Skip to main content

Legal & General Counsel

AI Governance That Satisfies Legal Standards

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.

The governance gap

Common challenges for teams deploying AI agents in regulated environments.

  • No responsible principal behind agent actions

    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.

  • AI work product that cannot survive discovery

    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.

  • Supervision obligations with no enforcement mechanism

    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.

Relevant IRONLAW rules

The governance rules that directly address your operational risk profile.

  • Rightful Authority

    Consequential action requires lawful, in-chain, current, attributable authority - not transport success alone.

  • Accountability

    Decisions and refusals must remain attributable and reviewable to the extent the environment allows.

  • Operational Consent

    Trust and prior consent do not replace fresh consent where policy requires it for hazardous or privileged acts.

  • Intentional Human Impact

    Human impact (including indirect, delayed, or omission harm) demands explicit objectives, active RoE, and safeguards matched to risk.

See all 7 IRONLAW governance rules →

Governance in practice

An illustrative scenario showing how Bastion addresses real compliance requirements.

Legal / Compliance AutomationAM100 law firm (~600 attorneys)

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...

"The IRONLAW framing would make the governance conversation with our ethics counsel much simpler. They understand chain of command immediately."

See all governance scenarios →

Ready to discuss AI governance for your legal team?

Talk through your deployment requirements with a Bastion architect. No sales pressure -- just a technical conversation about your governance needs.