LexBox
LexBox is a Swedish legal AI that structures civil litigation files, turning scattered client material, evidence and contracts into a filing-ready statement of claim, and flagging missing procedural steps before a case reaches the court.
What is LexBox?
LexBox is a legal AI platform built by NiTiAB, a Swedish company based in Lidingö, for one narrow purpose: handling tvistemål, the civil disputes heard by Swedish courts. The site presents it as quality assurance for litigation, driven by an AI the publisher describes as trained in Swedish law, and it is explicit that the product is designed exclusively for this kind of matter. The platform is organised around three capabilities. Case management converts the raw traffic of a client relationship — messages, chat threads and voice notes — into a structured matter. Document structuring takes the resulting case files and works them towards a statement of claim ready to be filed. Legal review assistance sits on top, identifying process-critical deviations and procedural steps that have been missed before anything reaches the court. In use this becomes a three-stage path the site calls Intake, Draft and Export. The lawyer summarises the client's account and uploads evidence, contracts and appendices; LexBox compiles the facts, the parties and the claims into a structured draft; the lawyer then reviews and adjusts inside the platform until the document is ready for filing. The commercial argument is about margin rather than novelty. LexBox claims that statements of claim can be drafted in hours, not days, that a firm can handle over thirty percent more disputes without hiring, that previously unprofitable small claims become commercially viable, and that errors in references, amounts and dates fall through consistent structure and grounding in Swedish law. The product is sold as plug-and-play and deliberately independent from a firm's other systems. Two things are worth knowing before going further. The site describes this as a first version for Swedish law firms, and the English price page advertises LQI scoring and an AI jury in every draft — terms that appear nowhere else and are never defined. The homepage also runs a band of six uncaptioned logos, identified in the page source as Microsoft, Google Cloud, Claude, Gemini, OpenAI and AI Sweden, without stating what relationship, if any, they represent.
What it does
- Turn client contact, chat threads and voice messages into a structured case
- Gather evidence, contracts and appendices in a single place
- Generate a structured legal draft from the facts, parties and claims
- Flag process-critical deviations and missing procedural steps before filing
- Reduce errors in legal references, amounts and dates
- Review and adjust the draft inside the platform until it is ready for the court
- Produce a statement of claim ready to be submitted
When to use LexBox / When not to
A quick filter to help you decide if LexBox is the right fit.
When to use LexBox
- Swedish law firms whose practice is built around civil disputes, the tvistemål the tool is made for
- Independent lawyers and small practices, the explicit target of the entry-level Solo tier
- Firms of two to ten lawyers, which the Firm and Firm Plus tiers are sized for
- Practices that would rather make low-value claims profitable again than turn them away
- Litigation teams under pressure to take on more matters without adding headcount
When not to use LexBox
- Lawyers working outside Swedish procedural law, which the model is explicitly anchored in
- Criminal and administrative practitioners, since the tool is designed exclusively for civil disputes
- Teams that need an API or deep system integration, as the product is sold as independent from other systems
- Buyers looking for a free plan or a low entry point, given the 5,000 SEK monthly floor and paid onboarding
- Organisations that require published security certifications or a customer-facing data processing agreement before signing
How to use LexBox
A typical end-to-end flow, from setup to results.
- Book a demonstration through the booking link, or email the team directly
- Agree an onboarding level: individual, standardised or advanced
- Have the environment configured and shared working principles established during onboarding
- Open a matter by summarising the client's account at the Intake stage
- Upload the supporting material: evidence, contracts and appendices
- Let LexBox compile the facts, the parties and the claims
- Receive the structured legal draft generated for review
- Work through the process-critical deviations and missing steps it flags
- Revise and adjust the draft directly inside LexBox
- Export the finished statement of claim and file it with the court
Pros & Cons
Pros
- A deliberately narrow scope: built for Swedish civil procedure rather than sold as a general legal assistant
- A complete public price list, uncommon on this segment, with all four tiers and onboarding costs stated
- The publisher is identified without ambiguity, with legal name, organisation number and postal address
- GDPR compliance claimed explicitly, with hosting announced in Sweden or the EU and EEA
- A named team of nine, each with a public professional profile
- Implementation presented as plug-and-play, with no integration project required at entry level
- A fully open robots.txt that places no restriction on crawlers
Cons
- No terms and conditions page exists anywhere on the site, although the price page commits the buyer to a contract term
- The English and Swedish price pages contradict each other on that term: twelve months with three months' notice on one, no commitment at all with two months' notice on the other
- The same two pages disagree on hosting, one announcing Swedish infrastructure and the other EU and EEA infrastructure
- The privacy policy still carries unfilled editorial placeholders and describes Wi-Fi access rather than the handling of uploaded case files
- No security certification is claimed, no subprocessor list is published and no data processing agreement is offered to customers
- No documented way to exclude client material from model training
- A high entry point: 5,000 SEK per month at minimum plus 5,000 to 75,000 SEK of onboarding, with no free plan
Pricing & Plans
There is no free plan, and no free trial is announced as such. Subscriptions are quoted in Swedish kronor on a monthly basis, and the lowest entry point is 5,000 SEK per month for the Solo tier as displayed on desktop. Onboarding is billed separately, from 5,000 SEK to 75,000 SEK depending on the depth of implementation. One caveat is worth stating plainly: the Solo figure is displayed inconsistently. The mobile rendering of the English price page shows 2,500 SEK per month followed by an asterisk that no footnote on the site explains, while the equivalent Swedish rendering shows 5,000 SEK.
- LexBox Solo — 5
- 000 SEK per month — for independent lawyers and smaller practices
- with a standard setup and no integration project
- LexBox Firm — 15
- 000 SEK per month — for smaller firms of two to four lawyers
- with a customised setup and the ability to integrate with existing systems
- LexBox Firm Plus — 25
- 000 SEK per month — for medium-sized firms of five to ten lawyers
- with extended implementation and customisation
- LexBox Enterprise — from 40
- 000 SEK per month — for larger organisations
- with bespoke integration
- configuration and implementation support
- individual 5
- 000 SEK
- standardised 25
- 000 SEK
- advanced 75
- 000 SEK
Data, GDPR & hosting
A consolidated view of how LexBox handles your data.
GDPR overview
GDPR compliance is claimed explicitly and in plain terms: the homepage states that LexBox fully complies with the regulation, and the privacy policy, in force since 28 September 2025, is built around it. Data subject rights are enumerated in full, covering access, rectification, erasure, restriction, objection, withdrawal of consent, portability and complaint to the Swedish supervisory authority, IMY. Safeguards are listed as encryption, firewall protection, secure networks, role-based access, staff GDPR training and a breach protocol. Requests must be made in writing and include proof of identity. Two limits deserve attention: no data protection officer is named, and the policy reserves the right to change without prior notice, amendments taking effect 180 days after publication.
Who owns the data?
The named data controller is NiTiAB, registered in Sweden under organisation number 556986-5271. Its privacy policy states that personal data is never sold, and that it may be shared only with service providers and subcontractors bound by data processing agreements, or with authorities where legally required. No subcontractor is named. The document is silent on the point that matters most here: it addresses website visitors, customers and enquirers, but says nothing about ownership of the case files, evidence and client material a law firm uploads into the platform. Practices bound by professional secrecy should settle that question contractually before use.
Reuse rights
The published documents describe what the publisher does with personal data, not what a customer may do with the output. The legal bases listed are consent, contractual necessity, legal obligation and legitimate interest, covering communication and customer service, website use and, unexpectedly for a legal platform, Wi-Fi access. Consent may be withdrawn at any time, although doing so may remove access to services that depend on user identification. Data portability is offered in a commonly used, machine-readable format where processing rests on consent or contract. Nothing in the published documents restricts a firm's reuse of the drafts it generates, and nothing expressly grants it either: the question is simply not addressed.
Data retention & training
Hosting summary
Hosting is announced, but the two language versions of the same price page do not agree. The English page lists secure storage in Swedish infrastructure among the items included at every tier; the Swedish page, in the same position, lists secure storage in EU and EEA infrastructure. Both statements are first-party and current, so this record carries both: Sweden as a country, the EU as a region. Beyond that single line, nothing is documented. No hosting provider, data centre or subprocessor is named anywhere on the site, and no trust or security page exists. The marketing site itself resolves to an address geolocated in the Netherlands, which reflects the website platform serving the pages rather than any statement about where client files are kept; the two should not be confused. For a practice handling privileged material, the gap between a one-line claim and a documented hosting arrangement is the thing to close before signing. The publisher is established in Sweden, so an EU jurisdiction is plausible on its face, but plausibility is not a contractual commitment.
Where LexBox works
Country-level availability.
Available in
Things to keep in mind
Risks and trade-offs to weigh before adopting LexBox.
- Professional secrecy: the published documents never explain how uploaded case files, evidence and client identities are handled, which is the first question a bar-regulated practice should ask
- Automation bias: a draft that looks procedurally complete invites lighter review, and the tool's own promise of speed makes that temptation stronger
- Skill erosion: junior lawyers who never assemble a statement of claim by hand may never learn to spot what the tool misses
- Contractual uncertainty: with no terms published and the two language versions disagreeing on commitment length, a buyer cannot know what they are signing
- No documented training opt-out, in a domain where the underlying material is privileged by definition
- Unexplained quality signals: LQI scoring and an AI jury are presented as assurance without any published methodology behind them
- Jurisdictional overreach: the model is anchored in Swedish law, and using it on a foreign matter would fail silently rather than visibly
Setup & Integrations
Technical difficulty
Low in principle, but not self-service. LexBox is presented as plug-and-play and completely independent from a firm's other systems, so no integration project is required at entry level. Onboarding is nonetheless mandatory and billed separately, in three levels — individual at 5,000 SEK, standardised at 25,000 SEK and advanced at 75,000 SEK — which differ in the scope of implementation rather than in the functionality delivered. Integration with a firm's document system appears from the Firm tier upward. Access begins with a booked demonstration rather than a sign-up form.
Deployment
Supported languages
Behind LexBox
Social
Resources
All the official URLs gathered for verification and reference.
Frequently asked questions
What kind of cases is LexBox built for?
Can it be used outside Sweden?
What does it cost?
Is there a free plan or a free trial?
How long is the contract?
Where is the data hosted?
Does LexBox offer an API?
Is client data used to train the models?
Who is behind LexBox?
Does it comply with the GDPR?
Should you pick LexBox?
LexBox is an unusually well-defined product. Rather than another general-purpose legal assistant, it addresses one procedure in one jurisdiction — Swedish civil disputes — and says so plainly, to the point of declaring itself designed exclusively for that work. For a Swedish litigation practice, particularly a small one weighing whether low-value claims are worth taking at all, that focus is the main argument in its favour, and the published price list lets a firm do the arithmetic without booking a call. Publishing a full tariff is itself uncommon on this segment. The reservations are documentary rather than functional, but they are not minor. No terms and conditions exist anywhere on the site, while the price page commits a buyer to a contract term — and the English and Swedish versions of that page disagree about what the term is, one stating twelve months with three months' notice, the other no commitment at all with two. The same two pages disagree about whether data sits in Swedish or in EU and EEA infrastructure. The privacy policy still carries unfilled editorial placeholders, discusses Wi-Fi access, and never addresses the case files a law firm would actually entrust to the platform. No certification is claimed, no subprocessor named, no data processing agreement offered, and no way to keep client material out of model training is documented. None of this means the product fails to work as described; the site simply does not yet document the things a bar-regulated practice has to verify. LexBox presents itself as a first version, and it reads like one. The sensible approach is to treat the demonstration as the opening of a due-diligence conversation, and to get the contract term, the hosting arrangement and the confidentiality of uploaded material in writing before anything privileged is uploaded.
- Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
- Opens in a new window.