Smith.ai vs. Answering Legal

Updated November 2026

Why law firms choose Smith.ai over Answering Legal

Both services focus on law firms, and both are worth a look. Answering Legal answers calls with human receptionists only: a 100% US-based, bilingual staff that schedules consultations and connects to legal software such as Clio Grow, MyCase and Lawmatics. Smith.ai runs intake for 5,000+ law firms end to end, with an AI Receptionist and 500+ legally trained, North America-based live agents, who can join AI calls through the Live Agent Handoff add-on.

The difference is how calls get handled

With Answering Legal, every call waits on a person. Its AI is a website chatbot; the phone line is human-only. With Smith.ai, the AI Receptionist answers every call at once, screens the caller with your intake questions and books the consultation. With the Live Agent Handoff add-on, a live agent joins when the call needs judgment, so a caller with a sensitive matter reaches a person without being passed around. Firms that want a person on every call can choose Smith.ai's Virtual Receptionists instead, or mix the two in a hybrid setup.

Intake that ends with a next step

Both services can book a consultation. Smith.ai carries intake further. When a live transfer to an attorney doesn't connect, the caller is offered a consultation on the same call, and it can collect payments and send a retainer for e-signature before the call is logged in your case management system.

That last stretch is where firms win or lose the client. In Smith.ai's Legal Intake Report, an analysis of 3.2 million calls to 4,210 U.S. law firms, firms whose intake could book connected 63.8% of qualified leads with the firm, against 11.6% for firms without scheduling enabled. Firms that offer a booking when a transfer fails connected 63.4%; firms that only transfer connected 17.7%.

Pricing you can compare before you sign

Answering Legal doesn't publish pricing. Its process is a trial followed by a custom package for each firm, so you can't compare its number against anyone else's before you commit. Smith.ai publishes every plan, rate and overage on its pricing page and bills per call, not per minute, so a long intake call doesn't cost more than a short one.

Frequently asked questions

How much does Answering Legal cost?

Answering Legal doesn't publish rates. Its pricing page is gated, and its stated process is to build a custom package for each firm after a trial. Smith.ai publishes all plans and rates: the AI Receptionist starts free for 25 calls a month, and Virtual Receptionists start at $300/month for 30 calls, $7–$10 per call depending on plan size, with overages at $8.50–$11.50.

Is Smith.ai built for law firms?

Yes. Smith.ai runs intake for 5,000+ law firms, with legally trained live agents, practice-area intake scripts and integrations with Clio, MyCase and Lawmatics. It also publishes the Legal Intake Report, a benchmark built from 3.2 million calls to U.S. law firms.

Does either service use AI on the phone?

Answering Legal doesn't; its phone calls are handled by human receptionists, and its AI is a website chatbot. Smith.ai lets each firm choose: the AI Receptionist (with live agents ready to join through the Live Agent Handoff add-on), fully human Virtual Receptionists, or a hybrid of both.

Are the receptionists US-based?

Answering Legal states that its bilingual staff is 100% US-based. Smith.ai's 500+ live agents are North America-based, legally trained, and offer English and Spanish support.

Can either send a retainer agreement?

Smith.ai can send a retainer for e-signature and collect payments during intake. Answering Legal doesn't offer either.

Which one is better for my firm?

If you want a human voice on every call and are comfortable getting pricing after a trial, Answering Legal is a reasonable choice. If you want every call answered at once, intake that runs through to a booked consultation or signed retainer, and pricing you can see up front, Smith.ai is built for that. Talk to the Smith.ai team to see it on your firm's calls.