Enterprise AI governance, or law-firm AI governance?
Credo AI is a well-established enterprise AI-governance platform: it helps large organizations govern the AI systems they build and deploy, mapped to broad frameworks like the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO 42001. Candor is narrower on purpose: it governs how a law firm's own people use outside AI tools on client matters. Different jobs. Here's which is which.
| Feature | Credo AI | Candor |
|---|---|---|
| Who it's built for | Enterprises governing AI broadly | U.S. law firms, specifically |
| What it governs | The AI systems an organization builds and deploys | How a firm's people use outside AI tools on matters |
| Frameworks | Broad: EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, and more | Bar rules and ABA Formal Opinion 512; a carrier-renewal report |
| Confidentiality screening | Not its focus | Screens client details before text reaches a model |
| Citation checks | Not its focus | Flags cited cases that may need a second look (CourtListener) |
| Attorney sign-off + matter log | Not its focus | Per-matter use log with recorded attorney review |
| Record for a malpractice carrier | Not its focus | Append-only, hash-chained, carrier-ready |
| Runs on | Enterprise deployment | The firm's own connected model; one-click browser pairing |
Credo AI is a category leader in enterprise AI governance and does that job at scale. This page is about a different question: governing your own firm's day-to-day AI use so it holds up when your carrier or a court asks.
The record a firm hands its carrier isn’t an enterprise risk register.
A law firm's exposure isn't an AI system it shipped. It's a paralegal pasting a client's facts into ChatGPT, or a brief with a citation nobody checked. That's a professional-responsibility problem, framed in bar-rule vocabulary, and the artifact that answers it is a per-matter record with screened inputs, verified citations, and an attorney's sign-off. That specific record is what Candor is built to produce.