Legal & General Counsel
General counsel and legal teams need more than access logs - they need a cryptographic record of who authorized each AI agent action, structured for discovery, regulatory inquiry, and attorney supervision obligations.
Common challenges for teams deploying AI agents in regulated environments.
When regulators or opposing counsel ask "who authorized this?", the answer cannot be "the system." Legal standards require attribution to a specific human principal with documented authority at the time of the action - not a reconstructed narrative assembled after the fact.
Legal work product generated or touched by AI agents must be traceable: what the agent did, under whose direction, and what scope it was operating within. Without a structural evidence chain, privilege documentation and e-discovery responses become weeks of manual reconstruction.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct require supervision of non-attorney work product. An AI agent operating under ambient credentials with no per-action authorization record cannot satisfy that standard. Policy must be enforced at the action level, not documented after the fact.
When AI agents perform repository operations - reading files, indexing knowledge, writing commits - the question of authorship and attribution carries IP and legal-hold implications. Citadel issues agent tokens distinct from human OAuth sessions, so each agent action carries a traceable identity that can be tied to an authorizing principal in a discovery or audit context.
Legal holds require records that are immutable, attributable, and retrievable on demand. Citadel writes agent and repository operations through an audit surface backed by a persistent substrate - not a log file that can be rotated or overwritten - so records remain available for the duration of a hold without manual preservation steps.
Signing up for a trial account on a cloud-hosted platform before any agreement is in place exposes your evaluation intent and project context to a third-party service. Citadel follows an engagement-based evaluation posture: no trial account is required, so your team can assess fit without shadow data exposure before terms are established.
The governance rules that directly address your operational risk profile.
Consequential action requires lawful, in-chain, current, attributable authority - not transport success alone.
Decisions and refusals must remain attributable and reviewable to the extent the environment allows.
Trust and prior consent do not replace fresh consent where policy requires it for hazardous or privileged acts.
Human impact (including indirect, delayed, or omission harm) demands explicit objectives, active RoE, and safeguards matched to risk.
An illustrative scenario showing how Bastion addresses real compliance requirements.
Challenge
An AM100 law firm evaluates AI agents to assist with contract review, due diligence triage, and matter management. Partner accountability requirements - and the professional responsibility rules governing attorney supervision of non-attorney work product - mean any agent-generate...
Outcome
Bastion's command layer would give supervising partners fine-grained control over which agents could act on which matters, with immutable records of every delegation and every output. IRONLAW's Rightful Authority and Least Authority rules map directly to ABA Model Rule 5.3 superv...
Illustrative perspective
An attorney evaluating governance tools would find that the IRONLAW framing simplifies the conversation with ethics counsel - chain of command is a concept legal professionals recognize immediately.
Talk through your deployment requirements with a governance architect. No sales pressure - just a technical conversation about your governance needs.
