We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
WOW
Jurisphere used to claim they run their own LLMs from their own servers to avoid data security questions during their initial pitches. Something Sarvam just raised 300 million dollars to do last month, a couple of NUJS grads have apparently been doing since 2024 LOL.
Instead of constructively dealing with the allegations raised here, resorting to this is kinda low ngl
If you aren’t able to do that, then it proves my point that the word “misogynist” is being misused. Feminists like us have fought tooth and nail to give basic dignity to women. Its indeed shameful that certain agenda driven comments, in a bid to shut down bonafide criticism of data privacy policy apps will throw around words like “misogynist”.
A: Legally India.
The service itself is not defined anywhere, nor is the subscription model aside from "we will charge you a subscription" – nothing on renewal or cancellation. More on subscription payments, their privacy policy mentions they will directly store your credit/debit card info – a HUGE red flag since they definitely don't have PCI-DSS compliance nor do they seem savvy enough to set up a third-party payment gateway (else why mention you're storing this information?).
They also seem to be collecting WAY too much information (IP, browser details, device ID, profiles, websites visited, search terms, mobile carrier, location data, public sharing) – this is on top of the personal details they collect on signup. Either they don't collect all of this and have an oddly crappy privacy policy, or they do collect it and are practically running spyware in the name of "training young lawyers".
They certainly do have an oddly crappy privacy policy though, as it starts with a passive consent clause that's
Also their use of information even mentions: "personally identifiable information will no longer be treated as sensitive"???
Lastly, if it wasn't clear enough already, their information sharing policy makes it very clear they're just collecting this information to sell it to advertisers. It even goes so far to mention "For the advertisements, the advertisers need to study their audience and their needs and so the information sharing becomes necessary". Imagine asking young legal students and professionals to pay a subscription for a service where they are the product.
It is genuinely disappointing to see such subpar legal work from a "legal influencer". I hope this debacle makes it clear that the ones focused on building a personal brand on social media in this field are typically doing it because their work won't build that brand.