Should we stop using Copilot or ChatGPT?

That is your firm's call for general work. For anything that will be relied on in a matter, a memo with a verified authority list and a record on file is a different kind of assurance from an unattributed answer.

Can our firm use both?

Many firms do: a general assistant for everyday drafting help, and LegalAI Space for matter-grounded research, review and anything that needs a citation a supervising lawyer can check.

What happens if we paste a general assistant's answer into a client letter?

Nothing in that answer will have passed the four gates described on the verification page, so any authority in it is unverified by us. Run the same question through LegalAI Space first if the citation matters.

A general assistant does not tell you what it checked.

Copilot and ChatGPT are general-purpose assistants, not built for legal citation. LegalAI Space checks every authority against an approved source list and records a verdict on the run.

Start free Read the security statement

Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT are general-purpose assistants used across every function of a business, and firms reasonably already have them. They were not built to check a legal citation against an approved source list, and neither publishes one. This page describes what LegalAI Space does differently for legal work specifically.

Dimension	LegalAI Space	Copilot and ChatGPT
Purpose	Built for a matter: research, drafting, review and governance for legal work in any jurisdiction	General-purpose assistants for any task, in any domain
Source policy	74 approved public domains, ranked by authority and published in full on this site	Answers from the open web; no published legal allow-list
Verdict per authority	Verified, needs a check, or not found, on every citation in a run	Not a feature of a general assistant
The matter	Client, reference, partner, jurisdiction, an automatic conflict check on open	No concept of a legal matter or a conflict check
Governance	Audit and compliance register, CSV export, printable bundle with a content digest	Not built for firm-wide legal governance

Copilot and ChatGPT is a trade mark of its owner and is not affiliated with LegalAI Space or Cognesio LLP. Statements about Copilot and ChatGPT are drawn from its public materials as understood on the date this page was last reviewed, and may have changed; where we cannot state something, the table says so. Statements about LegalAI Space describe the product as shipped. If you spot an error, write to us and we will correct it.

Grounded on the matter, not the open web

Attach the contract and the board minutes to a matter and ask a question; the answer is built from those documents, at clause level, with the same verification method applied to any authority it cites. A general assistant answering from the open web cannot tell you which sources it actually consulted.

See how matters work

Matters · Project Halcyon · SPA warranties and disclosureOpen

Project Halcyon: SPA warranties and disclosure

Buy-side warranty review, disclosure analysis and cited due-diligence grid.

Client: Halcyon Bidco Ltd
Reference: WC-2026-0412
Practice area: Corporate / M&A
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Responsible partner: E. Vance

No conflict check on file.

Chat, on this matter

Compare warranties with the disclosure letter.

Three high-priority exceptions require action: the unregistered charge, the change-of-control right and the tribunal claim.

Send a message… (@ to mention tools)BalancedPrepare for

25 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Chat
21 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Run · completed · 560 credits
18 Aug
Project Halcyon: Disclosure Letter
Document · indexed
16 Aug
Project Halcyon: Share Purchase Agreement
Document · indexed
4 Aug
Matter opened
Opened

A matter timeline showing the documents an answer was grounded on.

Every authority carries a verdict

Four deterministic gates run over every citation: match-set, quote-verbatim, confidence-floor and the URL gate. The result is verified, needs a check, or not found, shown on the run rather than left for the reader to discover by checking it themselves afterwards.

See how verification works

Authorities · 14 · Where we looked

#	Reference	Source	Verdict
1	Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32	—	not yet checked
2	Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833, regs 4 to 5, 10 to 14	—	not yet checked
3	Coppage v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176	—	not yet checked
4	UK GDPR, Articles 6 and 9 Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679	—	not yet checked
5	Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1 c 18	—	not yet checked
6	Harlow v Artemis International [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB)	—	not yet checked

Verdicts shown on every authority a run relies on.

A record the firm can produce

Runs, verification checks, share links, documents, members and conflict checks land in one chronological register, exportable as CSV or a printable bundle with a content digest. A general assistant used ad hoc across the firm leaves no equivalent record.

Read the governance page

Audit register · Calder & Finch LLP · last 24 hours

5 of 8 entries · digest sha-256

Time	Who	Type	Entry	Matter
09:36	j.okafor	Document	Disclosure_letter_v4.docx uploaded · 18 pages	HAL-2026-0031
09:30	e.vance	Conflict check	Conflict check on open · no matches across 38 matters	RC-2026-0009
09:12	admin	Member	p.hartley added · role: Associate · 4 matters	Workspace
08:55	r.chen	Run	Due Diligence Agent · review grid · 12 documents	HAL-2026-0031
08:40	r.chen	Verification	Verify all · 6 authorities · 6 verified	HAL-2026-0031

Exports carry a content digest so a reviewer can confirm nothing was edited after the fact.

One audit register row for a run, a share and a conflict check.

Questions this page provokes.

Start free

Ask it the same question you asked Copilot.

Free plan, two seats, 500 welcome credits, no card.

Start free Read the security statement