LawTech.Asia

Asia's Leading Law & Technology Review

Category: Policy Page 9 of 12

LawTech.Asia’s Response to Public Consultation on Model AI Governance Framework

By

On 7th July 2019

In Artificial Intelligence, Law Firms, Legal Innovation, Policy, Regulations

Reading time: 2 minutes

On 23 January 2019, the Personal Data Protection Commission (i.e. the Info-comm Media Development Authority) (the “PDPC”) published its Model Artificial Intelligence Governance Framework (“Model Framework”). The PDPC also launched a public consultation to receive feedback on the Model Framework.

As an organisation committed to thought leadership in law and technology (with AI regulation a key area of focus), LawTech.Asia produced a response to the public consultation on 24 June 2019.

LawTech.Asia’s response comprised the following two sections:

  1. A framework tailored for the implementation of the Model Framework to the legal technology sectors. Tapping on LawTech.Asia’s familiarity with the legal and legal technology sectors, LawTech.Asia produced a customised framework tailored specifically for the implementation of the Model Framework to the legal technology industry. We hope that this customised framework may shed some light in allowing legal technology firms deploying AI to have greater guidance in aligning their practices with some of the implementation guidelines set out in the Model Framework.
  2. Comments and feedback on each specific section covered by the Model Framework. These sections are, namely: the overall principles set out in the Model Framework, internal governance measures, determination of the AI decision-making model, operations management, and customer relations management. Tying our comments together is the thread that the Model Framework could go further in elaborating on some of the guidelines that it had set out, as well as to set out more specifically the ends that the Model Framework is targeted at achieving.

Our response may be downloaded for reference here:

Response to Public Consultation for Proposed Model FrameworkDownload

In closing, we emphasise that the views set out within our response are wholly independent. They do not represent the views of any other organisation save for LawTech.Asia.

LawTech.Asia is also grateful to our partner and friend, Ms Shazade Jameson from the World Data Project, for her guidance and assistance in the preparation of our response.

The LawTech.Asia Team

LawTech.Asia in the State of Legal Innovation Report 2019

By

On 8th April 2019

In Legal Hackers, Legal Innovation, Legal Research, Policy

Reading time: < 1 minute

LawTech.Asia is proud to have a place in the inaugural Asia-Pacific State of Legal Innovation Report 2019! We have been described as a “leading law and technology review that aims to be a thought leader in legal technology in Asia”.

The Report, which was released at the Stanford University’s FutureLaw 2019 Conference on 4 April 2019, is a product of the academic partnership between the Singapore Management University and the Singapore Academy of Law’s Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP). The Report aims to be an authoritative industry reference on legal innovation in the Asia Pacific, and comprehensively surveys the state of legal innovation in such jurisdictions as Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, Russia, and Singapore.

Besides being mentioned alongside heavyweights and notable names in the legal technology industry, we are proud that our Josh Lee also served as the Report’s lead designer.

We would like to thank and congratulate the Singapore Management University, the Singapore Academy of Law and the Future Law Innovation Programme, as well as all who contributed to the Report for a job well done!

Get your copy of the Report at this link today!

Legal Hackers APAC Summit 2018 – A Summary

By

On 8th January 2019

In Access to Justice, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, Dispute Resolution, E-Discovery, Events, Lawyers, Legal Hackers, Legal Innovation, Legal Technology in Singapore, Policy, Regulations, Smart Contracts

Reading time: 7 minutes

Written by Cai Xiaohan | Edited by Josh Lee

From 16-17 November 2018, LawTech.Asia co-organised the Legal Hackers APAC Summit together with SG Legal Hackers and the Singapore Academy of Law. This saw over twenty Legal Hackers chapter organizers from at least ten different countries in the Asia-Pacific region converge in Singapore to discuss the latest developments in law, technology and innovation in the APAC region.

The APAC Legal Hackers Summit 2018 welcome page. (Image credit: Legal Hackers Singapore)

Read More

#LegalHackers Profile: Eric Chin, Legal Hackers Melbourne

By

On 11th December 2018

In Events, Interviews, Law Firms, Lawyers, Legal Innovation, Legal Research, People, Policy

Reading time: 5 minutes

Interview by Huiling Xie | Edited by Amelia Chew & Emily Tan

In November 2018, LawTech.Asia co-organised the inaugural APAC Legal Hackers Summit alongside Singapore Legal Hackers and the Singapore Academy of Law’s Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP), bringing together Legal Hackers chapter organisers in the region to share insights on legal innovation across APAC. Legal Hackers is a global movement of lawyers, policymakers, designers, technologists, and academics who explore issues and opportunities where technology can improve and inform the practice of law, and where law, legal practice, and policy can adapt to rapidly changing technology. In this series, we profile Legal Hackers chapter organisers who are driving legal innovation in their cities.  

Here, Eric Chin, a strategy consultant for the legal industry and chapter organiser at Legal Hackers Melbourne, shares his insights on where the legal industry is headed.

You started your career in the consulting industry, providing services to a number of professional services firms across industries such as law, engineering, and accounting. What about the legal industry drew you to carve out an independent practice specialising in consulting for law firms?

The legal market is in a very unique position in its history. I see a lot of opportunity in helping law firms, NewLaw firms and LegalTech firms navigate the changing market.

Taking a long-term view, the industry has seen a few distinct phases in how competition has evolved. The concept of practice groups emerged in the 1980s. This then progressed to scale and geographic expansion in the golden age of globalisation of the 1990s. The 2000s saw the outsourcing trend engulf the market as legal process outsourcing companies and legal managed service firms (NewLaw firms) were conceived. In this decade, the 2010s, the technological trend gave birth to LegalTech firms. Not to forget also the entry of the Big Six accounting firms in the 1990s that culminated in the Big Five becoming one of the largest in the world in the early 2000s. Since the 2010s, we have seen the Big Four establishing their legal offering in various forms.

Read More

Legal Technology in Singapore

By

On 21st October 2018

In Access to Justice, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, Contracts, Cybersecurity, Dispute Resolution, E-Discovery, Events, Law Firms, Lawyers, Legal Innovation, Legal Research, Legal Technology in Singapore, Legal Technology Manual, Online Dispute Resolution, Policy, Regulations, Smart Contracts

Reading time: < 1 minute

Written by Amelia Chew, Jennifer Lim Wei Zhen, Josh Lee Kok Thong, and Tristan Koh

The LawTech.Asia is proud to publish the first-ever detailed outline of the legal technology sector in Singapore (as far as we are aware)!

This article is the result of a months-long project to map out the root, state and outlook of the legal technology sector in Singapore, and furthers LawTech.Asia’s fundamental purpose of improving awareness, knowledge and interest in legal technology. It is hoped that this article will be a helpful piece for legal professionals, legal technologists and law students to have a bird’s eye-view of legal technology in Singapore, and to assist in the building of a thriving legal tech community in Singapore. 

While intended to be extensive, the article does not purport to be exhaustive or authoritative, or to express the position of any particular organisation or initiative. This article will be a “living document” that will continue to be updated as more news comes to the fore.

To access the article, click here!

At the outset, the authors wish to express thanks for the innumerable sources of information available online, without which this project would not have been possible. Any mistakes herein remain the authors’ own.

Page 9 of 12

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén