Singapore: the Ministry of Law guide to generative AI in legal work

Who it covers

The Guide is “intended for use by anyone handling legal work in Singapore”: lawyers in private practice, in-house counsel, and allied legal professionals including paralegals. It builds on the Infocomm Media Development Authority and AI Verify Foundation’s Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI (May 2024), complements the Singapore Courts’ own guide for court users, and is aligned to the National AI Strategy 2.0.

It is guidance, not a rule of court. That distinction matters less than it looks, because every principle in it is anchored to something that already binds.

Three principles, each tied to a binding rule

• EthicsAnchored to the Legal Profession Act 1966 and rule 5 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, on honesty, competence and diligence. For in-house counsel, the SCCA Code of Ethics.
• ConfidentialityAnchored to rule 6 of the PCR. The Guide notes the rule is principle-based and, as with email or cloud computing, does not prohibit GenAI provided appropriate safeguards are in place.
• TransparencyAnchored to rule 5 again, the duty to be honest with clients and to inform them of information that may reasonably affect their interests.

What a lawyer is actually asked to do

The Guide sets out four expectations under professional ethics, and they are more specific than any bar guidance we hold:

• AI literacyUnderstand how the tools work and their limits; when output is likely to be reliable and when it is not; basic prompting techniques to reduce hallucination and bias; that competency varies across legal tasks; and when, and by whom, extra scrutiny should be applied.
• Ultimate responsibility“Regardless of whether GenAI is used, legal professionals remain ultimately accountable for all work product.” The Guide adds that use of GenAI “does not delegate or diminish these obligations.”
• Human oversightNecessary and proportionate. Before use, the output must be correct, factually accurate and fit for purpose.
• SupervisionLegal professionals are expected to supervise paralegals, legal secretaries and other support staff, and to ensure they have AI literacy and training. This is the duty United States v. Farris found had been breached, stated in advance.

The confidentiality risks it names

Three, specifically: unauthorised use of data for AI model training; unauthorised third-party access, expressly including employees within the same organisation who lack proper authorisation; and malicious attacks on models to extract sensitive information, naming prompt injection. The Guide asks firms to establish clear organisational rules for handling confidential client or business information, including data classification.

The internal-access point is the one most firms have not thought about. It treats a colleague without authorisation the same as an outsider.

Billing, which nobody else addresses

Alone among the instruments on this record, Singapore says something about money. Disclosure to the client should be considered:

“When GenAI impacts the cost of legal services. For example, where legal practitioners intend to incorporate the cost of GenAI tool(s) into client fees beyond traditional billable hours, it may be reasonable to inform clients and agree on the approach.”

Also flagged: where GenAI is used substantially in producing work product, such as reviewing contracts, preparing litigation strategies, evaluating litigation outcomes or generating documents clients will rely on; and where the tool’s data handling may conflict with client preferences or data residency requirements. That last one is the clause international clients will start writing into outside-counsel guidelines.

The courts, separately

Singapore’s courts issued their own instrument eighteen months earlier, and it is easy to miss because it was done by circular rather than practice direction. The Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users was issued on 23 September 2024 by three courts at once:

• Supreme CourtRegistrar’s Circular No. 1 of 2024
• State CourtsRegistrar’s Circular No. 9 of 2024
• Family Justice CourtsRegistrar’s Circular No. 1 of 2024

Its operative duty, as quoted in the Ministry’s Guide: all court users are responsible for ensuring any information provided to the court is independently verified, accurate, true and appropriate.

Sources

• Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector, Ministry of Law, 6 March 2026 (PDF, 52pp), read in full
• Singapore Courts, Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users, 23 September 2024, issued by Registrar’s Circulars in the Supreme Court, State Courts and Family Justice Courts
• IMDA and AI Verify Foundation, Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI (30 May 2024)
• Legal Profession Act 1966; Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, rules 5 and 6; SCCA Code of Ethics

Related

• AI rules for lawyers, country by country
• Qatar, the other commercial-hub instrument
• Singapore PDPA, the data-protection side
• United States v. Farris, where supervision failed

Checked 5 August 2026 against the Ministry’s own PDF. The Guide is guidance, not a rule of court, and we say so. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on Singapore law.