Choose Legal AI with Confidence
Paritt helps law firms do their AI due diligence.
You interview before you hire. You check references before you trust a number. You verify before any decision that carries your name. Legal AI is one of those decisions — and right now the only evidence on the table comes from the company selling the tool. We run the independent comparison instead: the AI against a competent human doing the same real task, reviewed blind, in writing.
One conversation. No deck required. Bring the task you’re actually worried about.
You’d never take this on faith anywhere else.
Think about how your firm makes any decision that matters. You don’t hire on a résumé alone — you interview, you check references, you watch how someone actually works. You don’t trust a number because someone hands it to you — you ask where it came from.
Now look at how legal AI usually gets bought. The tool does work your associates do today — contract review, redlines, issues memos. The decision to put it on client work lands on a named person: a managing partner, a GC, an executive committee. And the evidence in front of that person was produced, top to bottom, by the party with everything to gain from a yes. It’s the vendor’s product, the vendor’s test, the vendor’s score.
You wouldn’t take a manufacturer’s word for its own crash test — you’d want the independent one. Legal AI is no different. When someone later asks how your firm decided this tool was fit for client work, “the vendor said so” is not an answer you want on the file.
The AI versus a competent human. Same task. Blind. In writing.
No mystery, no black box. Here’s exactly what we do, and exactly what you get back.
- Your task, your playbook.
We scope a real task family from your practice — your document types, your positions — under the engagement’s confidentiality terms.
- Matched conditions.
The AI tool and a competent human do the same work: same documents, same playbook, same time budget, same ground rules. No side gets an engineered advantage.
- Blind review, sealed verdicts.
Reviewers grade both sets of work without knowing which is which, against one question that actually decides things: “Would you sign this out under your name, as-is?” Every grade is locked before authorship is revealed.
- Three verdicts. None of them is “deploy.”
The report issues exactly one of three findings:
pilot_with_human_review— the most positive verdict we give —inconclusive, ordo_not_deploy. There is no green light to remove the human. That conservatism is deliberate, and it’s in writing, with the sample size and the caveats on the face of the verdict.
We have no stake in the answer. We don’t sell the AI — and we put it in writing when the AI falls short. That second part is the whole point.
Review panels are constituted per engagement against a credential specification fixed in advance.
Find out what the AI actually does — before it touches a client file.
Adopting technology for its own sake has never worked for anyone, and AI is no exception. The real question isn’t whether a tool demos well. It’s whether, on yourwork, the AI does the job as well as a competent person would — and where it doesn’t.
That’s what a matched comparison surfaces: the places the AI holds up, and the places it quietly slips, measured side by side with a person doing the identical task under identical conditions. You see the risks ahead of time, on the page, instead of discovering them in a client deliverable. And you see them in the only terms that matter for the decision — is this more efficient, more accurate, more reliable than the alternative you already have, or isn’t it?
We don’t hand you a conclusion. We hand you the evidence, including the parts where the AI lost, so the call is yours to make with your eyes open.
Straight answers about what you’re buying.
Nothing makes you immune. No evaluation, no certificate, no vendor promise. The question is what your file shows when someone asks how you decided. A Paritt report is built to be the documented evidence behind that answer — independent, matched-conditions, with the methodology and the caveats on its face.
It is not a certification, and not legal advice.Courts decide the standard of care; we don’t. We produce the independent record of how the tool actually performed against a competent human — including where it lost.
Our most positive verdict still requires human review.We do not issue “deploy.” A referee that can’t say no isn’t a referee.
The findings are scoped, and we say so. A verdict attaches to one system, one version, one document class, one playbook. A vendor update means a re-benchmark, not an assumption.
Built for the person whose name goes on the decision.
Paritt is for law firms — typically ten lawyers or more — that are evaluating a legal AI tool, or already using one, for work that touches client matters: contract review, drafting support, research memos, diligence.
If you’re the managing partner, the GC, or the innovation lead being asked to approve one of these tools — and the only evidence on the table came from the vendor — that gap is exactly what we close. You shouldn’t have to make this call in the dark, and you don’t have to.
Every engagement is scoped directly with you, on your documents, under confidentiality. No standard package, no price list: the work starts with a conversation.
Make the call with your eyes open.
We’ll tell you what the evidence supports — and we’ll tell you when the AI loses.
That second part is why we exist.