Clio Security Assessment
Legal & Contracts
Clio offers all you need to run a law practice from intake to invoice, with powerful features to manage cases, clients, documents, bills, appointments, time-tracking, reporting, and accounting.
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
Incident Response
AI Integration Security Assessment (9th Dimension)
Assess whether SaaS applications are safe for AI agent integration using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches and make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors.
Last updated: January 17, 2026 at 05:28 PM
Assessment Transparency
See exactly what data backs this security assessment
Data Coverage
3/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 3 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
Security Documentation
These documents were discovered during automated assessment and may contain additional security information not reflected in the score.
Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility
AI Integration Security
🔒 9th DimensionAssess whether Clio is safe for AI agent integration. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards.
AI Readiness
Infrastructure for AI integration
AI Security
Safety controls for AI agents
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | B+ | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | Medium-High | Executive approval required |
| Enterprise Readiness | 52% | Gaps Exist |
| Critical Gaps | 0 | None |
Security Assessment
| Category | Score | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Breach History | 100/100 | excellent | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Vulnerability Management | 85/100 | good | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Identity & Access Management | 70/100 | good | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 API Security | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Data Protection | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Incident Response | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Compliance & Certification | 35/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: B+ (55/100)
Critical Security Gaps
| Gap | Severity | Business Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟡 No public security documentation or audit reports | MEDIUM | 40-80 hours of security assessment overhead | Request security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper |
Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0
Compliance Status
| Framework | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| GDPR | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| HIPAA | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
| PCI DSS | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.
Operational Excellence
| Metric | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Status Page | ❌ Not Found | N/A |
| Documentation Quality | ❌ 0/10 | No SDKs |
| SLA Commitment | ❌ None | No public SLA |
| API Versioning | ⚠️ None | No version control |
| Support Channels | ℹ️ 0 channels |
Operational Facts Extracted: 2 data points from operational_maturity enrichment
Integration Requirements
| Aspect | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | 3-5 days (manual setup required) | Estimated deployment timeline |
| Known Issues | Manual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls needed | Implementation considerations |
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
Risk Level: LOW - Contains
Compliance & Certifications
AI Integration Security Assessment
Industry-first assessment evaluating whether Clio is safe and ready for AI agent integration. Covers AI security controls and readiness infrastructure for Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP).
AI Integration Security
Industry-first assessment for AI agent safety
✅Excellent Security Features
- ●When you create a new developer application, you must select the access permissions required by your application. You should choose the smallest set necessary for your application to function properly... You can choose between read-only and read/write access for each permission
- ●You can choose between read-only and read/write access for each permission, depending on your needs. Read access allows you to read records for that resource, while write access allows you to read, create, update, and destroy records
- ●API Reference shows extensive endpoints across Activities, Billing, Contacts, Matters, Bank Accounts, Webhooks, Custom Actions, and many more categories with distinct permission requirements. Some endpoints require multiple permissions to access – for example, since Matter Clients and Relationships relate to both Matters and Contacts, accessing them requires both the Matters and Contacts permissions
- ●Webhooks section with Supported Models, HTTPS, Specifying Fields in Webhooks, Model Specific Events, Delivery Failure and Retries, Webhook Security, and Examples documented
- ●Strong granular permission system with read-only vs read/write separation
- ●Well-documented OAuth 2.0 authorization flow with OIDC for SSO
- ●Regional data separation across Clio regions
⚠️Security Gaps & Recommendations
- ●No token expiration
- ●No service accounts
- ●No pii redaction
- ●No training opt out
- ●No gdpr compliance
- ●No audit logging
- ●No ai attribution
- ●No soc2 certified
- ●No documented token expiration policy
- ●No PII redaction capabilities for AI use cases
AI Integration Security evaluates whether Clio is safe for AI agent access. This assessment considers authentication strength, access controls, observability capabilities, and data privacy protections when APIs are accessed by AI systems like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, or custom AI agents.
AI Readiness Assessment
Evaluates readiness for AI agent integration
Official or community MCP server support
API docs, SDKs, code examples
API reference, auth flows, error handling
MCP Server Available
communityClio supports Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) for secure AI agent integration.
View MCP Server💡Recommendations
- →⚠️ Official MCP server not found. Best alternative: https://github.com/Arclio/github-projects-mcp (Trust: 0/100)
- →⚠️ 🔴 High Risk: Repository appears abandoned
- →❌ Poor AI readiness - not recommended for AI workflows
AI Readiness measures whether Clioprovides the infrastructure and developer resources necessary for secure AI agent integration. High readiness indicates official MCP server support, comprehensive API documentation, and developer-friendly tools.
API Intelligence
Production-ready code examples for security operations, extracted from official Clio API documentation using LLM analysis. Copy and paste these examples directly into your automation workflows.
API Intelligence
API intelligence structure found but no operations extracted. May require manual review.
Incomplete API Intelligence
Our automated extraction found API documentation but couldn't extract specific operations. This may require manual review or vendor assistance.
View Vendor DocumentationAI-Powered Stakeholder Decision Analysis
LLM-generated security perspectives tailored to CISO, CFO, CTO, and Legal stakeholder needs. All analysis is grounded in verified API data with zero fabrication.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of Clio's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.
Operational Data Not Yet Assessed
We haven't collected operational maturity data for Clio yet.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about Clio
Tested and certified for strong security Clio successfully completes annual SOC 2 Type II and SOC 1 Type II examinations. The rigorous, independent reviews confirm our security practices meet high standards. Our SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports are available via trust.clio.com.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
With the Clio API, you can build apps for over 150,000 of the world's most progressive legal professionals, or for your own legal practice. Join us in transforming the legal experience for all.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Give us a call at 1-888-858-2546.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Default Rate Limits Clio's API has a default rate limit of 50 requests per minute during peak usage hours. Rate limits are increased during off-peak hours; the amount that they increase may differ per region. Rate limits may change without notice.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Compare with Alternatives
How does Clio stack up against similar applications in Legal & Contracts? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ClioCurrent | 55/100🏆 | B+ | 52.8/100 | |
47/100 | C+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
41/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
41/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
26/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
25/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
22/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
Clio has the highest security score (55/100) among these alternatives. Strong choice for security-conscious organizations.