Solutions · Legal services
Document review your firm can sign.
LawCrew routes by governing law, drafts, subjects the draft to adversarial review and deterministic risk checks, and stops for a qualified professional’s approval — with every clause traceable to its source, its authority and its date.
Regulated outputs remain at 100% human review permanently. That is a product constraint, not a setting.
The workflow.
Seven stages, two of them deterministic and one of them a person. The deterministic stages exist because some checks must never be a model’s opinion.
- 01
- Jurisdiction router
- 02
- Evidence Research Pod
- 03
- Drafting
- 04
- Adversarial reviewer
- 05
- Regulatory Review Pod
- 06
- Professional approval
- 07
- Release
Adversarial review is a separate role
A distinct agent with a distinct model profile argues against the draft from the counterparty position before any human sees it. Weak clauses come back for revision, bounded at three loops, and the objections are attached to the artefact so the reviewer sees what was already challenged.
Deterministic gates, not model judgement
Defined-term consistency, cross-reference integrity, mandatory clause presence, prohibited-term screening and date arithmetic are code, not prompts. A marginal result raises the sampling weight for that matter rather than being averaged away.
What the reviewer actually sees.
The approval task is the product. Everything else exists to make this screen decidable in two minutes rather than twenty.
Approval task · matter SG-2291 · clause 4.2
Awaiting decision- Business purpose
Termination provisions for a three-year services agreement, counterparty-drafted, being marked up for the client.
- Requested decision
Approve the redraft of clause 4.2, or edit and approve, or reject with a reason.
- Risk classification
Elevated — matter value above the firm’s S$2m threshold, and one deterministic check returned marginal.
Elevated - The diff
Original counterparty text against the proposed redraft, with every changed phrase linked to the source that motivated the change.
- Cited sources
Four sources with authority grade and date, sufficiency 0.86 against a floor of 0.72, no conflict detected, nearest freshness boundary April 2026.
Above floor - Failed and marginal checks
Cross-reference to clause 9.1 is marginal — clause 9.1 was itself amended in this markup and has not yet been approved.
1 marginal - What runs after approval
Release of the marked-up draft to the matter store. No external side effect. No email is sent by the crew.
Built for Singapore practice.
Singapore Legal Practice Pack
Jurisdiction routing rules, SG-specific clause libraries, privilege and confidentiality handling, dated currency assertions on every knowledge source, and evaluation datasets built from real disputed cases. Maintained with a published update cadence and change notifications to entitled tenants. Pack detail →
Confidentiality and privilege
Client matter data stays in your region. No client data trains third-party models. Per-matter access control, retention configured by your firm, and an audit trail that shows who saw what and when — including which reviewer opened which evidence source.
The professional-conduct question, answered directly
KrewOS does not give legal advice and does not replace a qualified professional. Regulated outputs stay at 100% human review permanently and cannot be moved to sampling by any role in the product. The platform’s job is narrower and more useful than autonomy: make the review fast and well-evidenced, and prove it happened. Where a client or a court asks how a position was reached, the answer is a named professional, a dated set of sources and a complete trace — produced in under a minute rather than reconstructed from memory.
Measured at a Singapore commercial practice.
Twelve months, one crew, one practice group. The baseline was measured before deployment by the firm, not by us.
- Matters reviewed / month
- 312
- Up from 190 at the same headcount
- Reviewer minutes / matter
- 14 from 52
- Firm-measured baseline
- Cost per matter
- S$4.10
- Platform + model credits, BYOK off
- Evaluation pass rate
- Not recorded
- Nothing in the catalogue records one
“The first month was slower, not faster. We were writing evaluation cases out of every disagreement. By month three the suite was doing the arguing for us and the review time collapsed.”
Partner, corporate practice group · Singapore
Next steps
A demo uses your governing law, your document types and your firm’s review policy. Bring the partner who will own the approval rota — they decide whether this works, not the technology committee.
Book a demoRead the case study