Supio

What it is

Supio is a legal AI platform built for one practice area: plaintiff-side personal injury and mass-tort firms. Where a general assistant like Harvey sells breadth across every practice area, Supio sells depth down a single workflow — intake, medical-record chronology, case valuation, demand drafting, and litigation prep. The company emerged from stealth in August 2024 with a $25M Series A and raised a $60M Series B in April 2025 led by Sapphire Ventures, with Mayfield and Thomson Reuters Ventures joining — about $91M total. The Thomson Reuters round came with a product partnership: Westlaw research (Deep Research, an AI Jurisdiction Survey, and a Litigation Document Analyzer) is wired into Supio through CoCounsel, which is the grounding story Supio leads with against less-anchored rivals.

The core unit is the medical record. PI cases live or die on how fast and how completely a firm can turn thousands of pages of treatment records into a chronology, a damages picture, and a demand. That extraction-and-synthesis job is what Supio automates, then wraps in firm-level agent features — Cross-Case Analysis and a firm knowledge base — that reuse a firm’s own prior work across matters.

Why it shows up in legal-ops stacks

• It targets the paralegal bottleneck, not the lawyer’s desk. The slow, expensive step in a PI shop is records review and chronology building. Supio attacks that directly — vendor-reported figures cite roughly 80 paralegal hours reclaimed per case and $500–1,000 saved per case (Supio’s own customer numbers, not an independent benchmark).
• Westlaw grounding is the differentiator. Through the Thomson Reuters partnership, jurisdiction surveys and litigation-document analysis run on Westlaw content from inside Supio — useful when a demand or motion has to cite real authority instead of a model’s guess.
• It’s purpose-built, not a general assistant pointed at PI. The modules — Medical Chronologies, Case Ledger, Demand Letters, Exhibit Builder, Litigation Drafting — map to the PI lifecycle, and it integrates with the case-management systems these firms actually run: Clio, Litify, MyCase, and CasePeer.

Pricing reality

Supio is sales-led with no public price list — you book a demo and get a custom quote. Comparable medical-record and litigation AI lands around $150–400 per user per month, but treat that as a proxy, not Supio’s number: its quotes scale with firm size, attorney count, the volume of medical records you push through it, and how deep the case-management integration goes. The two things that decide payback are how pricing meters “output” (per seat vs. per case vs. records volume) and whether the floor commitment matches your real caseload. Model it against the paralegal hours you currently spend on records and chronologies — the exact line Supio claims to cut.

Best for

A plaintiff PI or mass-tort firm — from solo-to-mid-size up through high-volume shops — whose throughput is capped by medical-records review and demand turnaround, and that wants one end-to-end platform from intake to litigation rather than a stack of point tools. ROI is best where case volume is high and records-heavy: auto, premises, med-mal, and mass tort.

Skip it if you are not a PI or plaintiff firm — Supio’s whole design assumes medical records and damages, so a transactional, in-house, or general-litigation team gets more from a broad assistant like Harvey. And skip it if all you need is demand letters and you already have a strong template — the narrower EvenUp does that one job with a comparable-verdict database behind it.

Versus the alternatives

The two names you will weigh Supio against are EvenUp (the category leader, used by 2,000+ firms including roughly 20% of the top 100 US PI firms) and Eve (the fastest-growing rival, a generalist plaintiff platform that reached a $1B valuation in 2026). Pick EvenUp when the job is demand packages and you value its verdict database to back a settlement number with comparable awards. Pick Eve when you want broader plaintiff-litigation coverage and features like AI intake voice agents across practice areas. Pick Supio when the bottleneck is medical-record-heavy case workup and you want Westlaw-grounded research living in the same tool. If none fit — you are a small firm with low volume — the status quo of a paralegal plus a records-summary vendor is cheaper than any of the three until your caseload justifies the platform.

Watch-outs

• The efficiency numbers are Supio’s own. The 80-hours-saved and $500–1,000-per-case figures come from Supio customer stories, not a neutral study. Guard: run a paid pilot on one case type, baseline a sample of matters against your current paralegal hours and cycle time, and hold the annual contract to that measured delta before you sign.
• You are feeding it protected health information. Medical records are PHI; Supio states HIPAA, PHIPA, and GDPR compliance and SOC 2 Type II certification, but the compliance posture is your liability, not the vendor’s. Guard: sign a BAA, confirm where records are stored and whether they are used to train models, and check data residency before any client records go in.
• It is a single vendor in a fast-moving, still-consolidating category. Your chronologies, exhibits, and firm knowledge base accrue inside Supio. Guard: confirm you can export chronologies, ledgers, and the knowledge base in a usable format and that the work product is contractually yours, so a pricing change or an acquisition does not strand it.