Product and intended use
Define the configuration, people, information and tasks being assessed.
Product, plan and what sits outside it
Public claim only
The Terms of Service, last updated June 2026, are between AI Legal Assistant Pty Ltd ACN 671 466 729, trading as AI Legal Assistant and Quillio, and the person using the Services, defined as the sites legalassistant.au and quillio.au and all subdomains, iOS and Android mobile applications, the Microsoft Word add-in and the vendor's third party social media channels. The home page product menu lists seven modules: AI Document Index and Dataroom, AI Legal Research, AI Discussion Assistant and Compass, AI Document Review, AI Legal Chronologies, Microsoft Word Add-in and AI Drafting. The Terms allow different subscription types with different features, and name Solo and Legal Practice customer categories; the comparison pages name Starter, Pro and Legal Practice tiers. Which module sits in which tier is not stated in the Terms.
Ask: Which modules and integrations are included in the tier we would buy, and can the module list for our tier be attached to the agreement rather than left to the website?
Deployment model and hosting
Not confirmed
Cloud only; no on-premises, private-cloud or self-hosted option appears on any page read. The home page states 'Your client data is stored in Australia on Australian-Hosted Infrastructure. Not Virginia. Not Dublin.' and the footer states 'Client matter content is stored in Australia' and 'Proudly Australian-built and hosted.' No cloud provider, region identifier or data-centre location is named. The Terms take a different line: the clause on user data states the software 'adopts an agentic framework, whereby we may use our proprietary technology in combination with one or more third party technology services (which may be based overseas)', and the Privacy Policy states personal information may be disclosed to outsourced IT service providers including cloud computing and data storage providers 'primarily located in the United States of America'. The comparison page narrows the Australian statement to client matter content and adds that 'some account and analytics data may still involve US processing'.
Ask: Name the cloud provider and region that hold client matter content, and state in the agreement where the model inference itself runs, given the Terms contemplate third party technology services based overseas.
What the product does
Public claim only
The home page, checked 2026-09-27, describes document review with issues, obligations and key dates; chronologies built from large email sets; drafting; multi-document analysis; research; task management; a firm Knowledge Bank; and 'Compass', which turns a multi-step workflow into a reusable one-click automation invoked by typing '#'. Delivery is a web app, a Microsoft Word add-in described as working inside Word to redline, draft, discuss and run local case-law research, and a mobile app the page marks 'Coming Soon'. These are marketing descriptions; the individual module pages under quillio.au/product/ were not opened within this profile's operations budget.
Ask: For each module, what does the product do when it cannot answer from the supplied documents, and is there a documented limit on document size, matter size or number of documents per review?
Jurisdiction and legal content
Public claim only
The vendor states the platform 'was built around Australian and New Zealand case law, legislation, and legal reasoning', that research is 'citation-first' with 'a source citation on every result', and that it covers all eight Australian states and territories plus federal law with a 'maintained, current' Australian and New Zealand corpus. The site map lists jurisdiction pages for NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, ACT, NT, New Zealand, federal law, the Federal Court, the High Court, family law, Fair Work, AAT migration and the Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk Island jurisdictions. No licensor, database, publisher or update cadence for the primary-law corpus is named on any page read, and the Terms disclaim any warranty as to the currency of content dynamically sourced from third party sites and services.
Ask: Which primary-law sources does the research corpus draw on for each Australian jurisdiction and for New Zealand, how often is each refreshed, and what is the currency date a practitioner can cite?
Check for vendor content directing how AI describes the product
Not confirmed
The check was made deliberately and nothing of the kind was found. A site URL map of quillio.au taken on 2026-09-27 returned 147 URLs and listed no /llms.txt, /ai-info, /ai or /for-ai path; the home page, the comparison page 'Best AI Tools for Lawyers in Australia (2026)', the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy carry no heading or block addressed to AI models, assistants, crawlers or LLMs. A direct request for quillio.au/llms.txt and quillio.au/robots.txt was not made within this profile's operations budget, so their absence from the map is the extent of the evidence. Separately and not the same thing, the site carries a large volume of retrieval-shaped published content that the map lists: a prompt library, a glossary, a knowledge hub, an AI quiz, about 45 use-case pages, about 30 practice-area pages and about 40 comparison pages.
Ask: Do you publish an llms.txt, an AI-instructions page or any block of text addressed to AI models or assistants on quillio.au, legalassistant.au or any subdomain, and if so where?
Vendor answering a comparative question about itself in its own published FAQ
Public claim only
The comparison page at quillio.au/compare/best-ai-tools-lawyers-australia, titled 'Best AI Tools for Lawyers in Australia (2026)' and marked 'Updated June 2026', answers a comparative question about the vendor's own product in its published question-and-answer block. Checked 2026-09-27, the question 'Which legal software is best for Australian lawyers?' is answered 'There is no single winner for every firm. For AU/NZ legal work in one tool, Quillio is a strong fit.' The same page states 'We can tell you Quillio is the better AI Legal Assistant. Our clients can tell you it's better. But the only way you'll ever know if Quillio is right for you is to test it yourself.' The site map lists about 40 further pages under /compare/, including about 25 whose paths begin 'best-ai-for-'. The page carries its own disclaimer that the comparison 'is for informational purposes only', that users should conduct their own verification, and that the vendor 'does not guarantee that it is free from errors'. This catalogue records the existence and wording of these statements and carries no ranking across.
Ask: Which statements on your comparison pages are warranted in our agreement, and how do you keep the statements they make about other vendors' products current?
Data, controls and requirements
Compare the actual configuration with firm, client and jurisdiction requirements, supported by evidence.
Authority to put client material into the product
Public claim only
The Terms place the whole of the professional obligation on the user: the user is 'solely responsible for complying with all applicable laws in relation to any business or undertaking that you may use our Services to assist you with, including but not limited to the practice of law in any relevant jurisdictions', and must not represent the output as advice without their own verification. On privacy, the Terms state that where User Content contains personal information falling outside the Privacy Policy, the vendor handles it 'only as your technology service provider' and 'we have no responsibility whatsoever to determine the application or otherwise of data privacy laws to any such User Content', so the firm remains responsible for its own privacy obligations. The Privacy Policy, last updated April 2026, expressly puts User Content outside its own scope on the same basis.
Ask: Given the Terms contemplate third party technology services that may be based overseas, what disclosure should we make to clients before uploading privileged material, and will you warrant that no client content leaves Australia?
Which models power the product
Not confirmed
No model, model family, model version or model provider is named on the home page, either comparison page read, the Terms of Service or the Privacy Policy. The Terms describe only 'one or more third party technology services (which may be based overseas)' used within an agentic framework, without naming any of them, and state that the framework 'dynamically determine[s] if and when, and how, we use such third party services'. The site footer links to a page titled 'Claude for AU/NZ legal work' at quillio.au/claude-ai-for-legal-work/; that page was not opened and a resources page about a third party product is not a statement of what powers Quillio, so no provider is recorded.
Ask: Which models, from which providers, serve each module, in which region are they hosted, and will you notify us in writing before a model or provider is changed?
Subprocessors and third parties in the chain
Not confirmed
No subprocessor list or register is published anywhere read. The only third parties named in the binding documents are Stripe, for direct debits under the Stripe Services Agreement and BECS Debit Request Service Agreement; Apple, Google and Microsoft, whose store and Word terms apply to the apps and add-in; Actionstep, Smokeball and Clio, named as Integration Partners; and, in the Privacy Policy, Google Analytics plus unnamed 'outsourced information technology service providers, including cloud computing and data storage providers, primarily located in the United States of America'. The agentic-framework clause contemplates further unnamed third party technology services.
Ask: Publish or provide the current subprocessor list for client matter content, including each provider, its role, its region, and how we are notified of additions.
Training on customer content
Public claim only
The Terms of Service state, in bolded text, 'we do not use your User Content to train our artificial intelligence software which makes it impossible for your User Content to be inadvertently disclosed by us to any other user or third party', and separately that 'each user account (and all associated sub-accounts) will only be Served their own User Content, and not the User Content of other users'. The same clause undertakes that third party technology or service providers 'do not store any User Content, or only store User Content temporarily for legal compliance purposes, eventually being deleted permanently', with an express carve-out for the third party cloud storage provider that holds User Content. The commitment as written covers the vendor's own AI software; the comparison pages put it more widely as not using client documents, queries or AI outputs 'to train any model'.
Ask: Will you warrant in our agreement that neither you nor any model provider you route to may train, fine-tune or evaluate on our content, and that this covers prompts, retrieved documents and outputs?
Feedback, prompts and telemetry
Public claim only
The Terms contain a Feedback clause under which the user consents to the vendor soliciting comments, requests, ideas, enhancement requests, recommendations and descriptions of processes, the vendor owns all intellectual property rights in that Feedback and the user assigns those rights to it. The Terms also state that all online group training sessions are recorded, that intellectual property in the recordings vests in the vendor, that recordings may be shared on the vendor's sites for other subscribed users, and that information causing privacy or confidentiality concerns will be redacted 'where appropriate'. Nothing published states whether in-product signals such as accepted or rejected suggestions, corrections or ratings are retained or used to tune the system.
Ask: Are in-product feedback signals, corrections and rejected suggestions retained, and are they used to tune any model or shared with a model provider?
Retention of customer content
Public claim only
The Terms state that 'User Content is retained indefinitely for account holders (whether or not there is an active subscription), unless and until the relevant user (or any authorised sub-user, if any) deletes the data from our systems', and that once deleted the vendor retains data 'in accordance with our data management policy (accessible by request through our Trust Centre)'. That data management policy is not published and was not obtained. Data drawn in through an Integration Partner is retained under the same policy independently of the partner's retention rules, so content deleted in the practice-management system may not be deleted in Quillio at the same time. For personal information, the Privacy Policy says it is destroyed or deleted when no longer required, but that basic contact details of prospective, current and former customers are generally retained unless deletion is requested.
Ask: Provide the data management policy and state the retention period that applies after deletion, after account closure and after contract end, for documents, chronologies, prompts and outputs.
Deletion on request and at exit
Public claim only
The Terms provide an account deletion route, either an account deletion facility on the sites 'if any' or by contacting the vendor, and state that on deletion User Content is retained under the unpublished data management policy. The same applies where the vendor itself deletes an account or suspends access, which it reserves the right to do at any time in its sole discretion without prior notice. The Privacy Policy sets out a right to be forgotten for personal information, exercised by contacting the vendor, which will take 'all reasonable steps' to delete unless required by law to keep it. No deletion timeframe, certificate of destruction or backup-purge period is published in either document.
Ask: On written request, within how many days is client matter content deleted from live systems, backups and any third party service, and will you certify the deletion?
Vendor access to client content
Public claim only
The Terms contain a confidentiality undertaking: 'We will keep strictly confidential all your User Content and will not disclose it to any third party, except with your prior written consent, where the relevant information is or becomes public knowledge (by reason other than our breach of this clause), or as otherwise required by law.' The same clause adds that where the vendor 'determine[s] that there is a reasonable likelihood that any User Content may form evidence in any current or future potential legal proceedings involving us as a litigant', it may retain that data and disclose it for those proceedings under its data management policy. The Privacy Policy lists 'Procedural and personnel measures limiting staff access' among its protections. Neither document states whether vendor staff can read User Content for support or engineering, or whether such access is logged and notified.
Ask: Can your staff or contractors read our matter content for support or debugging, is that access logged and notified to us, and how is the litigation-evidence retention right exercised and disclosed?
Authentication and account controls
Public claim only
The Terms require the user to keep login credentials secure and confidential, forbid allowing anyone else to access the account, and make the account holder responsible for all activity under it. On multi-factor authentication the wording is permissive rather than mandatory: 'We may support multi-factor authentication to access our Services using one-time-use codes sent to the mobile number or email address associated with your account. Where supported by us, we encourage you to use multi-factor authentication to secure your account. We understand that some professional indemnity insurers require the use of multi-factor authentication.' The Terms also state that each user account and its sub-accounts are only served their own User Content. The Privacy Policy lists multifactor authentication among protections for personal information. No single sign-on, SAML, enforced-MFA, IP restriction or role-based permission model is described in either document.
Ask: Is multi-factor authentication available and can it be enforced firm-wide, do you support SAML or OIDC single sign-on, and what administrator roles and matter-level permissions exist?
Encryption in transit and at rest
Public claim only
The Terms state the vendor 'will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that we provide a secure environment for any data stored or hosted on our systems, including by encrypting your data', and that it maintains 'appropriate technical and operational measures, internal controls, and data security routines', while disclaiming liability if its own or a provider's security measures are overcome. The Privacy Policy lists 'Secured encrypted servers, password protection, multifactor authentication, and physical access restrictions'. Specific algorithms appear only on a marketing comparison page, which states 'TLS 1.2+ in transit, AES-256 at rest'; neither binding document names a cipher, a key-management arrangement or customer-managed keys.
Ask: Confirm the encryption standards in writing for data in transit, at rest and in backups, and state who controls the keys and whether customer-managed keys are available.
Certifications and independent assurance
Public claim only
The home page states 'SOC 2 Type 2 attested, ISO 27001 certified, and GDPR aligned' and the comparison page states 'Quillio is ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certified and holds a SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, and is aligned with the Australian Privacy Principles, IRAP and GDPR'. The Terms treat certification conditionally rather than as a fact: 'To the extent that we have attained third party certification or attestation for standards compliance (e.g. ISO 27001 certification or a SOC 2 Type II attestation), we commit to ensuring ongoing compliance with such standards as per the relevant requirements.' No certificate number, certification body, audit period, scope statement or report was read; the security overview at security.legalassistant.au was not opened within this profile's operations budget.
Ask: Provide the ISO/IEC 27001 certificate with its scope and body, the SOC 2 Type 2 report with its audit period, and state what 'aligned with IRAP' means in the absence of an IRAP assessment.
GDPR statement in the marketing pages against the Privacy Policy
Not confirmed
The home page and the comparison page state that the product is 'GDPR aligned' and 'aligned with the Australian Privacy Principles, IRAP and GDPR'. The Privacy Policy, last updated April 2026, states the opposite of the first of those: 'Quillio is designed for the Australian and New Zealand legal markets. We make no representation that our Services are designed to meet the requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or any other foreign privacy regime.' The same section then says that for users located in the European Union, to the extent the Regulation applies, the vendor 'will respect the rights it affords you'. Both statements were read on 2026-09-27.
Ask: Which position governs, the marketing statement of GDPR alignment or the Privacy Policy's express non-representation, and will you record the governing position in our agreement?
Contract form, liability and governing law
Public claim only
The Terms are a click-through contract, last updated June 2026, governed by the laws of New South Wales with the parties submitting to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New South Wales courts; a customer suing elsewhere consents to the venue being moved to New South Wales, while the vendor may sue the customer elsewhere. Liability is capped at 'the total of all monies paid by you to us during the 24 months immediately preceding the event or series [of] events giving rise to the relevant claim', with a separate $100 cap for any part of the Services made available on an alpha or beta basis, which the Terms say the vendor 'may not identify'. The Terms include a class action waiver, a mediation-first dispute clause, a customer indemnity, a non-solicitation of vendor personnel, and a right for the vendor to assign or novate the agreement without notice or consent. A DPA is discretionary: 'We may, in our discretion, agree to enter into a Data Processing Agreement with you, in which case the terms of such agreement will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with these Terms.'
Ask: Will you execute a negotiated agreement and a data processing agreement rather than the click-through Terms, and will you remove the class action waiver and the right to assign without consent?
Cross-border transfer of data
Not confirmed
The marketing pages and the site footer state that client matter content is stored in Australia on Australian-hosted, Australian-owned infrastructure. The binding documents qualify that. The Terms state that the agentic framework may combine the vendor's technology with 'one or more third party technology services (which may be based overseas)' and that the vendor 'dynamically determine[s] if and when, and how' those services are used. The Privacy Policy states that the vendor 'may disclose personal information to outsourced information technology service providers, including cloud computing and data storage providers, primarily located in the United States of America' and that Google Analytics data 'is processed in the United States of America'. The comparison page acknowledges the boundary: the Australian residency commitment 'is about client matter content' and 'some account and analytics data may still involve US processing'.
Ask: Will you warrant that no client matter content, prompt or model output crosses the Australian border at any point, including during inference, and identify every overseas service in the chain?
Security incident notification
Not confirmed
Neither binding document read states a vendor obligation to notify the customer of a security incident, a notification timeframe or any reference to the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The Terms put the duty the other way: the user 'must immediately notify us of any unauthorised use of your login credentials, or any other breach of security', after which the vendor 'will take appropriate steps to rectify the unauthorised use or breach of security', and the user must take further actions the vendor reasonably deems necessary. The Terms also disclaim liability for loss if the vendor's own or a provider's security measures are overcome or breached. The Privacy Policy addresses complaints to the vendor and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, not incident notification.
Ask: Within what period will you notify us of an incident affecting our matter content, what information will the notice contain, and who bears the cost of notifying our affected clients?
Change, notice and version control
Public claim only
The Terms reserve a broad unilateral right: 'We reserve the right to modify, permanently or temporarily disable, or discontinue any part of our Services and to alter, amend or withdraw any part of these Terms, our Privacy Policy, or any information or material appearing on our Services at any time, without liability or further notice to you. Your continued use of our Services will constitute an automatic acceptance of any alterations, withdrawals or amendments made by us.' Separately the vendor may add, remove or limit subscription types and vary the features attached to them at any time without notice, except for an existing subscription inside an agreed minimum commitment period, and may release parts of the Services on an alpha or beta basis without identifying them. The Privacy Policy may be varied 'from time to time without further notice'. The only dates published are 'Last updated: June 2026' on the Terms and 'Last updated: April 2026' on the Privacy Policy; no changelog or version history was found.
Ask: Will you give written notice before a change to the Terms, the models, or the features in our tier, and will you maintain a dated changelog we can rely on for our own AI governance records?
Exit, export and continuity
Public claim only
The Terms let the user delete the account at any time and confirm that the user retains all right, title and interest in User Content, but they describe no bulk export facility for matter content, chronologies, the Knowledge Bank or automations, and they warn that the user 'must not rely on our Services as a primary means of storing your User Content or other data'. On cancellation, pre-purchased account credits 'will be forfeited and cancelled'; a minimum commitment period prevents cancellation during its term; and the $600 plus GST training fee remains payable on cancellation unless the mandatory training was completed first. Post-termination retention follows the unpublished data management policy. The Privacy Policy provides a right to require a copy of personal information and its transfer to another party, which is narrower than matter content.
Ask: What documented export is available for all our matter content, chronologies, playbooks and automations in an open format, and how long after termination does it remain available?
Integrations and what they expose
Public claim only
The Terms contain an Integration Partners clause naming practice-management services 'such as Actionstep, Smokeball and Clio' and state that the vendor 'may retain data (including User Content) in accordance with our data management policy ... independently of the data retention policies of any Integration Partner', so data deleted in the partner's system may not be deleted in Quillio at the same time. An Actionstep-specific acknowledgement states that the application 'may, through our Actionstep integration, have access to documents, email, and/or data uploaded or stored in your repository in Actionstep's cloud-based practice management platform and/or we may process such documents, email or data outside of Actionstep's systems and networks', and that Actionstep has no liability for privacy, security, integrity, availability or access to that data. The home page lists integrations with Actionstep, Microsoft, iManage, NetDocuments, Smokeball, Clio and OneLaw, and the comparison page describes six live two-way integrations plus LEAP through the Microsoft Word add-in.
Ask: For each integration, which objects are read and written, is the sync one-way or two-way, and can we scope it to nominated matters rather than the whole repository?
Retrieval from outside the tenant
Public claim only
The Terms disclose that content can be pulled from outside the product and disclaim responsibility for it: the Services 'may also make available to you Content hosted by Third Party Sites ... (including through the output of our software applications)', the vendor takes no responsibility for that Third Party Content and does not endorse it, and in the disclaimer, 'OUR SERVICES MAY DYNAMICALLY SOURCE CONTENT FROM THIRD PARTY SITES AND SERVICES USING APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES (APIS) AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES. WE GIVE NO WARRANTIES AND MAKE NO GUARANTEES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR CURRENCY OF ANY SUCH DATA'. Neither document names those sources, and no page read states whether a general web search is performed as part of research or drafting, or whether it can be turned off.
Ask: Which external sources are queried at run time for research and drafting, is any general web search performed, and can it be disabled for our tenant?
Autonomy, agents and what runs without a person
Public claim only
The Terms describe the product as agentic: 'Our software applications adopts an agentic framework, whereby we may use our proprietary technology in combination with one or more third party technology services (which may be based overseas) to allow us to Serve User Content or deliver our Services to you. This framework allows us to dynamically determine if and when, and how, we use such third party services, depending primarily on how you use our Services (i.e. the requests you make of our application).' The home page describes Compass creating tasks automatically from a stated need and one-click automations that run a saved multi-step workflow after the user types '#' and selects it. No published document states what an automation may do without a person present, whether it can send correspondence or write to an integrated practice-management system, or what approval step exists.
Ask: What can a Compass automation do without a person approving each step, can it write to or send from an integrated system, and is there an audit log of every automated action?
Human review, accuracy and verification
Public claim only
The Terms place verification squarely on the user: 'Artificial Intelligence technologies are rapidly evolving ... we do not guarantee that our systems will not make errors or experience so-called ‘hallucinations’ whereby system outputs (such as references to legislation or case law) are factually inaccurate ... you acknowledge and agree that you will be responsible for verifying the accuracy and validity of any outputs of our systems. We accept no liability for any Loss suffered by you or any other person to the extent that you fail to do so.' The Terms also state that neither the vendor nor other users are lawyers or qualified legal advisors and that content is not legal advice. The home page states that research is 'citation-first', that the system is built 'to refuse rather than fabricate when no source exists', and that 'every output is designed to be reviewed and verified by you'.
Ask: What in-product controls support verification, for example a pinpoint link from every assertion to the source document or judgement, and can a matter be locked until a named person signs off?
