Artificial intelligence is being employed by numerous law firms for drafting legal documents and various tasks, while human lawyers remain the ones to ultimately approve and authenticate the work.
In the bustling city-state of Singapore, the legal sector is embracing a new wave of technology: generative AI. With a phased approach, law firms are integrating AI tools, with over 60% of lawyers already using Microsoft Copilot as of early September 2025.
This shift towards AI is not without its cautions. Users of AI in legal practice recognise its limitations and safeguard against potential inaccuracies and hallucinations. The goal, after all, is to boost efficiency without compromising legal rigor.
AI is being used for various tasks, from generating case summaries and transcribing audio recordings to drafting legal submissions. Larger law firms, such as Drew & Napier and WongPartnership, are using tools like HarveyAI and Microsoft Copilot, while smaller firms like Han & Lu Law Chambers are using Copilot for administrative tasks.
The Attorney-General's Chambers' Legal Technology Innovation Office is driving the development and adoption of AI and other technological tools. The Singapore judiciary has also introduced AI tools to the small claims tribunal. Prosecutors are using AI-enabled image recognition software to assist in reviewing evidence for cases involving digital child sexual abuse material.
The Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) has developed a tool called MAIA (Mediation AI Assistant) to help mediators cut down and digest large volumes of documents submitted by parties before mediation. MAIA can produce a summary of the dispute, create a chronology of events, and compare similarities or differences of parties' positions and expert reports.
Firms are developing internal policies on the responsible use of generative AI, addressing data protection, privacy, transparency, human oversight, and accountability. Transparency with clients about the use of generative AI in legal work products is also a priority, with firms complying with clients' instructions regarding its use.
Smaller law firms are starting to experiment with AI tools for tasks such as summarizing documentary evidence and drawing family trees. Some firms, like Rajah & Tann Singapore, are using specialized tools like Wolters Kluwer's AnNoText AI Assistant, which integrates generative AI tailored specifically for legal workflows, to enhance productivity and service quality without compromising confidentiality.
However, the responsible adoption of AI requires not just technical safeguards, but a clear boundary between operational support and professional judgment. Lawyers are verifying the work done by AI to protect against over-statements, unverifiable assertions, AI hallucinations, and bias. AI tools can produce plausible yet inaccurate content, which can compromise legal analysis and reputational standing.
In conclusion, the integration of generative AI in the legal sector in Singapore is a significant step towards increasing efficiency and accuracy while maintaining data privacy and compliance. As with any new technology, it is crucial to approach its adoption with caution and a clear understanding of its limitations.
