Written by Hannah Nadia, Daniel Koh and Wei Lin Tan | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong
Introduction
In the 2023 edition of Techlaw.Fest, LawTech.Asia posed the question: what’s next for law and technology? The 2024 edition of TechLaw.Fest gave us our answer: Artificial Intelligence (“AI”).
The theme for TechLaw.Fest 2024 – “Be Ready for Tomorrow” – is a nod towards current anxieties over AI’s disruptive potential for the legal industry, as well as how AI is changing the way we think about legal issues. The theme aptly urges legal practitioners to set their sails and map ahead for the incoming wave of opportunities and challenges unleashed by new AI technologies
At the heart of TechLaw.Fest 2024 were four key topics: (1) AI in law; (2) global AI regulations and AI governance; (3) deepfakes and misinformation; and (4) inclusivity. TechLaw.Fest 2024 also saw several significant announcements, such as the launch of the Copilot for SG Law Firms module for the Legal Technology Platform (“LTP”) by the Ministry of Law, Lupl and Microsoft, and the launch of the Singapore Academy of Law’s and Microsoft’s Prompt Engineering Guide for Lawyers. We even saw a splash of pizzazz, with the 2024 Asia-Pacific Legal Innovation & Technology Association (“ALITA”) Awards demonstrating the best of legal technology in the region.
In this article, as the legal community gears up for TechLaw.Fest 2025 (happening on 10 and 11 September 2025), we seek to re-capture the highlights of Singapore’s signature law and technology conference in 2024, and provide a glimpse of the themes and insights shared by the expert panellists.
Takeaways from the Opening Panel
Kicking off TechLaw.Fest 2024 was a panel discussion with the then-Second Minister for Law and Minister for Community, Culture and Youth Edwin Tong, Justice Aedit Abdullah and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Mike Yeh.
During the panel discussion, Minister Tong highlighted the rapid integration of technology into the legal industry over the decades – referencing, perhaps nostalgically, tools like the paginator (also known as the Bates stamper, which would likely be unrecognisable to young lawyers today). Similar sentiments were echoed by Justice Aedit Abdullah and Mike Yeh, who recalled the legal industry’s analog past, where much was still done with pen and paper.
What stole the limelight during the panel, however, was Generative Artificial Intelligence (“GenAI”). The speakers emphasised the inevitability of AI’s presence in legal practice, and urged firms and lawyers alike to adopt AI solutions to remain competitive. For instance, Mike shared an impactful example from Microsoft’s in-house legal team, where the adoption of AI solutions resulted in a 32% boost in task efficiency and a 20% improvement in accuracy.
Acknowledging these potential benefits, and current barriers to the adoption of such tools in Singapore, Minister Tong graced the launch of a new initiative which introduced Microsoft’s Copilot to Singapore’s National Legal Technology Platform (a collaborative effort by the Ministry of Law and Lupl). The initiative aims to meet the challenges faced by legal professionals in integrating advanced technological tools, foster greater adoption of AI, and ensure that Singapore’s legal industry remains at the forefront of innovation.
Theme 1: AI in law
The AI-in-law conversation has, in recent years, regained vigour. The legal industry appears to have moved beyond its initial fascination about AI technology to its regular day-to-day adoption. The Honourable Justice Kwek Mean Luck opened the Day 2 morning with an exhortation to lawyers to embrace the use of technology: “Technology is one of the biggest drivers on how we deliver legal services – digitally, remotely, around the clock.” With this, he presided over the launch of LawNet AI and E-Apostille – services meant to benefit both lawyers and members of the public.
The subsequent panel on “AI and the Future of Private Law” provided an impressive overview of the substantive legal issues raised by AI in commercial law. The panellists consisted Professor Ernest Lim (Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore), Associate Professor Anke Moerland (Intellectual Property Law at Maastricht University), Ms Denise Wong (Deputy Commissioner, Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)), Professor Jeannie Marie Paterson (Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne) and Professor Tony Casey (University of Chicago Law School).
Professor Casey started off the discussion with the topic of responsible self-driving contracts. While self-driving contracts have existed before GenAI, the use of this technology to predict a court’s interpretation of gaps in contracts is set to be more prevalent. The key issue that subsequently arises is transparency. Professor Casey remarked that the use of GenAi to fill contract gaps is not problematic in the business-to-business context as parties are in a better position to ensure that they know what they are agreeing to, what AI system is going to be used and what data is behind that algorithm. However, in the business-to-consumer context, the consumer does not have the same access to information.
On consumer protection, Professor Paterson noted that proactive legislative intervention is needed to address AI-related harms to consumers as it would take courts time to decide on how to adapt current consumer protections to AI. As for whether increased transparency would be helpful to consumers in protecting themselves, Professor Paterson remarked that the typical consumer would be concerned with the quality of the service provided and would not be sufficiently informed to be able to meaningfully unpack AI-related information disclosed by companies and AI-service providers.
Closing the panel with a short lecture on patent protection of AI-assisted and AI-generated inventions, Professor Moerland noted that discourse on legal reforms in patent law boil down to the purpose of patent protection and the idea of the social contract underpinning patents. Questions of the personhood of AI systems would first need to be settled before any AI-generated invention could be patented. Further, there may be a situation of double compensation for AI-system patent holders that may benefit from both the creation of their AI and the output generated by their AI if such property rights are granted, resulting in a patent thicket (a dense web of overlapping patent rights that can hinder innovation).
On a related note, in a panel at the Tech Talk Stage (titled “Forecasting Future AI-related Litigation”), Ms Shumin Lin (Director, Dispute Resolution, Drew & Napier LLC) observed that AI-related matters had yet to reach our local courts but are expected to be more commonplace in the next couple of years. Lin noted that the “black-box” nature of GenAI would create unique legal questions on liability of manufacturers.
Theme 2: AI in disputes and in ESG
In “Resolving A.I. and Technology Disputes”, the Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin (Senior Judge, Supreme Court of Singapore), Elaine Tan (Senior Director, Legal Razer Inc.), Gloria Lim (Chief Executive Officer, Singapore International Arbitration Centre) and Chui Lijun (Partner, Simmons & Simmons JWS (JWS Asia Law Corporation)) commented on the sharp rise of AI-related disputes worldwide giving rise to a host of novel legal issues. The panel acknowledged that while Singapore had yet to see a dispute with an AI system featuring as a dramatis personae in the case per se, the rise of AI-related disputes should be noted. Panellists also noted that tech disputes were unique given the potential intangible nature of the subject matter and relative lack of human involvement. Commenting on how Singapore courts have adapted to such disputes, Justice Lee shared insights on how judges have been organised into clusters based on dispute types and domain knowledge. He assured the audience that the courts are doing their best to ensure judicial competency in technology disputes and in being able to hear each case expediently.
In the panel “On the Ground with Tech in ESG”, Fang Eu-Lin (Partner (Sustainability & Climate Change and Asia Pacific Financial Services), PwC Singapore), Gregory Tan (Joint Head (Legal & Regulatory, Temasek International Pte Ltd), Lionel Wong (Deputy Director and Head (Green FinTech Office), Monetary Authority of Singapore) and Sophie Mathur (Partner (Head of Corporate), Asia Linklaters) discussed the deployment of technology in the ESG context. Panellists observed that AI has a place in ESG investments, particularly in data management, information organisation and predictive insights. Businesses, however, need to consider factors of trust and transparency, as well growing AI-related regulations. Amidst the fast-changing landscape, the panel ultimately urged a focus away from the technology, and towards taking responsibility when using AI solutions.
Theme 3: Deepfakes and misinformation
On the panel of “The Future of Truth: Legal & Technical Solutions to Deep Fakes, Misinformation & User Responsibility” with Gerald Tan (Senior Legal Counsel, Amadeus), Lex Kuo (Partner, Baker & McKenzie (Hong Kong)), Raymond Lum (Group Chief Executive Officer, Rajah & Tann Technologies) and Vanessa Yeo (Cluster Director, Strategic Policy & Operations, POFMA Office, Infocomm Media Development Authority) explored the relationship between generative AI, deepfakes and regulation. Panellists noted the rising global attention to deepfakes, and how jurisdictions have begun legislating areas such as mandating the use of accurate training data and clear labelling of AI use, and penalising misuse (including fines and jail terms). In an age where deepfakes could quickly go “viral”, the panel concluded that creators and users shared responsibility to ensure a safe and trustworthy online space.
In the panel on “AI and the Future of Private Law”, Professor Paterson (Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne) also briefly touched on deepfakes. She noted the importance of intermediaries (e.g. banks or online platforms) in taking action to help identify and mitigate the impact of deepfakes (especially given that consumers may not be adequately able or equipped to identify deepfakes). In the same panel, Ms Wong (Assistant Chief Executive (Data Innovation & Protection Group) Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) Singapore and Deputy Commissioner Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) Singapore) added that Singapore’s current responses to regulate deepfakes have targeted the outcomes of deepfakes (i.e. minsinformation) via amendments to existing legislation such as the Broadcasting Act 1994. Such amendments provide legislative levers to require the take-down of scams and misinformation as soon as they arise, and aim to incentivise platforms to proactively remove such content.
In his Tech Talk Stage “Does the Medium Shape the Message? Algorithms, Social Media, and Democracy”, Associate Professor Jason Allen Grant (Associate Professor of Law and Director, Centre for AI & Data Governance, Singapore Management University) questioned the wisdom of moving civil discourse online. He identified three issues in doing so: first, the creation of echo chambers and information bombardment. Second, a growing addiction to the need for our ideas to be instantly validated online. Third, geopolitical risks, such as foreign interference and misinformation campaigns.
Theme 4: The (Ideal) future of the legal industry
At the end of Day 2, there was a special buzz in the room as participants began streaming into the hall for the fireside chat on “Breaking Barriers: A Conversation with Chris Watson and Emma Watson on Diversity, Inclusion and the Future”. It was soon clear what the buzz was about: the chat featured none other than Emma Watson (Actress, and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador), and her father Chris Watson (Partner and Head of TMT, CMS).
The discussion centred around the evolving landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Dialling in from the UK, Emma reflected on her early days with the “He for She” campaign, admitting that while she was proud of its global impact, she now sees the fight for gender equality through a much broader, more inclusive lens. This broader perspective allowed her to focus on a style of advocacy that has shifted away from primarily Euro-centric perspectives to embrace the diverse challenges women face worldwide.
Emma also emphasised the importance of civility and “good manners” in civic conversations – habits instilled by her father Chris Watson. Emma emphasised that genuine progress in this area could neither be rushed nor imposed, but must unfold at its own pace, depending on the unique challenges faced by a community. Change, she explained, requires long-term commitment and the patience to see change take root, while recognising that progress may look different across various contexts (but no less valuable in impact).
On maintaining civility in conversations amidst a fast-paced and often ruthless corporate environment, Chris Watson emphasised the power of language in fostering inclusivity. Tapping on his love of languages, he highlighted that even something as simple and overlooked as correctly pronouncing someone’s name carries the same weight as polite words. It affirms the individual and fosters respect. He also highlighted the importance of actively including young lawyers from outside his firm and country, demonstrating how small, thoughtful gestures can create a more inclusive environment.
Conclusion
TechLaw.Fest 2024 provided a glimpse into the future of the legal industry, by spotlighting the increasing influence of AI and other technologies. The buzz was real: from the stage floor to the exhibition floor, and even among 2024 ALITA award winners, the conference was filled with conversations between legal professionals excited to see what the next chapter of innovation in the legal industry might bring.
Aside from AI, TechLaw.Fest 2024 also highlighted the continued need to pay heed to aspects (such as ESG and DEI) that would help the legal industry develop more holistically. The legal industry must prepare for responsible innovation in a way that integrates equity, sustainability, and social impact as it navigates tomorrow’s challenges. Let us hope we can take this same spirit into TechLaw.Fest 2025!