For Singapore law firms
Every lawyer in your firm, using AI the right way.
Kept builds AI systems for Singapore law firms and trains your lawyers to run them. First-pass document review and due diligence, checked by a lawyer, kept on your own tenant, and funded up to half by EDG.
40h → 12h
First-pass review per data room, same lawyer sign-off. Representative arithmetic.
100%
Of the data room read on every matter, not a ten-percent sample.
up to 50%
Of the build funded by EDG, subject to EnterpriseSG approval.
The week you recognise
The reading is unbillable. The risk is unmanaged.
A corporate associate reads a few hundred contracts for one data room, clause by clause, against a deadline the deal team set. Most of it is pattern-matching billed at an associate's rate, and the client questions the bill.
Meanwhile your associates already use ChatGPT. On personal logins, sometimes with a client's matter pasted in. The Law Society has told firms not to do this.
In March 2026 the Ministry of Law set a written standard for AI in legal work. Doing nothing stopped being the safe option.
Two ways AI enters your firm
One of them is already happening.
Shadow AI · today
Associates, on their own logins
- Personal ChatGPT logins, outside the firm's control
- Client matter pasted into public tools
- No record of what was asked or answered
- No firm-wide policy, no partner sign-off
Kept · the system
One workflow the firm owns
- Runs on the firm's own tenant, training no public model
- A lawyer signs off on every AI-assisted output
- A full audit trail of what was flagged, and by whom
- A written AI-use policy your partners adopt
The standard, set
In March 2026, Singapore's Ministry of Law set the standard for AI in legal work: welcome, with human oversight, confidentiality, and accountability built in.
Ministry of Law · Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector · 6 March 2026
One system, built around the work you already do.
01
Due diligence review
First-pass review of the data room, change of control, assignment and termination, every point flagged for your lawyer to decide.
02
Contract review
Redlines and risk flags against your own playbook, drafted for a lawyer to accept or reject, never sent on their own.
03
Data-room Q&A
Ask the documents a question and get an answer with every source cited back to the file it came from.
04
First drafts and memos
Standard drafts and research memos started from your precedents, on your tenant, signed before they leave.
A representative engagement
The due diligence review
A corporate associate reviews the material contracts in an M&A data room for a first-pass report: change of control, assignment, and termination across the target's agreements.
- Hours per data room, manual first-pass review
- 40 h
- Hours with the review workflow, same lawyer sign-off
- 12 h
- Recovered per data room
- −28 h
- Across 20 deals a year
- 560 h
Funded up to half
A S$40,000 build, up to half funded by EDG.
Custom AI implementation qualifies for the Enterprise Development Grant's AI path at up to 50% support for SMEs, subject to EnterpriseSG approval. You pay our invoice in full and EnterpriseSG reimburses you. We prepare the project scope with you before any work begins, as the grant requires. Law-sector schemes run through MinLaw and the Law Society as well, and we confirm what is open the week you apply.
- Build & Train engagement, fixed scope
- S$40,000
- EDG support, up to 50% for SMEs
- −S$20,000
- Net cost to the firm
- S$20,000
The funding landscape, in brief.
We scope the engagement to whichever scheme fits, and confirm what is open the week you apply.
up to 50%
EDG
Custom AI builds for SMEs. File on the Business Grants Portal before you start.
up to 50%
PSG
Pre-approved solutions, capped at S$30,000 per company.
S$100k / yr
EDGE
Consolidates PSG, EDG and MRA. Launching 2H2026, terms not yet published.
400%
EIS
Tax deduction on AI spend, up to S$50,000 per YA across YA2027 and YA2028. IRAS criteria pending.
Figures verified July 2026 on official portals. Support is subject to approval; we do not promise it.
Privilege is the design
Not an appendix.
The confidentiality controls a legal buyer asks about are built in from the first diagnostic, not bolted on before launch.
Built for privilege, not just for speed
- Runs on the firm's own tenant. Client matter never enters a public tool or a training corpus, an architectural constraint rather than a policy line.
- A lawyer signs off on every AI-assisted output before it reaches a client or a court. The system drafts, it never advises.
- Full audit trail: what the system flagged, what the reviewer changed, and who signed.
- Access mirrors your matter-management roles and conflict walls.
- A written AI-use policy your partners can adopt, mapped to the Ministry of Law guide and the Law Society advisory.
Prepared against the Ministry of Law's Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector (6 March 2026) and the Law Society's advisory on public AI tools.
What your firm can do once we've left.
The firm keeps the margin
Recovered hours go back to billable work, not to a discount on the fee. Realisation goes up, not down.
Associates do lawyer work
First-pass reading goes to the system. Your associates spend the hours on analysis and advice, the work that makes them partners.
Privilege stays intact
One reviewed workflow on the firm's own tenant replaces a dozen private ChatGPT logins. The confidentiality risk moves from unmanaged to documented.
Your people keep the system
Your associates run it after we leave. No per-seat licence, no vendor to call when the next matter lands.
How an engagement works
Diagnose. Build. Train. Leave.
- 01 30 minutes
Discovery call
You describe the problem. We map how we would approach it. Within 24 hours you receive a written assessment specific to your firm, written to be forwarded to your partners without editing. No second meeting implied.
- 02 2–3 weeks
Diagnostic
Staff interviews and process mapping. You receive the opportunity map, the roadmap with conservative arithmetic, and the grant-application scope. Self-contained: if AI is not the right answer for your firm, the document says so.
- 03 6–12 weeks
Build & train
One working system, on your tenant, built around your review standards, and your staff trained to run it. Fixed scope, fixed duration, documentation and a 30-day warranty included.
- 04 Ongoing
You run it
The capability stays with the firm. Most clients operate independently, which is the intended outcome. A maintenance plan exists for those who want one; it is optional and we say so.
An advisory practice. Not a software vendor.
We build and we teach
We build the system and train your lawyers to run it without us. That is the point of the engagement: the firm owns the capability after we leave.
No retainer treadmill
Most legal-AI vendors rent you a seat and bill every month. We build the system once and hand it over. Do the work well and you stop needing us.
We do the grant paperwork
We scope the engagement to qualify for EDG support and prepare the application with you, before any work starts. The filing is part of the service.
Common questions
Is AI-assisted review defensible to a client or the court?
Every point the system flags carries a documented lawyer review before it reaches a report or a filing. You keep the audit trail and the written AI-use policy as deliverables. The system reads at scale, your lawyer decides. That is the design constraint, and it is built to the Ministry of Law's March 2026 guidance.
Where does our client matter go?
Nowhere outside your control. The system runs on your own tenant, and nothing you put into it trains any model. You get the data-flow diagram in the diagnostic, before anything is built. This is the setup the Law Society advisory asks for.
We are a twelve-lawyer firm. Is this sized for us?
Yes. The model is built for the ten-to-a-hundred-lawyer practice. The diagnostic is priced for a managing partner to sign off alone, and EDG support applies at your size. The legal-sector schemes shift often, so we confirm what is open the week you apply.
