Number of words: 2,729<\/p>\n\n\n\n
SINGAPORE: Last year, a man-versus-machine showdown took place in the United States. 20 top corporate lawyers from across the country were pitted against an artificial intelligence (AI) software developed by legal technology firm LawGeex, where they reviewed and approved everyday contracts over a period of two months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The results were astounding. The AI notched a 94 per cent accuracy rate, compared to the human lawyers\u2019 85 per cent. For one of the tasks \u2014 to review five non-disclosure agreements \u2014 the five human lawyers took more than 90 minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The longest time taken by an individual lawyer was 156 minutes and the shortest 51 minutes. In contrast, the AI took a mere 26 seconds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While AI is unlikely to replace human lawyers anytime soon, if at all, the outcome reflects how this cutting-edge technology can play an important role in the Bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indeed, other forms of technology have already made their presence felt in Singapore\u2019s legal sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the past decade, local firm VanillaLaw\u2019s stable of lawyers have called every part of the island their workplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
VanillaLaw\u2019s founder and managing director Mark Goh likened the firm\u2019s office at Tai Seng to that of a \u201ctaxi dispatch centre\u201d, where his current group of six lawyers clock in in the morning, then head out to meet their clients and work remotely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe technology and tools are there, so why not?\u201d Mr Goh said, referring to the firm\u2019s move to digitise its operations, and create its own smart document assembly and management software which has resulted in time and cost savings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As technology continues its relentless march forward, law firms big and small here are not spared from its impact \u2014 and the disruption it brings. Those which are reluctant to embrace new technology not only risk being outrun by their more tech-savvy competitors, but also losing clients who want more bang for the buck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is already transforming how and where disputes are resolved \u2014 and who should resolve them. It has also made available credible and cheaper alternatives for legal clients requiring general tasks, such as document review or project management, he pointed out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn tandem with this, a culture of \u2018self-sourcing\u2019 will likely take hold amongst members of the public,\u201d said CJ Menon, adding that such trends will \u201cimpact the practice of law and the demand for legal services\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This was not the first time that the Chief Justice had spoken about the technological wave sweeping the legal fraternity, but the urgency of the message has increased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his address at the opening of the legal year in 2016, Chief Justice Menon said that Singapore was among the \u201cfrontrunners in incorporating technology in the administration of justice\u201d. He added that the effective implementation of newer technological advances means that the courts of the future will be very different from their present-day iterations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A year later, Chief Justice Menon touched on the issue of disruption caused by technology. He cautioned then that while the legal practice has not experienced the same extent of disruption as other industries and professions, \u201cthe day of reckoning can no longer be put off, because dramatic developments will force us to rethink entire areas of practice\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Last year, he again brought up the topic, stressing that \u201cit is with some urgency that we must begin to imagine what (technological disruption) will mean for the practice of law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Around the world, legal and judicial systems are embracing technological changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, American courts have already used AI to \u201cassess the risk of recidivism in criminal cases\u201d, the Chief Justice said in his address earlier this month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chinese courts, meanwhile, are piloting an AI-assisted system, which can conduct deviation analysis for judges by comparing draft judgments with past precedents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He also noted that the US and Canada have already seen the emergence of \u201clegal technicians\u201d who, though not legally trained, are able to provide services for less complex legal tasks with the help of technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A recent Forbes article highlighted how AI and machine learning are transforming the legal sector in the US, such as conducting research and reviewing contracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article also cited how AI can help automate divorce proceedings, such as through Wevorce, an online solution that provides couples on the cusp of separation with self-guided modules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Couples can define their \u201coptimal outcomes\u201d and the software \u2014 powered by AI \u2014 guides them through a series of modules before reaching the outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the United Kingdom, \u201ctech innovation spaces\u201d and legal tech start-ups have emerged to support the legal technology development, according to its law society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
SINGAPORE PLAYING CATCH-UP<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here in Singapore, things have been moving slower in comparison, several observers and practitioners say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Responding to queries, LawTech.Asia noted that while interest in technology among Singapore law firms is healthy, \u201cthis interest has also been relatively slower in translating to adoption or implementation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The online publication \u2014 which examines the role of technology, law and policy in South-east Asia \u2014 said that comparatively, some countries within the Asia-Pacific region, such as Australia and New Zealand, have seen increasing levels of interest translating into adoption of new technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, it noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the technological priorities of each country\u2019s economy and legal profession can be different, the uptake rate of legal technology for each country may vary across the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ms Stefanie Lim, assistant director of legal productivity and innovation at the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), said technological initiatives are \u201cvery much on the radar\u201d of law firms here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 2018 Legal Technology Survey, which the LawSoc commissioned, found that 72 per cent of decision makers here indicated that they saw the need to increase the adoption of legal technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Ms Lim noted that as compared to the global legal sector, Singapore law firms are \u201cstill in the early stages of responding to this disruptive force\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A check with several law firms in Singapore showed varying degrees of technological adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Larger law firms said they have begun investing in technological initiatives such as automation, artificial intelligence and cloud computing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dentons Rodyk, for example, has co-developed an AI tool with a technology partner, to cut down the time needed to complete time-sensitive engagements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WongPartnership acquired a document automation software in 2017, and has recently adopted document management technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rajah & Tann, meanwhile, created a legal tech subsidiary, called Rajah & Tann Technologies, which brings together lawyers and IT professionals to work on areas such as forensics and cybersecurity, and provides tech-enabled legal solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But while technological adoption carries much promise for the larger firms, it is a different story for their smaller counterparts where some are having difficulty investing in new technologies, which can be costly at the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Still, there have been some exceptions: VanillaLaw, for instance, launched in 2016 its own smart document assembly and management software, called VanillaLaw Docs. Mr Goh described it as \u201cjust a simple algorithm\u201d that helps its clients \u2014 usually small and medium-sized enterprises \u2014 draft agreements for their businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Goh believes that the fear of teaming up with others, as well as established mindsets, are holding back smaller law firms from embracing technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe conversation now is (akin to) putting the cart before the horse. You are talking about technological tools, but you are not talking about how these tools are going to interact with the collaborative partner,\u201d Mr Goh said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He noted that the cost of networking has gone down so low that there is no excuse for smaller law firms not to collaborate with one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The only reason they are not collaborating is not cost, it is fear and mindset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Goh, who started his law firm as a sole proprietor in 1994, said that technology is \u201cmeant for the smaller (firms) to collaborate\u201d, but smaller companies are \u201ctoo fearful\u201d to exploit its benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c(Instead) the bigger law firms are the ones investing. Once they create the investment, they control who has access to it, and they own the technology that was supposed to liberate the smaller law firms. This is the trend I am worried about now,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He added that smaller firms might find it difficult to adopt newer forms of technology since it may be harder for them to \u201cvisualise how it can help them\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The traditional mindset of many lawyers, such as their preference for a precedent-based approach, and inertia on the firms\u2019 part are also hindering Singapore\u2019s legal sector from taking bold strides into the technological arena, said the observers and practitioners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is always a psychological barrier to (take the) plunge,\u201d said Mr Amolat Singh of Amolat & Partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LawTech.Asia said the legal profession is often seen as \u201chaving a relatively more risk-averse, precedent-based approach\u201d towards adopting technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This may be due to the inherent nature of working in a precedent-based legal system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Apart from a general reluctance to make the technological leap, other factors include costs and a lack in specialised knowledge, said LawSoc\u2019s Ms Lim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LawTech.Asia also cited the industry\u2019s highly-regulated nature as a factor, which may cause some practitioners to wonder about \u201cthe regulatory consequences of adopting new and untested technologies\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, Mr Genesis Shen, director at Templars Law, pointed out that his firm would not adopt new technologies for their own sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is currently a lot of hype in the market for these snazzy technologies and untested start-ups, but we do not intend to jump on the bandwagon,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He felt that the pace of technological adoption in Singapore\u2019s legal sector is \u201cjust right\u201d. Costs and \u201csufficient real-world results\u201d must be factors which law firms need to look at before adopting new technology, he stressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, Denton Rodyk\u2019s innovation and knowledge management solutions manager Rocio Perez urged law firms to \u201cavoid \u2018magical thinking\u2019 around technology, or undertake technology projects because they \u2018might be interesting\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After all, unless a problem or opportunity \u2014 such as one that is related to technological adoption \u2014 is of \u201chigh-enough priority\u201d, an organisation will rarely want to endure the \u201cgrowing pains that accompany change\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE RISKS OF INERTIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While law firms here should leverage technology in the best possible ways, LawTech.Asia noted that those that do not may risk being outgunned by their international competitors, many of whom have already made strides in technological adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Moreover, as clients become increasingly sophisticated and knowledgeable about technology, \u201cthey will be more discerning about the law firms that are utilising technology to provide better services at lower cost\u201d, LawTech.Asia said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Potentially, the industry laggards could be disadvantaged and see their bottom lines suffer, it added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his 2019 speech, Chief Justice Menon warned that the competition to provide legal services will intensify in the near future, as technological trends start to make their impact felt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dispute resolution systems, adopted by e-commerce platforms, are helping to resolve simple and low-value consumer disputes, he pointed out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In December last year, OCBC Bank also rolled out a free online service for Singapore citizens and residents aged 21 and above to prepare their wills within 10 minutes on their computers, laptops or mobile devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe shouldn\u2019t be surprised if members of the public come increasingly to attempt to resolve at least some legal issues with the aid of technology, in the same way that many individuals today seek out medical information themselves using the Internet,\u201d said the Chief Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With ever-evolving technology here to stay, help is at hand to give Singapore firms which want to embrace it a leg-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a variety of financial schemes and grants available for firms to defray the costs of technological adoption, said the LawSoc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In March 2017, the Ministry of Law, LawSoc, and the then-Spring Singapore launched a S$2.8 million subsidy scheme Tech Start for Law as well as the SmartLaw Assist scheme to help defray costs for smaller firms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Jonathan Yuen, a partner at Rajah & Tann, said that more than grants and funding schemes, what is more critical is \u201ca mindset change as to how technology can be harnessed and made a natural part of the workflow of lawyers\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He added: \u201cUltimately, a mindset change needs to come from within \u2014 legal practitioners must themselves be convinced that partnering with, rather than resisting, technology and other types of structural changes will be beneficial in the long term.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Templars Law\u2019s Mr Shen believes that market forces will sort themselves out. A new technology will eventually be widely available and adopted, and firms that take the lead in embracing cutting-edge technology will have \u201cboth the high risk and high reward of being the first-mover\u201d, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CAN TECH RESOLVE CURRENT WOES?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The role of technology will go some way in helping to change \u2014 or improve \u2014 work processes, said law firms and observers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the jury is still out on whether technology can help resolve some pressing issues plaguing Singapore\u2019s legal industry, such as a glut of law graduates and long working hours leading to burnout among young lawyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chief Justice Menon said in his speech earlier this month that while competition will intensify, technology will \u201csignificantly reduce the hours required for certain types of legal work\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe upshot is that law firms can expect to feel the pressure to operate on a leaner basis and they should start rethinking their traditional billing and cost structures as technology obviates certain forms of legal work, and in many other ways alters the face of legal practice,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawyers and law firms interviewed agreed that new technologies can potentially help improve productivity in the sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LawSoc\u2019s Ms Lim noted that technologies such as AI can help reduce lawyers\u2019 workload for routine tasks, \u201cso that they can be freed up to deliver higher-level and bespoke legal services to their clients\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
WMH Law Corporation managing director Wilbur Lim predicted that new technologies will take over the work traditionally performed by junior associates at a law firm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHowever, lawyers should not see such technologies as impediments. Rather, the aforesaid technologies could allow junior associates to take on more substantive legal work at the outset, which will greatly assist in their growth as a professional,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Allen & Gledhill, meanwhile, said that the adoption of technology will \u201cinvariably reduce the number of traditional legal roles\u201d, but could give rise to new roles \u2014 and more varied opportunities \u2014 for law graduates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A junior lawyer with two years\u2019 work experience, who declined to be named, felt that technology would go some way in changing her workflow. But she was worried that it \u201cmight end up even replacing the need to hire a junior lawyer altogether\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Indeed, some lawyers noted the risk of technology exacerbating the supply glut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhen processes are streamlined, there would be less need for the big firms to hire multiple junior lawyers to go through the documents manually. The glut of lawyers is more likely to be resolved naturally by market forces,\u201d said Mr Shen from Templars Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While technology may take over some of the tasks which lawyers perform now, the notion of a law firm staffed only with robots would likely remain a fantasy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amid the rise of technology, law firm structures will \u201cbecome a lot flatter\u201d. However, \u201ctop quality legal brains will continue to command top dollar\u201d, said TSMP Law Corporation joint managing partner Stefanie Yuen Thio. She pointed out:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We develop very close client relationships and handle difficult cases. These are skills that would be hard for technology to replace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Goh from VanillaLaw drew a parallel with autonomous vehicles: When such vehicles came out in the market, there was concern that it would replace drivers totally, but the reality is that there is still the need for human judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, in the legal profession, the \u201cexplicit knowledge\u201d of lawyering \u2014 which can be expressed in words and numbers \u2014 is an area that can be automated or replaced by technology. However, the \u201ctacit knowledge\u201d \u2014 gained from personal experience \u2014 will still require a human being, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LawSoc\u2019s Ms Lim noted that it is a \u201cvalid concern\u201d that machines could take over low-level tasks performed by lawyers. But the exercise of professional judgment, for instance, still requires humans, she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe ability of machines to take over these domains is still uncertain and, in any event, a long way off,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of a \u2018machine-vs-human\u2019 perspective, the legal profession should be looking at a \u2018lawyer plus machine\u2019 value proposition, (like) how machines can augment lawyers to deliver better legal services to their clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n