VELARU MANDATE EXHIBIT PACK — LEGAL / LAW FIRMS Jurisdiction: United States (Federal) (us_federal) Modality: Text / Chat Program: Velaru Legal / Law Firms · United States (Federal) (galactic_legal_us_federal) Product ID: legal:us_federal:bundle:text Vertical: legal Generated: 2026-08-21T16:24:23.412888Z Authority: US Federal Exhibit — Legal AI Competence + Rule 1.1 Pack Deadline: ABA AI ethics opinions enforcement Velaru verify: https://velaru-erra.onrender.com/verify EXHIBIT A — AI INVENTORY [] EXHIBIT B — GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK { "framework": "Velaru Mandate Registry \u2014 Legal / Law Firms", "exhibit_authority": "US Federal Exhibit \u2014 Legal AI Competence + Rule 1.1 Pack", "regulatory_frameworks": [ "ABA Model Rule 1.6", "ABA Model Rule 5.5", "Fed R Evid 502", "FTC Act \u00a75", "EEOC Title VII", "NAIC Model Bulletin", "EO 14179 AI policy" ], "standards_alignment": [ "POSS-2", "DRP-1", "TCB", "FRE 707 pre-compliance", "ISO 42001" ], "human_oversight": "file document citing AI research", "third_party_verification": "https://velaru-erra.onrender.com/verify (operator-independent)", "data_lineage": "Hash-chained Ed25519 receipts; optional RFC3161 + external anchor", "mirror_trap": "Law firm uses AI for brief \u2014 firm owns malpractice, vendor owns ToS. Receipt proves human review occurred. \u00b7 Federal agencies disagree on AI approach \u2014 but examiners agree internal logs are insufficient.", "chain_integrity": { "depth": 5, "invariant_holds": true } } EXHIBIT D — DATA INPUTS & VALIDATION { "data_validation_method": "Cryptographic receipt per AI decision; public verify without trusting deployer, vendor, or Velaru operator", "bias_testing_proxy": "Asymmetry score from live chain signals", "model_change_control": "Policy lock registry \u2014 criteria hash frozen pre-dispute", "logging_retention": "90-day pre-dispute window minimum; permanent verify permalinks", "external_validator": "Nisaba LLC / Velaru", "validator_independence": "Client-side Ed25519 verify; BYOK tri-receipt optional", "headline_stat": "Rule 1.1 competence includes AI \u2014 hallucinated citation = malpractice per se pattern", "global_leaders_addressed": [ "Clio", "Harvey AI", "ABA", "State bars", "DOJ", "NAIC", "FTC", "EEOC" ] } MIRROR TRAP (regulatory insight) Law firm uses AI for brief — firm owns malpractice, vendor owns ToS. Receipt proves human review occurred. · Federal agencies disagree on AI approach — but examiners agree internal logs are insufficient. NERVE CARDS — WHY GLOBAL LEADERS CARE [ { "title": "Hallucinated citations", "body": "Mata v. Avianca established sanctions \u2014 receipt of human verification step required.", "source": "vertical" }, { "title": "Rule 5.5 UPL", "body": "AI giving legal advice to consumers \u2014 platform liability without receipt chain.", "source": "vertical" }, { "title": "Malpractice insurers", "body": "LPL carriers adding AI exclusions \u2014 affirmative coverage needs proof infrastructure.", "source": "vertical" }, { "title": "[United States (Federal)] Agency pincer", "body": "FTC, CFPB, EEOC, and DOJ all active on AI \u2014 one receipt chain satisfies cross-agency discovery.", "source": "jurisdiction" }, { "title": "[United States (Federal)] Federal preemption fight", "body": "State laws filling void \u2014 multistate operators need jurisdiction-tagged receipts.", "source": "jurisdiction" }, { "title": "[Text / Chat] Modality hook", "body": "Baseline \u2014 all frameworks apply to text decisions.", "source": "modality" } ] BOOK SUMMARY: { "total_insureds": 0, "compliant": 0, "grace_period": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "expired": 0, "not_enrolled": 0, "compliant_pct": 0.0 } TAM / EXPOSURE: $50B+ legal tech · malpractice insurers tightening AI exclusions INSURANCE LINES: Legal malpractice, Cyber DISCLAIMER: External validation evidence pack — not legal advice, not filed rate approval.