No generic "legal AI data." We design training datasets for real-world use: standard jurisdiction packs when you need to move fast, custom builds when you have a very specific problem, and long-term partnerships when the law is moving and your models need to keep up.
Start where you are. If you need a fast way to de-risk an experiment, we have standard datasets. If you have a very specific problem, we build bespoke. If you want your models to stay current, we maintain and extend what you already have.
Ready-made, professionally validated jurisdiction packs. Ideal if you want to move fast and get something into your pipeline without a 3-month scoping exercise.
When your problem does not fit into a template: rare jurisdictions, edge practice areas, multilingual coverage, or data aligned to your internal frameworks.
Laws change. Your models should not quietly drift out of date. We maintain, amend, and extend your datasets over time.
Product 1
Professionally validated Q&A datasets for high-demand jurisdictions and practice areas. Built from real conversations with lawyers, not just archives and statutes.
Per-question pricing, with transparent minimums:
Licensing is flexible: time-limited, perpetual, exclusive or non-exclusive depending on how much competitive edge you want.
Product 2
Custom datasets for domains, jurisdictions or workflows that do not fit into a template. We design the data with you, your lawyers, and your models in mind.
Pricing is project-based and milestone-based. You pay as we hit the agreed gates, not months in advance.
Exact numbers depend on jurisdiction, depth, and validation level. The point is simple: we commit to a clear scope, clear deliverables, and clear milestones before work begins.
Tell Us What You Need BuiltProduct 3
Laws change quietly. Models do not, unless you tell them to. We monitor the jurisdictions you care about and deliver updates, amendments, and retraining guidance so your AI does not drift.
For a fixed percentage of the initial dataset cost (typically 10–20 percent per year), we keep your data aligned with legal reality.
For customers who do not want to think about individual updates. A fixed annual fee that covers unlimited incremental changes.
Yes. Many teams start with a smaller standard dataset or a scoped pilot for one jurisdiction and practice area. Once you see the impact on your models, we expand together.
That is usually the best setup. We provide the structured legal backbone; you layer in your own proprietary workflows, templates, and edge cases. We can help with schema design.
No. We stay model-agnostic on purpose. Our job is to be the best possible data layer, whether you are fine-tuning your own models or using third-party APIs.
We want you to know exactly what you are paying for. We would rather be very clear than “competitive but vague.”
You see the math: price per Q&A pair times number of pairs. No hidden platform fees, no vague “AI uplift” charges.
If we lower price, we do it by adjusting license duration or exclusivity, not by cutting corners on legal quality.
For custom builds, you pay when specific deliverables are accepted. Deposits, then gated releases. It aligns incentives on both sides.
Multi-dataset and multi-year partnerships come with meaningful discounts. The more we work together, the cheaper it becomes per dataset.
Minimum dataset: 5,000 rows.
Pricing: ranges from 5.98–100+ depending on jurisdiction, exclusivity, scope, and reviewer seniority.
(Exclusive categories & complex jurisdictions priced higher.)
Terms: milestone-based with an upfront deposit. Non-exclusive and exclusive licenses available (with terms that protect our IP and business).
Whether you need a standard UAE or Jordan pack, a custom build in a niche area, or ongoing updates for a production system, we can design the right data layer with you.
Lower hallucination rates are not marketing copy for us. They show up in how your product behaves with real users, real lawyers, and real regulators.
Customers see significant gains on their internal benchmarks when they shift from generic legal crawls to our attorney-built datasets. That is the difference between a demo and a product.
Because we deliberately include plausible but wrong answers, models learn to avoid entire classes of legal mistakes: fictional cases, misapplied rules, jurisdiction drift.
You get provenance, validator records, and documentation to bring to internal risk, compliance, or external regulators. It is not just “we used good data,” it is provable.
Once the foundation is in place, you can layer your own knowledge, workflows, and models on top. You are not rebuilding from scratch every time the law or your product shifts.
Customers use our datasets to move from “interesting prototype” to systems their legal teams can actually trust.
Models trained on our data see substantial accuracy gains on real-world legal questions compared to generic web or case-law-only corpora.
Strategic wrong answers teach the model to recognize and avoid subtle legal mistakes instead of generating them confidently.
Attorney validation, citations, and metadata give you the documentation your compliance and legal teams demand.
Rows per Minimum Dataset
Jurisdictions Available Now
Structured Reasoning Labels
Imaginary Parties, Real Law
Available now: Tax Law (UAE, Jordan).
On request: Any country / additional areas (Contracts, Litigation, Regulatory, Compliance, Privacy, IP, Employment, M&A).
See how curated, IRAC-structured data reduces hallucinations and strengthens jurisdiction-specific reasoning.
IRAC scenarios with explicit correct/incorrect variants reduced hallucinations on tricky VAT timing prompts.
Adversarial variants improved robustness on LegalBench-style tasks across similar fact patterns.
Held-out test sets include at least one variation per law/case check, with lawyer verification.
| Feature | Ours | Generic Web Crawl |
|---|---|---|
| IRAC-Structured Q&A | Yes | No |
| Jurisdiction Tagging | Fine-grained | Sparse |
| Lawyer QA | Yes | No |
| Benchmark-Aware Design | Yes (LegalBench) | No |
Scenarios use imaginary parties; real law application is drafted and double-checked by lawyers.
Derived from our legal research and public information with citations and provenance.
Every order includes a held-out test set with variations per law/case check, reviewed by a lawyer.
Non-exclusive and exclusive packages with protective terms.
We collaborate with seasoned attorneys to survey, author, refine, and annotate theoretical legal scenarios. Each pack includes grounded citations and structured labels so your model learns the why, not just the what. Which is tailor made to reduce hallucinations.
Tell us your jurisdiction(s), practice area, and target tasks/models.
We align on rights and price band before work begins.
We identify AI weak points with lawyers and create varied scenario Q&A with explicit correct/incorrect examples.
Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion with custom labels as needed.
Double-checked by lawyers; a held-out test set includes at least one variation per law/case check.
JSONL or CSV to your spec. Minimum dataset: 5,000 rows.
Milestone-based with an upfront deposit.
Typical custom delivery ~3 months for the minimum scope.
Train and test splits in JSONL or CSV. Scenario Q&A with IRAC fields (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion), citations, and negotiable metadata add-ons.
Pricing ranges from 5.98–100+ based on jurisdiction, exclusivity, scope, and reviewer seniority. Minimum dataset is 5,000 rows. Payments are milestone-based with a deposit.
UAE Tax and Jordanian Tax Law. We can produce custom datasets for any country on request.
We design examples to reflect patterns found in LegalBench-style tasks. See the paper and rankings.
No. Our datasets are for machine learning training and research. Scenarios use imaginary parties; the law application is drafted and reviewed by lawyers.
The AI companies that win will not be the ones with the largest models, but the ones with the best data: data designed specifically for their domain, with deep practitioner input, clear provenance, and real-world mistakes baked in.
Every dataset we build compounds our advantage: our attorney network gets stronger, our pipelines get sharper, and your models benefit from a growing foundation of trusted legal understanding.
Reduce hallucinations and boost LegalBench-style performance with jurisdiction-specific, IRAC-structured data.
PDF translation is coming soon.
