What legal AI tools cost, and how many vendors publish no price at all.

The market divides between published prices and no prices

As of September 25, 2026, three legal AI vendors publish a real per-user or per-month price on their own sites: Paxton AI, Clearbrief and GC AI. Five others reviewed for this comparison publish no dollar figure, even when they maintain a pricing or plans page.

Every page described here was opened and read at the vendor's own website on September 25, 2026. Where a URL is described as returning nothing, that is what the request actually returned when this desk made it, and the two pages carrying live figures were fetched a second time before publication to confirm the numbers had not moved between readings. The distinction matters because a firm can compare some products from a browser, while the first price for others comes only after the firm hands information to sales.

Paxton, Clearbrief and GC AI post numbers

Paxton AI lists an Individual plan at "$499 per user/month" when paid monthly. Its yearly option is "$2,999 per user/year." The page labels that option "Save 50% compared to monthly." Paxton also offers a seven-day trial, described on the page as "Start Your Free 7-Day Trial."

Its Enterprise plan uses "Custom Volume-based pricing." That plan includes everything in the Individual plan, plus firm-wide access across multiple users, dedicated onboarding and workflow setup, and priority support with an account manager. Enterprise requires a consultation.

Clearbrief lists a Solo plan at "$300/month", per user per month. The page says solo customers can ask about multi-year agreements at lower pricing. Its Enterprise Unlimited plan has custom pricing, with volume discounts available, and the page says 1:1 training for team onboarding is included.

GC AI lists an Individual plan at "$500" per month, billed monthly or yearly. The page describes it as "For solo or fractional GCs who want full access to the platform." That described audience matters to a law firm reading the figure, since the plan is written for in-house counsel rather than for a firm buying seats. The Team plan is listed as "On Request" and billed yearly. Enterprise pricing is custom through sales and includes custom integrations, managed procurement and onboarding, change management support, and ROI forecasting.

Harvey and Eve show the sales path without a price

Harvey publishes no dollar figure on its homepage. The address harvey.ai/pricing returns HTTP 404, so there is no pricing page at that path. The site's navigation has no "Pricing" item. It lists Platform, Solutions, Customers, Security, Resources and Company. Its calls to action are "Request a Demo" and "Login." A search restricted to harvey.ai also returns no pricing page.

Harvey describes itself as "AI software for legal and professional services" and says it serves "2,400+ legal organizations", including AmLaw 100 firms, mid-sized firms and in-house teams.

The site does publish an ROI calculator for law firms and a second calculator for in-house teams. The law firm calculator says its purpose is to help a firm "estimate the economic impact of converting that time into billable work and profit". Its disclaimer states, "Any pricing shown here is for purposes of example only." The calculator ends with a "Contact Sales" call to action. Harvey therefore provides a way to model the return on a purchase without stating the purchase price.

Eve follows a similar pattern. The address eve.legal/pricing returns HTTP 404. Its navigation has no pricing link, and its calls to action are "Schedule a call" and "Get a demo." A search restricted to eve.legal surfaces no pricing page.

Eve describes itself as "the AI operating system for plaintiff law" and says it is "trusted by 1,200+ firms". Its stated focus is plaintiff firms, including personal injury, labor and employment, medical malpractice, Social Security and disability, and workers' compensation.

A pricing page can still contain no price

Spellbook has a pricing page, but it contains no figures. The page says "Flexible pricing for teams of all sizes" and states that "Pricing is determined by the number of team members on a license". It directs the reader to book a demo for customized pricing. No dollar amount and no named tier with a cost appears.

The page's existence does not make the price public. A pricing page and a published price are separate things, and a firm that bookmarks the first will not necessarily ever see the second.

CoCounsel, from Thomson Reuters, also has a plans and pricing page with no dollar figure. The page shows subscription duration options of one year, two years and three years. Its FAQ states: "To view plans and pricing, you'll need to provide a few details, including your sector, number of attorneys, jurisdiction, and preferred plan duration." The buyer supplies firm size and jurisdiction before a number appears. The page offers a phone number, a contact form and weekday chat.

Alexi's pricing page exists but shows no plan names, tiers or costs. Its calls to action are "Start Your Guided Trial" and "Book a Consultation." Third-party sites circulate usage-based figures for Alexi tied to numbers of memos and arguments. None appears on Alexi's own pricing page, so those figures are not reported here as prices.

The published number is only one part of the comparison

A firm can compare Paxton and Clearbrief against each other from a browser, using fixed published numbers, before speaking to anyone. For Harvey, Eve, Spellbook, CoCounsel and Alexi, the first real number arrives after a sales conversation in which the firm has already described its size.

The pricing units also differ. Paxton and Clearbrief publish per-user figures. CoCounsel's page ties the quote to sector, attorney count, jurisdiction and contract length. A per-seat price is not directly comparable to a usage-based or firm-wide price, and a spreadsheet that puts them in the same column is comparing different things.

Contract length changes the calculation. CoCounsel offers one-year, two-year and three-year durations. Clearbrief invites solo customers to discuss multi-year agreements at a lower rate. Paxton publishes a yearly price that its own page labels 50 percent below twelve monthly payments. A firm on an annual commitment does not pay the published monthly figure.

The number found through a search engine may also not be the vendor's number. Third-party software-comparison sites publish per-seat estimates for several of the quote-only vendors, often with considerable confidence. Those figures could not be matched to anything on any vendor's own site, so they are not reported here as prices. The same caution applied to the practice-management category in this desk's review of what MyCase costs, where vendor pages and aggregator listings disagreed.

Trial length is published unevenly. Paxton states seven days on its pricing page. Alexi offers a guided trial and Spellbook references a free trial, neither with a length on the page. Where a length is stated, that is the window in which an evaluation has to happen if a firm wants to test before committing.

The operating question remains the same

Archivar, which publishes The Docket, is an AI operating system for a law firm. It answers every call 24 hours a day in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters and remembers everything the firm does. A firm evaluating any of the products above is really asking what a system does all day and what that costs to run, which is the same question whatever the category is called. The companion question, what the software actually executes once it is bought, is the subject of yesterday's piece on what intake automation actually automates.

For procurement, the record worth keeping is short: the vendor's own price, the pricing unit, the contract term, and whether a sales conversation is required before a number exists. A third-party estimate is not the vendor's price.

Some vendors publish a number. Some do not.

Which side of that line a product sits on is itself one of the things a firm learns before the first call.