Reading time: 19 minutes

Written by Johanna Lim Ziyun (Associate Author) | Mentored by Nisha Rajoo | Reviewed by Edmund Koh

LawTech.Asia is proud to have commenced the third run of its popular Associate Author (2020) Programme. The aim of the Associate Authorship Programme is to develop the knowledge and exposure of student writers in the domains of law and technology, while providing them with mentorship from LawTech.Asia’s writers and tailored guidance from a respected industry mentor.

In partnership with the National University of Singapore’s alt+law and Singapore Management University’s Legal Innovation and Technology Club, five students were selected as Associate Authors. This piece, written by Johanna Lim and reviewed by industry reviewer Edmund Koh (China Telecom Asia Pacific), marks the third thought piece in this series. It scans the landscape of lawyers and technology, and sets out steps that lawyers should take to meet a future technologically-driven paradigm.


The legal industry is constantly changing and innovating. Lawyers and in-house counsel are now increasingly involved in more complex work. Such complexities are exacerbated by the increasing disruption that the legal industry is facing. Disruptions, by their very nature, are uncomfortable, but technology can help legal professionals improve in the delivery of legal services.[1] It would be prudent for lawyers and in-house counsel to consider legal technology and assess whether the promised efficiency gains could outweigh the costs of adoption.  

This article aims to help legal professionals better understand their workflow and be more aware of the challenges and issues surrounding the use of legal technology. In this article, I suggest that where technology can assist lawyers in managing certain aspects of their workflow, it should be used so they can focus on value-added services. 

Current technologies employed

In Singapore, lawyers utilising technology in their practice is not uncommon. As early as 1990,[2] the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”) launched the LawNet online database, which compiles Singapore and Malaysian law reports, unreported judgments and journal articles. It was the first example of digitising a legal research database, making the process of legal research more efficient. 

Thereafter, in 1995, the first technology court was launched[3] – featuring audio-visual capabilities, the ability of oral statements to be recorded and provided a possibility for litigation to be done through video-conferencing. This was coupled with the development of the electronic filing system (“EFS”),[4] which allowed court documents to be filed and sorted electronically, enabling users to have full access to the documents whenever they needed it. These developments have culminated into the improved legal technology landscape that we see today. From lawyers reviewing contracts manually which can take a copious amount of time, legal technology now enables work to be completed almost 100 times faster. An example is LawGeex, a contracting reviewing platform, which in identifying risks in Non-Disclosure Agreements,[5] completed the task in 92 seconds with 94% accuracy. This is in comparison to experienced lawyers who completed the same task in 92 minutes with an 85% accuracy. This example showcases how far technology has advanced in being able to crunch data much faster with higher accuracies than a human lawyer (albeit with regard to straightforward contracts).  

Today, legal technology employed by law firms and companies can be viewed in terms of baseline[6] and advanced technology[7] to aid in contract drafting, streamline workflow processes and promote business innovation. In Singapore, the vision of how legal technology could apply to the industry was spearheaded by the SAL.[8] Its Legal Technology Vision called upon legal professionals to be part of the disruptions that the sector will face. Over time, with the aim of aiding Singapore law firms to leverage on technology through funding support,[9] the Ministry of Law and the Law Society of Singapore (which we refer to in this article as “LawSoc”)[10] also initiated programmes such as Tech Start for Law and Tech-celerate for Law.[11] Tech Start for Law was a joint initiative between LawSoc, the Ministry of Law and Spring Singapore (now Enterprise Singapore).[12] It provided S$2.8 million to subsidise the costs of implementing such technologies for small and medium law firms. Subsequently, LawSoc, the Ministry of Law, Enterprise Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority[13] launched Tech-celerate for Law, which aims to empower law practices to improve themselves so as to gain a competitive edge in the market today.  

Perspectives from the legal profession

Since legal technology is likely to reshape the legal industry in terms of its services, in the process of writing this article, interviews were sought from legal practitioners in private practice, in-house counsel and other relevant legal stakeholders to offer an on-the-ground perspective of how technology has impacted their work, and the interviewees’ thoughts on future developments on the use of legal technology in Singapore. 

Current landscape for legal technology in Singapore

(1) Private practice

Mr Bryan Tan, director of PK Wong & Nair LLC, shared that his firm employs legal technology through applications such as NetDocuments’ cloud storage system, which allows the firm to store and retrieve documents in real-time. Such moves towards adopting legal technology have allowed the firm to adapt to changing circumstances like COVID-19 and the resultant “Circuit Breaker”,[14] during which it was practically mandatory for employees to work from home. He noted that while advancements in artificial intelligence (“AI”) might take over a substantial part of legal drafting for lawyers in future, this development may give rise to the lack of a human touch in client interactions (which is the bedrock of the solicitor-client relationship).

Similarly, Assistant Professor Jerrold Soh in “The State of Legal Innovation in Asia-Pacific 2019”[15] Report – which seeks to provide insights into the focus and activities of legal innovation in various jurisdictions across the Asia-Pacific region – opined that the use of legal technology should be expanded to reduce the workload of lawyers.[16] He analysed how a leading law firm leveraged data,[17] online portals and automation tools to enable clients to give easy-to-understand reports to their stakeholders, allowing them to reduce their workload by 100 hours per transaction and foster a good relationship. That firm’s demonstrated enthusiasm towards the use of legal technology seems to be one that is shared by other law firms which are generally supportive of this legal technology vision.  

(2) In-house counsel

Despite differences in work culture and job responsibilities between lawyers and in-house counsel, their opinions on legal technology are quite similar. When an in-house counsel in the financial sector was interviewed, he acknowledged that they were still in the early stages of employing legal technology (i.e. using smart contracts to generate more standardised documents, and eDiscovery tools to identify relevant materials for proceedings). 

Similarly, an in-house counsel in the technology sector also opined that legal technology was employed in almost all their teams: marketing, operations, human resources and analytics, where they used a wide spectrum of software tools and platforms on a daily basis to communicate and collaborate across teams. He also described legal technology as entailing a “mindset shift” – keeping the business outcomes in mind as well as constantly searching for ways to integrate their function with technology, while employing various tech tools to help them ease their administrative work and boost client interactions. Nonetheless, both in-house counsel expressed similar views regarding the capability of future technology to assist in knowledge management retrieval as well as predictive analytics to help foresee possible legal risks. Both in-house counsel also highlighted the potential for legal technology to cater to newer areas of in-house legal work (e.g. privacy and intellectual property portfolio management). This sentiment was mirrored in a recent Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners (“GC”) Insights study,[18] which reported that 84% of in-house counsel believed technology would disrupt the industry positively whilst leaving the foundation of legal practice untouched. Therefore, it seems that legal technology will help in-house legal practitioners better manage their expertise and knowledge[19] in areas where they are not dependent on external lawyers, as well as reduce attrition rates. This is due to how AI and cloud-based technology are resources that allow in-house counsels to be engaged in higher risk, higher value and more intellectually stimulating work.[20] Thus, legal technology is likely to reduce their workload and draw them back to the meaningful work of the industry.

Further, when asked about the potential role for industry stakeholders such as SAL or LawSoc in promoting legal technology, both in-house counsel were of the view that the future programmes similar to Tech Start for Law[21] and Tech-celerate for Law could be expanded to in-house departments and also include other technologies such as e-signing software, matter management platforms and privacy compliance solutions to cater to in-house teams’ diverse needs. Though in-house counsel already have access to events such as the Asia Legal Inno’ Tech Forum[22] and TechLaw.Fest,[23] resources such as the Legal Tech Buyer’s Guide,[24] which aim to spread awareness of the various legal technologies available (including price lists) and legal tech automation, more sustainable resources could be catered to in-house departments. As the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (“SCCA”) generally looks after the interests of in-house counsels, it could consider collaborating with LawSoc to extend future technology support schemes. In this way, in-house counsel will be equipped with more guidance and a greater financial capacity to engage legal technology to reduce their workload.

(3) Other key stakeholders

In an interview with representatives from LawSoc, it was opined that there will likely be an increase in law firms employing AI-based or predictive analytics tools in the near future as more lawyers appreciate the benefits of such technologies. This can be seen by LawSoc’s efforts in the Tech Start for Law[25] programme in 2017, which received 143 successful applications within a year. It can be said that such initiatives that offer law firms financial assistance in adopting legal technology will continue to be well received. Tech Start for Law was eventually expanded upon by the Tech-celerate for Law programme,[26] which provided Singapore law firms with up to 80% funding from baseline to advanced legal technology in the first year of implementation. These programmes are arguably a reflection of how an increasing number of law firms are becoming more receptive to legal technology to improve their efficiency and effectiveness in the services rendered.[27]

Further, this positive reception to legal technology can be seen in recent initiatives by SAL. To promote the relevance of legal technology, SAL initiated the Legal Industry Framework for Training and Education (“LIFTED”),[28] providing an avenue for legal professionals to identify the skills they need to chart clearer professional development pathways. This helps to bolster and cultivate a working culture where legal professionals can learn from each other, and be more aware of e-litigation, essential databases and legal productivity solutions.[29]   

SAL LIFTED. Image credit: SAL

As shared during the interviews, legal technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, legal technology helps to reduce one’s workload by dealing with the administrative matters. On the other hand, however, if employed wholesale, it could affect communications with the client as client interactions become more transactional in nature. Hence, the use of legal technology should seek to strike a healthy balance between the two.

The Future of Legal Technology

From the interviews conducted and survey results,[30] it can be seen that there is an interest from private practitioners and in-house counsel towards deploying AI and predictive analytics further to ease decision making and workforce management and reduce legal risks (such as by predicting the probabilities of success in each case). This section hopes to highlight the possible issues and challenges of using such technology in Singapore, with specific focus on AI and predictive analytics. 

(1) Lawyers

Large firms and AI

Amongst local law firms, the prospects of AI adoption appear relatively brighter. “Big Four” firms like Rajah & Tann (“R&T”) and Wong Partnership have already deployed AI technologies. Rajah & Tann Technologies (“RTT”), established by R&T, offers technology-driven services such as electronic discovery, document automation, AI analytics and approval workflow.[31] Following its acquisition of LegalComet, RTT is now able to deploy AI-driven solutions that allow lawyers managing large data sets to readily sieve through data and extract insights.[32] WongPartnership has also adopted Luminance,[33] an AI-powered due diligence tool that enhances efficiency in its due diligence processes for mergers and acquisitions work. This platform[34] allows the firm to detect patterns across large volumes of contracts to enable lawyers to focus on the salient issues. As these examples (among others) show, the use of AI locally to improve efficiency and productivity is already fairly developed. 

Large firms and predictive analytics

Predictive analytics uses big data, statistical algorithms and machine learning software[35] to foresee the probability of future outcomes based on historical data. Its aims are to decrease operational costs, identify current and future issues in the firm, and mitigate risks of decisions.[36] Apart from being able to predict legal insights based on data mined from past cases,[37] predictive analytics can also aid in improving cybersecurity, by determining attack probabilities from an analysis of data about malware and data breaches.[38] [39] While these seem like areas where law firms would find the use of predictive analytics valuable, there still appears to be a relative lack of use of predictive analytics in the legal sector. Compared to the use of predictive analytics in Singapore’s financial sector (for instance, where the Overseas-China Banking Corporation has employed predictive analytics to prevent 55% of cyber threats),[40] our legal sector still has a long way to go. 

Nonetheless, the applicability of predictive analytics can be seen in the Western jurisdictions. Here, the instance of Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), an international firm with over 27 offices around the world and over 1,400 lawyers in the USA,[41] is instructive. Instead of utilising predictive analytics as a tool to obtain a sense of security over human judgement through hard numbers, H&K uses it to springboard marketing initiatives. According to Dewey,[42] [43]  a software developer and financial services attorney at H&K, predictive analytics is used to compare various practices’ rates, by analysing data to indicate the speed at which attorneys resolve cases. This allows the firm to be able to market their services to clients in a cost-efficient manner, while being able to understand where it stands amongst other practices.

Despite the benefits reaped from predictive analytics, however, one needs to err on the side of caution when dealing with copious amounts of data. This is due to the twin inherent risks of data breaches and unintended discrimination.[44]

In respect of data breaches, since big data relies on large sets of data, its processing (especially where it is processed at multiple points across the globe) makes it susceptible to hackers who may seek to extract, tamper or destroy the data.[45] Hence, it is important to introduce robust data governance measures to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence.[46]

In Singapore, the risk of data breaches has, in part, been regulated and addressed by legislation (such as the Computer Misuse Act (“CMA“),[47] or the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA“)[48] and regulatory regimes (e.g., guidelines provided by LawSoc). The CMA seeks to punish those who choose to cause a computer to induce fraud, dishonesty or causing bodily harm (s 4 CMA) as well as those who, without authorisation, cause a computer to perform any function for the purpose of securing access to material. This acts as a punitive effect to deter culprits from committing cybercrimes.[49] Additionally, to safeguard the collection, use and disclosure of personal data, the PDPA protects data subjects by making it a requirement for organisations to seek consent first before it is disclosed.[50] Further, LawSoc’s “Guide to Cybersecurity for Law Practices” also gives firms a concrete way of implementing strong organisational processes and good cybersecurity governance through maintaining audit trails, asset management and ensuring computer networks are secure.[51]

In respect of unintended discrimination, this occurs in large part because data itself may inherently contain and reflect human biases.[52] Such biases may then be amplified when the software makes inferences and judgement calls based on the data.

As the risk of the inherent biases in data could result in biased (and ultimately inherent) decisions, they are an important issue. Law firms should thus act decisively in dealing with data bias. Maddalena Favaretto, a PhD candidate at the Institute for Biomedical Ethics, suggests in her article for lawyers to work with data scientists in order to create a knowledge-based platform for fairness in analysis of data,[53] such that data scientists can use their expertise to investigate when problematic correlations occur. This enables one to do checks and balances on the data collected, minimising unintended bias by the system. Additionally, firms can adopt good data governance practices, such as ensuring that their data sets do not contain sensitive information such as race, gender or financial status,[54] or statistically treating the data to normalise the estimation of data points.[55] If firms were to apply these small steps, it can likely reduce the bias the algorithm tracks, allowing for fairer analysis.   

Small to mid-sized firms and AI

Though the prospects of AI and predictive analytics are attractive, the underlying issues that most small firms face are maintenance costs and a limited budget that prevents them purchasing AI technologies, unless the benefit is direct and quick.[56] Further, a majority of small firms are apprehensive of new technology as there is a concern of not being able to see immediate results after investing into AI.[57] Thus, if technology were to be employed, it would likely seek to target the main concern of copious contract preparation and drafting.[58]

However, according to Mark Haddan, general manager of the Small Law Segment for Thomson Reuters, investing in AI allows small firms to gain a comparative advantage. This is because it brings them closer to the goal of managing legal practice more efficiently and effectively.[59] Small firms’ main concerns stem from difficulties in reviewing copious amounts of documents during the discovery phase of a lawsuit. Without legal technology, firms would be overly reliant on manpower, which can be expensive.[60] AI applications, such as Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”), can quickly review documents based on what the software has learnt from previously-reviewed documents. This helps to level the playing field, as small firms need no longer be disadvantaged by their relative lack of manpower. Such technologies have even received judicial approval in jurisdictions like USA, since as early as 2012.[61] [62] Likewise, given that TAR is cost-effective and allows for a transparent process[63] in terms of its proposed protocol for electronically stored information, it will likely be viewed favourably[64] in Singapore as long as both sides are agreeable to using the technology. 

Small to mid-sized firms and predictive analytics

As explained earlier, predictive analytics leverages on statistics to glean future events from data mining,[65] predictive modelling[66] and machine learning.[67] According to an interview done with Dave Walton,[68] legal analytics is best partnered with non-legal expertise, such as that of a data analyst. Though small firms may find it challenging to obtain sufficient data, this is arguably neutralised in the long run once small firms can understand how their businesses are doing. 

While balancing the benefits of predictive analytics with the concerns of costs, small firms could consider partnering with non-law firms to achieve the necessary economies of scale. In one example in Canada, Dentons collaborated with an Ontario-based contract review startup, Beagle.[69] The collaboration sought to benefit both parties: Beagle could leverage on Dentons’ global expertise and tap on its connections while Dentons was able to help Beagle train its machine learning algorithms to ensure Beagles’s solutions met the requirements of Denton’s practice.[70] Despite the big-law context, such a partnership could also work for small and medium-sized firms. Currently, small law firms in Singapore can apply for one-year grants under the Tech-celerate for Law scheme.[71] However, given the high costs to sustain legal technology, grants may just be a temporary solution. It is thus suggested that small law firms could cooperate to split the costs of legal technology resources. To this end, LawSoc could consider reeaching out to firms interested in such a cost-sharing model, understand their pain points, and help match law firms together. To address the issue of client confidentiality, a possible way forward could be to prefer legal technology software that have multiple layers of security for data, and to avoid using highly personalised information that can identify an individual (such as NRIC, address, race, phone number).[72]

Beagle workflow process. Image credit: Beagle

(2) In-house Counsel

Over the years, the role of the in-house counsel has evolved. The technological tools available to them have also grown in quantity and quality.[73]

For many in-house counsel, contract reviews and mitigating legal and business risks comprise a large part of their work. For contract reviews, a typical workflow is as follows: the client gives the contract to the salesman, who then gives it to the contracts team. The contract team then assigns a contract analyst; and the contract analyst then provides the contract to the in-house counsel for review – a reiterative process with the contract team that can take several rounds of correspondence.[74] Using legal technology, these rounds of correspondence could be bypassed. For instance, platforms are available that allow clients to upload their contracts in a common program, with shared and controllable visibility for the relevant teams involved. Additionally, AI can automatically identify deviations and problematic contractual clauses, helping in-house counsels focus directly on pressing issues.[75]  

Corporate legal departments also often deal with large amounts of raw data. This can make it challenging for in-house counsel to consolidate and process invoices, billable hours, case precedent and legislation. In this regard, predictive analytics could help compare historical and current data, allowing in-house counsels to make better-informed decisions. Some tools even proffer recommendations on how (or whether one should) pick litigation as a dispute resolution mechanism![76] Such capabilities could also significantly reduce an in-house counsel’s workload. One such example of a predictive analytics tool is Intraspexion, a start-up which uses its algorithms to predict and prevent potential litigation.[77] By providing customisation to suit a user company’s workflow, Instrapexion can also be tailored to suit the needs of each company.[78]

When considering adopting legal technology, however, in-house departments should consider the following: (a) the actual costs and opportunity costs to the organisation; (b) the desired organisation outcomes; and (c) the risk appetite of the company.[79]

Policy recommendations

Given likely rise in adoption of legal technology in Singapore,[80] there may be increasing calls to regulatee it.[81] This section expands on possible policies and regulations Singapore could consider adopting to better regulate the increasing use of legal technology. 

One possible regulatory approach could be to set up a new subsidiary board under the Ministry of Law. The core duties of the board would be  to oversee the reporting and enforcement of legal technology companies and regulate the use of legal technology (to prevent data breaches and unethical practices). A similar structure has been implemented in Illinois,[82]where a Legal Technology Regulation Board (“LTRB”) was established to ensure the registration and regulation of legal technology providers and intermediary entities. The LTRB has the power to, among other things, develop criteria and procedure for regulatory and audit rules, and rules for reviewing information and certifications submitted by intermediary entities. A similar body could be considered in Singapore. 

Policies relating to lawyers

For lawyers to fully leverage the advantages of legal technology, a centre for legal technology research could be set. Collaborating with SAL and LawSoc, the centre could help law firms collectively build better data sets and in turn, better AI. These data sets could then be used to collectively train AI or predictive analytics legal tech solutions. SAL and LawSoc could then offer these trained tools to law firms, avoiding the need for law firms to train AI-based solutions from scratch (a step that would benefit smaller law firms who may not always have access to large and representative data sets).

Policies relating to in-house counsel

While there is no body in Singapore regulating in-house counsel, the SCCA represents the interests of in-house lawyers. As the SCCA has already embarked on initiatives to promote legal technology, it suggested that knowledge-sharing sessions could be increased in frequency to advocate for greater adoption of legal technology in in-house departments. 

Additionally, the SCCA could also explore programmes similar to those organised by SAL’s Future Law Innovation Programme,[83] in which in-house counsel could be invited to ideate and explore new ways of delivering legal services. This empowers them to test out the technologies on a smaller scale and explore the most feasible and effective strategies in reducing their workload.


Legal technology has definitely disrupted the legal profession. Though challenges (such as trying to retain the “human touch” of the lawyer) exist, the future remains bright. As seen in the Legal Industry Technology and Innovation Roadmap launched by Minister Edwin Tong in October 2020,[84] Singapore is making a conscious effort to promote innovation through: (1) plans to provide law firms with practical solutions; (2) an affordable and secure cloud-based avenue for legal technology; and (3) infusing technology with the local law school curriculum so as to train technologically aware lawyers.[85] Although technological disruptions to the legal profession are here to stay, by embracing these disruptions, legal professionals can increase their productivity and keep delivering high-value work.[86]

[1] Alfred Chua [2019] “The Big Read in Short” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[2] SOH, Jerrold Tsin Howe. “The state of legal innovation in Asia-Pacific”. [2019], 118. Research Collection School Of Law.

[3] Tan Boon Heng [n.d.] “E-litigation: The Singapore Experience” Accessed 13 Oct 2020 at

[4] Supreme Court [2018] “ELitigation” Accessed 13 Oct 2020 at

[5] LawGeex [2018] “Artificial Intelligence More Accurate Than Lawyers for Reviewing Contracts, New Study Reveals”. Accessed 11 Sep 2020 at

[6] This includes practice management, document management and online legal research systems such as Clio (which allows lawyers to access any documents from the Cloud on the move), LexisNexis aids in monitoring and managing performance using flexible analysis tools and reports (online legal research dasebase) and INTELLEX allows lawyers to access a composite database of cases, commentaries and articles across jurisdictions through a single platform.

[7] Advanced technology refers to document review software (e.g. Everlaw, Logikcull) and eDiscovery (e.g. Onna, ArcTitan). 

[8] Singapore Academy of Law [2017] “Legal Technology Vision” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[9] Ministry of Law [2017] “Launch of $2.8m Tech Start Programme to help Singapore Law Practices Adopt Technology” Accessed 15 January 2021 at–2-8m-tech-start-programme-to-help-singapore-law-pract

[10] This is merely an informal abbreviation introduced for better readability.

[11] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Tech-celerate for Law (Extended)” Accessed 19 Sep 2020 at https://www.lpi.The Law Society of

[12] Enterprise Singapore [2021] “About Enterprise Singapore” Accessed 5 January 2021 at

[13] Infocomm Media Development Authority [2021] “Who We Are” Accessed 5 January 2021 at

[14] Ministry of Health [2020] “Circuit Breaker to Minimise Further Spread of COVID-19” Accessed 29 Nov 2020 at

[15] SOH, Jerrold Tsin Howe [2019] “The state of legal innovation in Asia-Pacific”. Research Collection School Of Law. 

[16] SOH, Jerrold Tsin Howe [2019] “The state of legal innovation in Asia-Pacific: Foreword by Justice Lee Seiu Kin”. Research Collection School Of Law. 

[17] SOH, Jerrold Tsin Howe [2019], 157. “The state of legal innovation in Asia-Pacific”. Research Collection School Of Law. 

[18] World Services Group [2019] “A Look Ahead”. Accessed 19 Sep 2020 at

[19] Allen & Overy [2019] “The future of the in-house legal function”

[20] Daniel Fagella [2020] “AI in Law and Legal Practice – A Comprehensive view of 35 current applications” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[21] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Tech Start for Law” Accessed 22 Oct 2020 at

[22] In-House Community [2018] ” Asia Legal Inno’ Tech Forum, 2019 – Singapore” Accessed 22 Oct 2020 at

[23] TechLaw.Fest [2020] “About TechLaw.Fest” Accessed 22 Oct 2020 at

[24] LawGeex [2018] “The In-House Counsel’s Legal Tech 2018 Buyer’s Guide” Accessed 22 Oct 2020 at

[25] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Tech Start for Law” Accessed 23 Oct 2020 at

[26] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Tech-celerate for Law (Extended)” Accessed 19 Sep 2020 at https://www.lpi.The Law Society of

[27] Meg Mcevoy [2020] ‘Analysis: Firms are more prepared to use legal tech in 2020’ Accessed 23 Oct 2020 at

[28] Singapore Academy of Law [2020] “Learning and Professional Development” Accessed 19 Sep 2020 at

[29] Singapore Academy of Law [2017] “Elevate your practice with LIFTED”  Accessed 19 Sep 2020 at

[30] Wolters Kluwer [2019] “The Future Ready Lawyer” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[31] Rajah & Tann Technologies [2020] “Our Services” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[32] Rajah & Tann [2018] “Rajah & Tann Asia launches legal technology business” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[33] Luminance [2020] “Luminance Home” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[34] WongPartnership LLP [2017]  “WongPartnership is the First Singapore Law Firm to Harness Artificial Intelligence” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[35] Thomas Reuters (n.d.) “Five common legal questions predictive data analytics can help answer” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[36] Exigent [2020] “3 Practical Applications for Predictive Analytics in Legal” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[37] Gwinnet College [2018] “How Predictive Analytics is Transforming the Legal Industry” Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[38] Mike Jones [2019] “How Predictive Analytics can support Cybersecurity” Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[39] Ben Dickson [2016] “How predictive analytics discovers a data breach before it happens” Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[40] Satoko Omata [2019] ‘5 ways banks in Singapore are using Big Data’ Accessed 1 Dec 2020 at

[41] Holland & Knight [2020] “Firm Culture” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[42] Frank Ready [2020] “As Analytics becomes vital to Corporate Law, Accuracy remains open to Interpretation” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[43] Holland & Knight [2020] “Josias N. Dewey” Accessed 1 Dec 2020 at

[44] cyberinsiders (n.d.) “What are the biggest privacy issues associated with big data?” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[45] Olivia Scott [2020] “Challenges of Big Data in Cybersecurity” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[46] Jaap Wieringa, PK Kannan, Xiao Ma, Thomas Reutterer, Hans Risselada, Bernd Skiera [2019] “Data analytics in a privacy-concerned world” (Journal of Business Research)

[47] Computer Misuse Act (Chap 50A) (Revised Ed 2007) Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[48] Personal Data Protection Act (2012) Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[49] Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill Parliamentary Debates [2017]

[50] Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore [2013] “What you should know about the Personal Data Protection Act” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[51] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Guide to Cybersecurity for Law Practices” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at  https://www.The Law Society of

[52] George Čevora [2020] “How Discrimination occurs in Data Analytics and Machine Learning: Proxy Variables” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[53] Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E. & Elger, B.S “Big Data and discrimination: perils, promises and solutions. A systematic review”. J Big Data 6, 12 [2019] Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[54] Workfront [2018] “Data Discrimination: The Dark Side of Big Data” Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[55] Julien Debussche, Jasmien César, Isis De Moortel [2019] “Big Data & Issues & Opportunities: Discrimination” Accessed 16 Oct 2020 at

[56] Thomson Reuters [2017] “Ready or not: Artificial intelligence and corporate legal departments”  Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[57] Thomas Reuters [2019] “3 reasons why law firms are resistant to technology” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[58] Beverly Rich [2018] “How AI is Changing Contracts” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[59] Mark Haddad [2019] “Encouraging small firms to embrace new technologies and AI” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[60] Lexis Nexis [2019] “How AI is Helping Small Law Firms Level the Discovery Playing Field” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[61] David Horrigan [2016] “Analytics and Assisted Review” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[62] 287 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) 

[63] Kirkland & Ellis [2020] “A Proposed Technology – Assisted Review Framework” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[64] Helen Whalen-Bridge [2017] “Court Backlogs: Balancing Efficiency and Justice in Singapore” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[65] Gwinnett Colleges and Institute Definition: The discovery of patterns, abnormalities and correlations im large amounts of data to generate new legal strategies and predict case outcomes

[66] Gwinnett Colleges and Institute Definition: The use of statistics to predict outcomes; identified predictors influence future case law or legal judgements

[67]  Gwinnett Colleges and Institute Definition: The use of statistical techniques to teach computer systems with data

[68]  Wharton (University of Pennsylvania) [2019] “The Next Legal Challenge: Getting Law Firms to use Analytics” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[69] Dan Jansen [2016] “Nextlaw Labs expands portfolio with investment in Canadian legal tech startup Beagle” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[70] Joe Green [2018] “A Tale of Two Partnerships: Collaboration Models for Law Firms and Legal Tech Startups” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[71] The Law Society of Singapore [2020] “Tech-celerate for Law” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at https://www.lpi.The Law Society of

[72] Marksman Healthcare [2018] “What are the best practices for protecting privacy while cojnducting big data analytics?” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[73] Nayeem Syed [2019] “Tech adoption challenges in corporate legal departments” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[74] Elizabeth A. Colombo [2019] “The Age of AI: How will in-house law departments run in 10 years?” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[75] LegalTech News [2020] “Corporate Legal Departments slow to adopt artificial intelligence contract analysis tools”.

[76] Jeffrey Solomon [2020] “Predictive Analytics can help Corporate Legal Teams make Better Decisions” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[77] Jnana Settle [2018] “Predictive Analytics in the Legal Industry: 10 Companies to know in 2018” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[78] Intraspexion [2020] “Intraspexion” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 on

[79] Nayeem Syed [2019] “Tech Adoption challenges in corporate legal departments” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at

[80] The Law Society of Singapore [2018] “Survey of Legal Practitioners” Accessed 20 Sep 2020 at Law Society of Singaporeiety_legaltech_summary_report

[81] Dan Bindman [2019] “AI legal tech ‘so powerful it will need regulation'” Accessed 9 Oct 2020 at

[82] Illinois Bar Council [2020] “CBA/CBF Task Force on the Sustainable Practice of Law & Innovation” 

[83] Singapore Academy of Law [2017] “Get involved” Accessed 10 Oct 2020 at

[84] Ministry of Law [2020] “Technology and Innovation Roadmap Launched to Support Legal Industry in Adoption of Legal Tech” Accessed 13 Oct 2020 at

[85] Ministry of Law [2020] “The Road to 2030: Legal Industry Technology & Innovation Roadmap Report” Accessed 13 Oct 2020 at

[86] Dominic Low [2020] “New 10-year road map to give law firms more support to adopt tech” Accessed 13 Oct 2020 at