CaseRead

Overview

CaseRead brings a firm’s project files and public legal materials into one research workflow, with citations to both. It suits solo practitioners and firms that want research, citation checks, and Word editing together; its account-security gaps and annual-billing commitment deserve careful consideration.

Its reach is broad: public-law coverage spans federal law, all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico, including statutes, regulations, case law, and federal materials. Deep research adds a web-search pass before answering, while Hallucination Shield checks whether citations exist and support the claims, up to 50 citations per run. Those checks are a useful guardrail, not a substitute for legal judgment.

Key features

• Combined research: Search firm project files alongside public law and receive citations to both. This is the central advantage for firms that want internal matter materials and legal authorities in the same research process.
• Document analysis and drafting: Upload documents for analysis, then edit Word files in the browser with AI revisions delivered as tracked changes. The page limits on document analysis vary by plan, so large-document workflows need to match the chosen tier.
• Connectors and notifications: Plans include Google Drive and OneDrive or SharePoint connectors. Confirmed document dates can be sent to Google Calendar. Clio on paid plans and Slack notifications for Team and Enterprise are marked as coming soon, so they are not present-day reasons to buy.
• Security: Firm vaults use separate database schemas, are private by default, and are not used to train AI models. CaseRead says data is hosted in the United States on AWS via Supabase, encrypted at rest with AES-256, and served over HTTPS. However, it has not completed a SOC 2 audit and does not offer customer-account MFA or SSO. Firms requiring those controls should look elsewhere.

Pricing

CaseRead has a free plan, paid plans from $71/user/mo (annual), and a 7-day trial. The annual commitment matters: compare the per-seat rates against expected use and firm headcount before choosing a paid tier.

• Free — free: One user gets 3 research messages per day, 2 citation checks per day, analysis of documents up to 25 pages, 3 projects, and 100 MB of storage. It is a practical way to evaluate basic workflows, but the daily caps and small storage allowance constrain regular practice use.
• Solo — $8,971 a month: Billed annually at $71 per seat/month, with unlimited research, 100-page analysis, 10 GB storage, 50 projects, and one seat. It suits an individual practitioner who has outgrown the free quotas; the fixed single seat and annual billing make it a poor fit for a growing team.
• Team — $149,119 a month: Billed annually at $119 per seat/month, with unlimited research, 300-page analysis, 100 GB storage, unlimited projects, and a seat count chosen by the firm. The higher per-seat rate buys substantially more document capacity and shared scale, making it the more relevant option for multi-lawyer firms.
• Enterprise — custom pricing: Unlimited seats and storage, custom data retention, a custom SLA and DPA, API access, and a dedicated account manager. This tier is aimed at firms needing negotiated terms or broader deployment; price depends on a custom quote.

Team also includes priority support. Free is the only tier with daily research and citation-check caps; paid plans specify unlimited research, though document-analysis page limits still apply to Solo and Team.

Platforms

CaseRead supports web and API access. The browser-based Word editing workflow is useful for lawyers who want tracked revisions without leaving the document process; API access is reserved for Enterprise.

Who it's for

CaseRead is strongest for solo practitioners and small or multi-lawyer firms that need public-law research alongside their own project files, and value citations and document drafting in one product. Solo is sized for one practitioner, while Team accommodates a firm-selected number of seats. It is a weaker fit for organizations that require SOC 2 assurance, MFA, or SSO, or for buyers unwilling to take on annual billing for paid seats.

Pros and cons

• Pro: Searches internal project files and a broad national set of primary legal sources together, with citations to both.
• Pro: Citation checks, deep research, document analysis, and Word tracked changes cover several stages of legal work in one workflow.
• Pro: Paid tiers expand document limits and storage, with Team offering unlimited projects and firm-chosen seats.
• Con: No customer-account MFA or SSO, and no completed SOC 2 audit, may rule it out for firms with strict security requirements.
• Con: Free-plan daily quotas, 25-page analysis, and 100 MB storage are restrictive for sustained work.
• Con: Paid pricing is tied to annual billing, and the published Solo and Team figures are substantial commitments for each seat.

Alternatives

For a wider comparison, see AI Legal Research Software.

• Clauselex is another freemium web option for readers comparing legal research and drafting plans.
• Curia is a freemium web alternative with a credit-based Starter plan for cited case research, document analysis, and memos.
• Legalcode is a freemium API and web option whose free tier covers non-patent sources across 40 jurisdictions.
• Align Research is a freemium web alternative for readers considering another research-focused tool.
• CaseCraft is available on Android, iOS, and web, with one-time credit packs as well as subscription plans.
• ArkLegal AI offers Android, iOS, and web access, with a free trial and paid plans.
• Judicio supports macOS, web, and Windows and offers a free trial rather than a free plan.
• ModulawAI is a paid alternative available on web, Windows, macOS, and Linux.

Verdict

Choose CaseRead if your practice wants one place to search firm files and broad public law, verify citations, and revise Word documents with tracked changes. The combination is compelling for solo lawyers and firms that can use its annual seat plans. Look elsewhere if MFA, SSO, or completed SOC 2 assurance is a requirement, or if the yearly per-seat cost outweighs the value of the combined workflow.