The same intelligence. Reliable enough to run a law firm on.
Claude Code and Claude Cowork can build an automation. But a law firm cannot run on shadow AI. Caddi is the governed version of the same intelligence, and for a firm that is the whole difference: every run is auditable by IT, client data stays yours with zero retention, and each automation belongs to the firm, not the one person who built it.
Can't we just have someone build this with Claude?
You can, and the demo will work. Then it breaks, and only the person who wrote it can fix it. That is fine for one script, and a real problem the moment the firm depends on it.
What happens when it breaks?
A vibe-coded automation fails quietly and waits for its author. Caddi watches its own runs, catches the break, and repairs its own code, with a logged record of what changed.
Why won't it scale past the person who built it?
Fifty scripts, written by people who changed teams or left, is fifty black boxes no one can see or audit. Caddi automations belong to the firm, not a person, so they outlast whoever built them.
Is our client data safe?
To get it working, the AI grabs whatever free tool or library fits and auto-mode just installs it, so client data ends up flowing through third parties no one vetted or even knew were added. Caddi runs on a vetted stack with zero data retention, so nothing touches a service you did not approve.
Can IT actually govern it?
Shadow AI is invisible to IT by definition. Every Caddi run is permissioned, logged, and auditable, so compliance can prove exactly what happened.
So what is Caddi, in one line?
The same Claude intelligence, made into governed, self-maintaining automation a law firm can run on.
Where's the full feature-by-feature comparison?
This brief is about where each tool fits. If you want the detailed head-to-head on cost, reliability, and governance, our Caddi vs. Claude comparison breaks it down line by line.
Automation your firm can actually run on.
Read the one-pager