Diligencing someone else’s AI, or governing your own use of it?
Lenavix speaks to legal teams too, but for a different task: AI regulatory and vendor due diligence, evaluating whether an AI system or vendor measures up. Candor is about your own firm’s use: the day-to-day record of screening client data, checking citations, and signing off. Here’s the split.
| Feature | Lenavix | Candor |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | AI regulatory / vendor due diligence | Own-use AI governance and record-keeping |
| Whose AI is in scope | A vendor's or a system you're assessing | Your firm's own use of outside AI tools |
| Confidentiality screening at point of use | Not the focus | Screens client details before they reach a model |
| Citation checks | Not the focus | Flags cited cases that may need a second look (CourtListener) |
| Per-matter use log + attorney sign-off | Not the focus | Yes, tied to the verified person, append-only |
| Malpractice-carrier record | Not the focus | Hash-chained, carrier-ready, exportable in full |
This compares stated focus, not quality; the two tools answer different questions. If your need is “can we prove our own attorneys used AI responsibly,” that’s the Candor side.
The carrier isn’t asking whether your vendor is compliant. It’s asking whether you are.
Vendor diligence matters when you choose a tool. But the question at renewal (and in a grievance) is narrower and about you: did your people keep client data out of the model, did an attorney verify the output, and can you show it? Candor is the running record that answers that in your own firm’s words.