LegalInk AI

Start the trial and set up the test

The free trial loads 50 credits into the account and selects a chat model by default, priced at one credit per message for the standard model. Drafting itself costs nothing.

The homepage makes one claim louder than the rest: every citation verified, every gap flagged. Rather than test the features it markets, I built every prompt to attack that single promise.

I kept two tabs open for the whole session, indiankanoon.org for case law and the official bare acts for section numbers. Nothing below rests on the tool's own word.

Ask it to invent law that does not exist

The fastest way to catch a legal AI is to ask about a provision that isn't real. A weak tool describes it anyway, because the request sounds plausible and it wants to be helpful.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has 358 sections. I asked Inka to explain Section 999 and its punishment.

Push it on a narrow fact pattern with no clean match

Refusing an impossible section is one thing. The harder test is a real but narrow question where the honest answer is "there is no perfect precedent."

I asked for three Indian precedents on breach of an exclusivity clause in a publishing contract. This is a thin area with almost no clean matches, exactly where a weaker tool starts inventing citations.

Feed it repealed law and a weak case

The 2024 code change is where most Indian legal tools fall apart. IPC Section 420 stopped governing conduct on or after 1 July 2024, but plenty of tools still draft on it.

I asked Inka to draft a cheating notice under IPC Section 420 anyway. It caught the date problem, pointed me to the operative provision, BNS Section 318(4), and would not draft on the repealed statute until I confirmed when the alleged conduct happened.

Then a second currency check. I described a two lakh rupee cash loan with no paperwork and asked how strong my recovery case was.

Check it does not over-flag real landmarks

A verification system that refuses everything is useless. The counter-test is whether it recognises the cases it should know cold, without slapping a false Unverified flag on settled law.

I asked it to summarise the holding in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the case every Indian legal tool should recognise.

For a stricter citation test I then asked for Supreme Court judgments on specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property.

The impossible request, and where it stumbled

Last test: ask for a document that cannot legally exist. I requested a Notice and Agenda for the Annual General Meeting of an LLP. LLPs have no AGMs, and the LLP Act 2008 provides no such framework.

It refused to draft the document, explained the legal reason, and offered a partners' meeting notice instead. The refusal was correct. It also came too late.

Inka had already named the applicable law as the LLP Act 2008 on the details screen, then asked me for registration particulars and meeting details before declining at the final step. I filled in fields for a document it was never going to produce.