Written Reply by Minister of Law Mr Edwin Tong SC on Workload Reduction at Law Firms from AI Use and Guidelines for Such Use

06 MAY 2026

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament)

Question

To ask the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has tracked whether AI adoption in law firms has reduced workload and improved work-life balance for junior lawyers, or whether it has instead raised client expectations and billing demands in ways that worsen burnout; and (b) if no such data exists, whether the Ministry intends to commission monitoring of AI's net impact on lawyer wellbeing.

Name and Constituency of Member of Parliament

Ms Hany Soh (Member of Parliament for Marsiling - Yew Tee GRC)

Question

To ask the Minister for Law whether the Ministry intends to issue guidelines or implement statutory rules on the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in legal practice.

Written Answer

1.     My response will also address a related Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Andre Low for the Sitting on 5 May 2026.

2.     AI is no longer a distant or speculative trend. It is already significantly reshaping the legal services industry globally. Harnessed safely and responsibly, it is a powerful tool with tremendous opportunities for our legal services industry.

3.     Used in the right manner, AI enhances productivity greatly for a lawyer. Rote tasks such as legal research, document review, chronology building that used to take days can now be done in minutes. Statistics show that nearly 240 hours can be freed up per year with the use of AI. This figure can only grow as AI improves, which it continues to do.

4.     This time saved allows lawyers to reallocate time and effort to higher-value tasks – case strategy, risk assessment, persuasion, and advocacy – where human professional judgment truly matters, and where AI falls short.

5.     Rather than allow the advent of AI to undermine the profession, we should embrace its development and embed its usage in the profession, and this will in turn open up opportunities for younger lawyers to undertake higher value work which they will find more professionally rewarding. We encourage the use of technology and AI, but we are also mindful of its impact on related matters such as legal education and training, which we will address below.

6.     We do not directly track the specific data that Mr Andre Low asked about. However, we track the benefits gained by law firms who use legaltech tools. In a 2025 legaltech survey commissioned by IMDA, MinLaw and the Law Society of Singapore, 90% of law firms that adopted legaltech in the preceding 12 months saw gains in manpower efficiency, and 82% saw gains in revenue. These are nascent findings, but they provide an encouraging early indicator that we should continue to harness and use technology and AI.

7.     Minlaw saw the benefits of advancing the use of technology in legal practice even before the current wave of AI tools came into the market. We provided funding from as early as 2017 to support Singapore law firms to adopt legaltech. Today, the Productivity Solutions Grant for the Legal Sector (PSG-Legal) by the Ministry continues to apply, defraying 50% of firms’ first-year cost of adopting pre-approved legaltech and AI solutions, capped at S$45,000 per year.

8.     Law firms can also tap on Enterprise Singapore’s Enterprise Development Grant (EDG) to upgrade and innovate, or the general Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) for non-legaltech solutions to improve their productivity and automate their processes. We are aware that cost is not the only barrier to AI adoption. For many law firms, it is also the challenge of change management.

9.     We therefore launched the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation (LIFT) initiative in June 2025. This pilot deploys legaltech consultants to help law firms to digitalise and adopt tech solutions. The consultants recommend suitable legaltech solutions and oversee the end-to-end change management process from implementation to optimisation.

  1. As referred to above, what is certain is AI’s significant potential in reducing inefficiencies that have traditionally contributed to long hours and burnout. This directly addresses concerns about reducing workload raised by Mr Low. To equip our lawyers to make full use of these opportunities, we will need to also fundamentally change how legal skills are learned and developed.
  1. As Mr Low noted, traditional formative experiences – such as document review and manual research – are increasingly AI-assisted or AI-driven. The way lawyers build their foundation and hone their craft must therefore change. Legal education and professional training are shifting towards equipping lawyers with critical thinking skills, the ability to direct, interrogate and take responsibility for AI-generated output, and the capability to exercise judgment and empathy.
  1. Our law schools are increasingly integrating AI into their teaching, and we will have to consider if the teaching curriculum and pedagogy should be refreshed. As an example, NUS Law is currently using AI chatbots to simulate witnesses for cross-examination practice, and SMU Law has dedicated courses on AI in legal practice.
  1. LawSoc and SAL also conduct GenAI workshops and prompt engineering clinics to equip lawyers with AI skills. Mr Low has noted that the practice training period has been lengthened from six months to one year. This was one of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) in 2018, pre-dating the widespread use of AI in legal practice. The objective was to strengthen the training regime so that junior lawyers are equipped with both sound technical skills and the right professional values regardless of prevailing economic conditions or industry disruptions.
  1. With the advent of AI, it is all the more important for junior lawyers to receive strong, practice-ready foundation. This is so that they are equipped to harness AI and to develop core skills that AI cannot replace – advocacy, strategic judgment, and the ability to add value to clients.
  1. The professional training framework must also evolve. The Ministry is considering allocating a portion of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points specifically to AI‑related courses, so that lawyers remain current as technology evolves rapidly. We will look into ways to strengthen lawyers’ skills that AI cannot replace. These include increasing structured mentorship, courtroom exposure, and advocacy experience, as these are the tools of our trade, so we must support younger lawyers to learn by observing, practising, and engaging directly through human interaction.
  1. Ms Hany Soh separately asked about guidelines and regulations on AI usage in legal practice. In March 2026, the Ministry launched the Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector, which sets out key principles for the safe and responsible use of GenAI and provides practical guidance for implementation. A key tenet is that legal professionals remain ultimately accountable for all work products as part of their duties to clients. The Singapore Courts have also issued a Guide on the Use of GenAI Tools by Court Users, with sanctions for non-compliance in all court matters.
  1. We have taken the approach of a facilitative Guide rather than prescribed regulations at this stage, so as not to unintentionally stifle innovation and discourage innovators, as AI is still advancing. AI is here to stay. The question is not whether to adopt it, but how we turn it to our collective advantage. This transformation cannot be driven by policy alone. It requires a concerted effort by all stakeholders – the Ministry, the Judiciary, law firms, senior and junior lawyers, educators, and clients. The Future of the Legal Profession (FLPC) Committee, co-chaired by the Chief Justice and the Minister for Law, set up in December 2025, will bring together these stakeholders to look into these issues more deeply.
  1. Encouragingly, there is growing positivity within the profession. Events, such as “The Next Charter”, that the Ministry organised in March demonstrate a shared recognition that AI, when used responsibly, can strengthen rather than erode the core human skills that underpin legal practice.
  1. This positive outlook extends to the next generation of lawyers. NUS Law final-year student Kamal Ashraf Bin Kamil Jumat, who spoke at the panel discussion at “The Next Charter”, highlighted that while AI will reshape legal workflows, foundational skills, judgment, ethics and mentorship remain indispensable. Our law schools share this view, and are adapting their curricula to prepare students for an AI-enabled profession while preserving the core values of the law.
  1. With shared commitment, sustained mentorship and thoughtful use of technology, the Ministry, the Judiciary, the profession, educators and clients can together preserve what defines good lawyering while embracing the tools that will shape its future. I am confident the legal profession will not only adapt, but thrive.

Last updated on 6 May 2026