Consilio

What it is

Consilio is one of the largest eDiscovery and legal-services providers. It sells hosting, managed document review, forensics, and flexible lawyers to corporate legal departments and law firms. The company says it has more than 5,400 employees, more than 4,000 active review professionals, and more than 30,000 matters hosted. It started in 2000 as First Advantage Litigation Consulting and took the Consilio name in 2013. Stone Point Capital bought it from GI Partners in 2021, the same year it merged with Xact Data Discovery and bought Legility and Special Counsel’s eDiscovery units. Andy Macdonald is CEO.

Consilio grows by buying. It bought Lawyers On Demand and SYKE in 2023, the New York AI lab TrueLaw in June 2025, elaw in Australia in February 2026, and the Australian eDiscovery provider icourts on 1 September 2026. Lawyers On Demand, now “a Consilio company”, gives it a pool of about 4,500 flexible lawyers.

The software layer is the Aurora Legal AI Suite, launched at Legalweek 2025. Consilio says it now runs on most of its active matters:

• Aurora CoreECI and Portal — early case intelligence and the client front end.
• Aurora AI — Investigate (natural-language questions across a matter), Summarize, PrivGen and PrivDetect for privilege review, and Guided AI Review. TrueLaw’s firm-specific fine-tuned models feed into it.
• Aurora Verity Review — Consilio’s own review platform, added on 2 March 2026 together with Legal Ops Intelligence.
• Platform choice — Aurora also runs Relativity and Everlaw, under an Everlaw partnership expanded in October 2025, and a Reveal private deployment under a separate October 2025 deal.

On 12 May 2026 Consilio shipped an MCP connector for Claude for Legal. Users sign in with their Consilio ID and run Aurora Investigate against the matters they are allowed to see. The data stays in Consilio’s private hosting. On 18 June 2026 Consilio also signed a partnership with Eudia to build outcome-priced AI services on Eudia’s Expert Digital Twins. That work had not shipped as a named product when this page was checked.

The question it answers

Consilio, Epiq, and Lighthouse appear on most outsourced-review panels. The useful question is not which logo is bigger. It is what each vendor’s AI layer changes about the bill and the risk.

Consilio differs from the other two in two ways. First, it does not tie you to one review platform. Lighthouse delivers mainly on Relativity, and Epiq pushes its own Discover. Consilio will host your matter on Relativity, Everlaw, Reveal, or its own Verity Review, and runs Aurora AI across all of them. Second, it sells private hosting as a cost hedge. Its Aurora page claims that public-cloud review platforms raise prices 8–20% a year. That is a vendor claim about rivals, but it shows where Consilio will negotiate: multi-year hosting rates on its own data centres, which number more than 15.

The connector matters to legal ops teams standardising on Claude. Of the three panel names, only Consilio was in Anthropic’s May 2026 launch set of legal connectors, next to Relativity and Everlaw. So investigators can query a live matter from the same assistant they use for contracts and research.

Pricing reality

Consilio publishes no rate card, no AI per-document price, and no marketplace listing. Every engagement is quoted. Use the two public cards from its direct rivals as your anchor:

• Lighthouse (2023 Spectra card): hosting $12/GB/month, responsive review $0.58/document with a $97,500 project minimum.
• Epiq (UK G-Cloud 14, 2026): £6/GB/month hosting, AI review plus Assist £0.37/document, Assist only £0.12/document.

For a 500,000-document collection, those cards put human responsive review at about $290,000 on Lighthouse’s rate, and Epiq’s AI review plus Assist at £185,000 (£60,000 for Assist alone), before human QC. Ask Consilio for a quote in the same units: per GB per month for hosting, per document for Aurora AI review, and per hour for review attorneys. Compare it line by line. Also ask whether the Aurora AI fee applies to every ingested document or only the documents promoted to review. Epiq charges on ingestion, which makes culling before ingestion the biggest savings lever.

Best for

Legal ops and litigation-support leads at large corporations, and the eDiscovery groups at AmLaw firms, who run a steady flow of mid-to-large matters across more than one review platform or more than one country, and want one vendor for hosting, AI review, review staff, and overflow lawyers.

Not for you if your matters are mostly under about 100 GB, or your team runs its own review on a self-serve platform. Buy Everlaw, DISCO, or Relativity directly and skip the services margin.

Alternatives — and when to pick them instead

• Relativity — the market-share leader in review platforms. Pick RelativityOne with aiR directly when you have an in-house team that can run and defend its own AI review.
• Epiq — pick it when you want published AI pricing you can model before signing, or need court reporting and breach response from the same vendor.
• Lighthouse — pick it for regulator-facing matters where published privilege-accuracy results and DOJ/FTC acceptance carry weight.
• Everlaw — the cloud-native challenger and a Consilio partner. Pick it self-serve when your matters are mid-size and predictable platform pricing beats a services relationship.
• Reveal or Exterro — pick Reveal for self-serve AI review at lower cost. Pick Exterro when legal hold and privacy governance drive the purchase more than review volume.

Watch-outs

• Every Aurora figure is Consilio’s. The “10,000+ active users”, “majority of matters”, and AI-speed claims come from press releases. Nothing has been independently benchmarked. Guard: write a validation protocol into the SOW, with sampled recall and precision reported on your own matter before production, and tie the AI review fee to meeting it.
• Acquisition sprawl. Consilio has bought or merged with at least eight businesses since 2021, so service teams, tools, and data centres differ by region. Guard: name the delivery entity, hosting location, and review platform per matter in the contract, and require notice before any of them change.
• The connector reads; it does not decide. Aurora Investigate in Claude answers questions over hosted data, but coding, privilege calls, and productions stay inside Aurora and the review platform. Guard: keep connector access to named investigators, log queries, and treat Claude answers as leads to verify in the review platform, never as coding decisions.
• Opaque pricing favours the vendor. With no public card, renewals drift. Guard: lock hosting rates for the term, set a dormant-data rate and a date for moving closed matters to it, and require editable exports of coding history and privilege logs at matter close.