AI, Responsibility & Security

AI use at the firm sits within a defined chain of accountability, not informal practice. The responsible attorney on a matter owns every substantive output produced with AI assistance; partners retain final sign-off before anything reaches a client.

Use of the technology is reviewed on an ongoing basis, and access to client matter data is logged.

Governance here isn't a policy statement kept separate from practice — it's the structure the work actually runs through.

Attorney-led, AI-augmented legal services for complex corporate matters where scrutiny is real. Our tools are there to improve the rigor, consistency, and responsiveness of the work — judgment, and responsibility for every conclusion, stays with the attorney.

Client data is handled under the same confidentiality and privilege standards as the rest of the firm's work. Nothing is used beyond what a matter requires, and nothing is used to train external models without a client's written consent.

Client information shared with the firm is protected the same way regardless of the tools used to handle it — by the duty of confidentiality and privilege every attorney at the firm is bound by, backed by the technical and organizational controls needed to make that duty real in practice.

Security here isn't a feature layered on top of the technology; it's a professional and legal obligation the technology is built to serve. Access to matter data is restricted to those working on it, activity is logged, and the same regulatory framework that governs how any Israeli law firm handles client information — including data protection law and Bar confidentiality rules — applies in full to work done with AI assistance.

The goal is simple: a client should be able to trust that using CIDAH doesn't lower the standard of protection their matter receives — it's held to the same standard as everything else the firm does, and enforced accordingly.