COMPARE
We refuse the corpus they are built on, on purpose.
CoCounsel is built on the Westlaw corpus; Lexis+ AI on the Lexis corpus. LegalAI Space checks authorities against public UK and EU primary sources and deny-lists both publishers by name.
Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel and RELX's Lexis+ AI are each built around their own publisher's licensed corpus. That is a legitimate model and a real source of depth inside that corpus. LegalAI Space made a different choice: research runs against public primary sources only, and Westlaw, Practical Law, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law, Justis and vLex are refused by name. This page describes our own policy; we do not characterise how either competitor verifies its own output.
| Dimension | LegalAI Space | CoCounsel and Lexis+ AI |
|---|---|---|
| Source corpus | Public primary sources only: legislation.gov.uk, BAILII, Find Case Law, EUR-Lex and named regulator handbooks | A licensed publisher's own corpus (Westlaw or Lexis) |
| Paywalled sources | Refused by name: Westlaw, Practical Law, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law, Justis, vLex | The corpus is the product; not applicable to their model |
| Verdict per authority | Verified, needs a check, or not found, shown on every citation | Not something we can state; ask them directly |
| Deliverable shape | Executive Brief, Work-Stream Memo, Client Update, Court-Ready OSCOLA, Regulator Response | Not something we can state; ask them directly |
| Pricing | Published in GBP ex VAT on the pricing page, from £0 | Typically bundled with an existing research subscription |
A closed world of public sources
The allow-list runs to 74 domains: 44 UK and Irish, 18 EU and ECHR, 12 treaty and international, including legislation.gov.uk, BAILII, Find Case Law and EUR-Lex. Ten paywalled domains are refused outright, so an authority only available in a licensed database comes back 'not found' rather than a name we cannot show our source for.
See how verification works| Authority | Where | Source | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment Rights Act 1996, s.1 | Statutory particulars | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Working Time Regulations 1998, regs 13 and 13A | Clause 4 | legislation.gov.uk | Verified |
| Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 | Clause 9(c) | supremecourt.uk | Verified |
| Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 | Clause 9(a) | N/A | Not found |
| ICO: monitoring workers guidance | Clause 11 | ico.org.uk | Needs a check |
| Equality Act 2010, s.39 | Clause 12 | legislation.gov.uk | Needs a check |
The allow-list and the deny-list, and the verdict each authority earned.
Why we refuse a licensed corpus
We do not hold a licence to Westlaw, Practical Law or Lexis, and citing from a database we cannot show you the source for is not a check we can stand behind. Refusing those domains by name is a deliberate limit, not an oversight, and it is stated as one rather than hedged.
Read the security statementmatch-set
Does the citation exist in what we actually retrieved?
quote-verbatim
Is the quoted text word for word in the source?
confidence-floor
Is the match strong enough to stand?
closed-world-url
Is the URL on the allow-list?
The closed-world-url gate, one of four that every citation passes.
A deliverable shaped for the reader
Executive Brief, Work-Stream Memo, Client Update, Court-Ready OSCOLA or Regulator Response, then Word, Slides, Spreadsheet or PDF. The same research, written for whoever has to act on it, without a fee-earner rewriting it by hand.
See research and chatPrepare for
The 'Prepare for' picker: choose the audience, then the deliverable format.
Questions this page provokes
See the allow-list and the deny-list for yourself.
Read the security statement, then start free to run your own check.