Independent legal technology research Sources checked July 17, 2026

Public research standard

How We Research Law Firm Software

Evidence status remains visible, a score requires the complete legal rubric, and commercial relationships cannot buy a conclusion.

Evidence levels

Vendor-source research

We record vendor-owned product, pricing, support and policy pages with exact URLs and check dates. This supports attributed descriptions, not hands-on or customer claims.

Hands-on tested

An editor must access the product and run documented scenarios in a named plan. A guided sales demonstration alone does not meet this level.

Customer-verified

A current customer may corroborate a defined workflow or limitation with context and a verification date. Testimonials and unattributed anecdotes do not qualify.

Source and gap rules

  • Published profiles require non-empty vendor sources with an absolute HTTPS URL and real check date.
  • Inaccessible pages are labeled as inaccessible; their contents are not inferred.
  • Security language remains attributed to the vendor unless independently tested.
  • External reviews remain separate records and are never blended into a house score.
  • Missing data remains visible in profiles and comparisons.

Two numbers, never blended

Each product carries two independent signals. The house score (/10) rates documented capability against our rubric below — it measures breadth and depth, not popularity. The user rating (/5) aggregates real ratings from independent review platforms (Capterra, G2, TrustRadius, Trustpilot), weighted by review volume and normalized to a five-point scale; mobile app-store ratings are reported separately so a popular or neglected app never distorts it. We never merge the two, and external reviews never enter the house score.

The exact 100-point legal rubric

A /10 score is derived only when all nine criteria contain honest supporting evidence, as the total points divided by ten. Editors cannot type an unrelated overall score; the number always reconciles with the criteria below.

Swipe horizontally to inspect the complete rubric →

CriterionPointsEvidence question
Case management18Matter records, relationships, tasks, communications and accountable workflow ownership.
Billing and accounting16Time, rate arrangements, pre-bills, invoices, payments and operating-accounting scope.
Intake and CRM12Lead capture, conflict workflow, qualification, forms, engagement and matter creation.
Documents10Matter filing, templates, e-signature, versioning, permissions, search and originals.
Calendar and deadlines10Assignments, reminders, deadline changes, dependent dates and audit history.
Trust accounting10Client ledgers, transfer controls, reconciliation, exception handling and retained evidence.
Security and permissions10Access roles, restricted matters, auditability, governance and vendor-described safeguards.
Data portability7Complete usable export, documented formats, relationships, attachments, timing and cost.
Implementation and support7Migration scope, configuration, training, launch ownership, support and escalation.
Total100Derived as total points ÷ 10 only after a complete rubric.

Comparable demonstrations

Every vendor receives the same synthetic data, user roles and five legal scenarios. We record plan dependencies, configuration, missing outputs and export quality.

  1. New matter intake and conflict check: Submit a realistic web inquiry, detect a possible conflict, capture the resolution, send an engagement letter and open the matter without re-keying contact data.
  2. Court deadline change: Move a court date and show how dependent deadlines, assignments, notifications and the audit trail change. Confirm that rules-based calculations are jurisdiction-appropriate.
  3. Time to invoice and payment: Enter time from desktop and mobile, apply a rate arrangement, review a pre-bill, issue an invoice and record an online payment.
  4. Trust and IOLTA reconciliation: Receive a retainer, allocate funds by client and matter, apply earned funds, reconcile the account and produce the supporting ledger without commingling.
  5. Complete export: Export contacts, matters, custom fields, notes, communications, documents, calendar data, time, invoices, payments and trust ledgers in documented, usable formats.

Updates and corrections

Vendors and readers may submit exact source links and factual corrections at no cost. Editors decide whether evidence supports a change, update the check date when appropriate, and do not accept paid placement.

Publication index

Search the guide

Find a comparison, software profile, buyer topic, or workflow guide.

Start typing or browse the research index.