404, checked 2026-09-27. The practice's Terms and Conditions do contain retention wording, but for the document-ordering Service they define: 'we will not retain the Personal Information or Sensitive Information you upload to the Service indefinitely. If you are not actively using your account on a regular basis, you should ask us to delete any such information that you have uploaded to the Service', and 'We do not warrant or ensure to retain copies of documents generated using the Service.' Those clauses do not name this platform and nothing is recorded from them about it.
Ask: What does the platform retain when a query is run or a contract is uploaded, and for how long is each item kept?
Deletion on request and on account closure
Not confirmed
No deletion right, process or timeframe is published for this platform, checked 2026-09-27, and there is no privacy policy or terms document to carry one. The practice's Terms and Conditions state, of the document-ordering Service, 'your account and the associated data you upload to the Service will be deleted if your account remains inactive for a period of time. We will provide you with written notice before we delete your account', and the practice privacy policy states 'Some time after your ordered documentation is dispatched to you and signed, your data is deleted', with no period given. Neither document names this platform.
Ask: How do we have our platform account and everything we have entered or uploaded deleted, within what period, and what would be retained?
Human access to user content
Not confirmed
Nothing published states who can see a user's queries or uploaded documents on this platform, whether such access is logged, or under what circumstances it occurs. Checked 2026-09-27. The practice privacy policy contains a statement about its separate document-ordering service - 'No person has access to your data, only one staff member of T Legal who owns and manages the entire front and back end of the system' - which is recorded here only as context about a different service, not as a fact about the platform. The home page separately states that the platform's software was designed, coded and deployed inside the practice.
Ask: Who at the practice or at any provider can access our queries and uploaded documents on the platform, and is that access logged and auditable?
Accounts, credentials and administration
Not confirmed
Two vendor documents differ on whether credentials are collected, and their stated scopes differ. The Research Assistant page requires an account and states 'Your login works seamlessly across SMSF Centre, Product Webpages, AML Centre, and Legal-AI' and 'Already have an account on SMSF Centre or TaxSmart? Use your same email and password', with 'Sign In with Ecosystem Account' and 'Create Free Beta Account'. The practice privacy policy states 'At this stage there is no collection of usernames and passwords so there is no online method for any user to access any data we collect and no ongoing protection measures for secure login and passwords required' - a document written about the online document order forms rather than about this platform, which is the only privacy document published anywhere in this vendor's ecosystem. Checked 2026-09-27. No multi-factor authentication, password policy, session control, role model or firm-administrator function is published for the platform.
Ask: Which document governs platform credentials, given the only published privacy policy states no usernames or passwords are collected, and is multi-factor authentication available?
Encryption in transit and at rest
Public claim only
The home page pricing panel states 'Security: 256-Bit SSL Encrypted', checked 2026-09-27. That is the only encryption statement published anywhere on the pages read: nothing addresses encryption at rest for the Qdrant vector store, the Backblaze B2 archive or uploaded documents, no key management is described, and there is no security page or trust centre for the platform.
Ask: Beyond transport encryption, is user content encrypted at rest in the vector store and the object store, with which algorithms, and who holds the keys?
Independent assurance and certification
Not confirmed
No assurance certification or independent assessment is published for this platform, checked 2026-09-27 - no SOC 2, no ISO/IEC 27001, no ISO/IEC 42001, no penetration test summary, and no security page or trust centre exists. The credentials the vendor does publish are professional and organisational: an Australian legal practice with 'Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation', and membership of a state law institute technology committee.
Ask: Has the platform been independently assessed against any security or AI management standard, and can a certificate or report be provided?
Contract documents and the contracting entity
Not confirmed
The platform publishes no terms of service and no privacy policy. Every page footer links 'Privacy Policy' to https://legal-ai.com.au/privacy and 'Terms of Service' to https://legal-ai.com.au/terms; both were fetched on 2026-09-27 and both return a page reading '404 - This page could not be found.' The practice's own Terms and Conditions and privacy policy exist on tlegal.com.au, but the Terms open 'Please read the relevant terms and conditions that apply to your use of T Legal and T Docs services and website', define the 'Website' as the one from which documents are ordered, and do not name legal-ai.com.au or any of the four tools. Those Terms also identify the entity as 'T Legal Pty Ltd (ACN 673 630 469)', while the practice About page and the legal-ai.com.au footer both state 'ABN 64 647 884 892'; the two identifiers are recorded exactly as published and no relationship between them is inferred. A further feature of the practice Terms, recorded as a fact about the document: the limitation of liability clause refers to 'clause 19' by way of a hyperlink to a clause anchor on cleardocs.com/terms-and-conditions.html, a different company's terms page.
Ask: Which written agreement governs our use of the platform, given both footer links return 404, and which entity and company number contracts with us?
Offshore transfer and cross-border disclosure
Not confirmed
No statement about offshore storage, cross-border disclosure or overseas recipients is published for this platform, checked 2026-09-27, and there is no privacy policy to carry one. The only location published anywhere is the '(Sydney)' label on the Qdrant vector cluster; the vendor publishes nothing about where Backblaze B2 storage, the application or inference sit, and no country is named. Australian residency is therefore recorded as unknown and is not read off the cluster label or the .com.au domain.
Ask: Is any user query, uploaded document or generated output stored or processed outside Australia, and in which countries are the vector store, the object store and inference located?
Incident notification
Not confirmed
No incident or data-breach notification commitment is published for this platform, and there is no privacy policy or terms document to carry one, checked 2026-09-27. The practice privacy policy contains a single conditional notification statement about its separate document-ordering service - 'If Google notifies T Legal of a data breach in relation to your information you will be notified immediately if your data has not yet been deleted' - which names a different service and a different provider and is recorded here only as context.
Ask: Within what period would platform users be notified of a data breach, by what means, and who is the named contact?
Notice of changes to the product, price and documents
Not confirmed
No change notice commitment, version history or change log is published for this platform, checked 2026-09-27, and there are no terms to carry one. The published price is framed as a beta price 'during our open beta to offset agent computing costs', with no statement of what happens to the price at the end of the beta. The practice's Terms, which are scoped elsewhere, take the approach that 'you agree that you accept the version of these Terms that apply at the time of order', without advance notice of a change.
Ask: How would we be told before the price, the tools or the terms changed, and where is the platform's change history published?
Exit, cancellation and taking content away
Public claim only
The home page pricing panel states 'Cancel anytime - No lock-in contract' and 'Beta Pricing Tier', with subscription taken through an eWAY button, checked 2026-09-27. Nothing published describes what happens to the account or to anything entered or uploaded after cancellation, and no export function is published for queries, dossiers, redlines or structure diagrams; the PDF dossier is described as an output the user can generate rather than as an export of stored data.
Ask: On cancellation, what can we export, what is deleted, what is kept, and how do we obtain a copy of what we put in?
Connections to other systems
Public claim only
The one published connection is to the vendor's own sibling products through a shared account: 'Your login works seamlessly across SMSF Centre, Product Webpages, AML Centre, and Legal-AI' and 'Already have an account on SMSF Centre or TaxSmart? Use your same email and password', checked 2026-09-27. No connector to a practice management system, document management system, email or file store is published, and no API is published. What, if anything, is shared between the sibling sites under one account is not described.
Ask: What data, if any, is shared between the sibling sites under a single ecosystem login, and can a firm confine an account to this platform only?
Whether the tools reach outside the curated archive
Public claim only
The vendor publishes statements pointing in two directions for two different tools on the same platform, both quoted as written. Of the Research Assistant: 'Backblaze B2 Source-Verified - No live scraping - Self-sovereign archive' and 'Data Source: T Legal Curated Archive | Qdrant tdocs-cluster (Sydney)', with case-law screening described as 'Superior court judgment screening across AustLII'. Of the tax tool: 'Autonomous crawler dedicated to the ATO Legal Database'. Checked 2026-09-27. Nothing published states what technically prevents the Research Assistant from reaching the live web, nor whether the crawler in the tax tool runs at query time or in advance.
Ask: Which tools reach the live internet at query time, which read only the curated archive, and what enforces the difference?
Control over what the autonomous agents do
Not confirmed
The vendor describes the mechanism as autonomous throughout: 'Autonomous multi-agent research', 'Autonomous Case Law Agents', 'autonomous multi-agent pipelines', 'Agent Processing: Unlimited Multi-Agent', and, for the tax tool, 'Autonomous crawler'. Checked 2026-09-27. No control, limit, approval step, scope restriction or audit trail over what those agents do is published, and there is no administrative documentation for the platform. A firm would be accepting the published default as it stands, because nothing describes a setting to change it.
Ask: What can the autonomous agents do without a user's approval, what limits are enforced, and is there an audit trail of each agent run?
Human review of output
Public claim only
The platform publishes no requirement or mechanism for human review of output, and carries no on-product warning to check an answer, checked 2026-09-27; instead it publishes the claim 'Deterministic Precision: Strict rules, statutory bridges, and court ratio extraction with zero hallucination'. The vendor states the software was designed, coded and deployed inside its own active Australian legal practice. The practice's separate Terms and Conditions, scoped to the document-ordering website, disclaim AI-interpreted comments as not representing the views of the company and state that only formal written advice within an agreed scope constitutes legal advice.
Ask: Is any output reviewed by a person before a user sees it, and will you put in writing what a user must independently verify before relying on a dossier?
