Second Call For Feedback: Kira Systems – AL Product Reviews
Thanks to everyone who has already sent back completed product review forms for legal AI company Kira Systems. Your participation is tremendous and will contribute to the improvement of the legal AI sector as a whole. Thank you!
This is now the second, and final, call for feedback to the world’s legal tech community for views on Kira Systems.
If you’ve used Kira Systems please complete the short feedback form below and send to Artificial Lawyer, where your views will be added to a growing number of reviews, and which will remain anonymous.
The reviews are in double figures already and that is perhaps a reflection of Kira’s large client base. The reviews so far also span a wide range of responses, from glowing reports to those who were less than satisfied.
Here are some examples of the feedback so far, each comment is from a different reviewer:
Positive: ‘Kira is above and beyond what I expected. This comes from experience after having Kira successfully meet multiple project requirements and having used other extraction technologies that have fallen short.’
‘Kira has always been a straightforward and easy to use platform. Our users are able to get to grips with the functionality quickly with minimal ongoing support.’
Negative: ‘We ran a few trials getting Kira to search for relatively common clauses (assignment, change of control, governing law etc.) and the level of accuracy from the system was disappointing.’
‘[We] feel that Kira oversold the quickness of its ‘Quick Studies’ in developing custom models.‘
There were several themes that have emerged so far, one in particular was around customer support, with a number of reviewers pointing out that sometimes those helping the customer couldn’t really help very much. That was not a universal view, but it did appear in a number of the feedback forms.
A more positive theme was the view of many that Kira was very easy to use and train, although there are some dissenting views here as well, as seen above.
In due course a detailed review will be published that presents the bigger picture and a balance of views across multiple aspects of the technology.
The overall view so far is positive, but not all customers are happy with everything. In response to this the questions have been added to in order to also elicit ways in which you – the users of the technology – think it could be improved. Feedback on how to improve will not just provide useful views for the benefit of the whole legal tech community, but will also provide the tech companies with pointers as to how they may need to improve to meet your expectations and operational requirements.
The Deadline for responses is: 30th November.
Please see below the Review Form.
2nd Call for Your Feedback on Kira Systems –
Please cut and paste the text below, with your responses – which can from a sentence to an essay (whatever you want to say is great) – and email it to AL at: Richard@Artificiallawyer.com
All reviews will be anonymous, however AL will only accept reviews from verifiable email addresses. This is an important step toward greater transparency in the market for this new wave of legal tech products and your feedback is highly valued. Thank you for taking part.
The Deadline for responses is: 30th November.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
AL Product Review: Kira Systems
Type of Application: AI Doc Review
- Did Kira meet your expectations? (How could it be better?)
- Was it easy to use? (How could it be better?)
- Was it easy to train? (How could it be better?)
- What was the customer support like? (How could it be better?)
- Overall, has it been value for money?
Would you recommend it? Yes, or No:
Overall Star Rating: One to Four Stars [Please mark ‘X’]
4 Stars – Delighted!
3 Stars – It’s good, but could be better.
2 Stars – It’s OK, we’ll keep shopping around.
1 Star – Not a good experience. Avoid.
The questions above have been chosen in order to address some of the key issues potential customers ask most frequently about tech of this type, based on feedback that Artificial Lawyer has gathered from speaking to law firms and inhouse counsel.
Although issues such as security standards and APIs are also vital, most people looking initially at which system ‘to buy’ said that the questions above were most vital for them to get a good initial impression and to then begin the process of deciding which products to seriously consider.
The information that you can provide for AL Reviews will also build upon the AL 100 legal tech directory, giving real life feedback in addition to the factual details of each product, which does cover areas such as security standards.
The methodology for AL Reviews will work like this:
- A company is chosen, which is believed to have sufficient customers to provide a useful level of feedback. (As there is little point in calling for reviews of a new startup with just two pilot customers). So, AL Product Reviews will focus on the tech companies that are now part of the market.
- There is a first call for reviews, such as this one. Customers are asked to email back their responses to AL, and these are collated.
- AL will also directly contact some publicly known clients.
- There may be a second call for reviews to make sure we have captured a good sample of responses. [NOTE: and in this case, this is the second call for reviews.]
- Finally, the review will be published. Unless a customer especially wants to be named, all responses will be anonymous, but AL will verify that all feedback comes from bona fide sources.
- And then….it will be onto the next company and so on.
- Over time a real picture of what the market thinks will emerge, which AL believes will provide real value to you, the readers of Artificial Lawyer.
Thank you for your valued readership and if you are a user of the above tech company, or have used it in the past, it would be great if you could spare a couple of minutes to send back your responses. Thanks! It’s appreciated!
Richard Tromans, Founder, Artificial Lawyer