SINGAPORE: With artificial intelligence (AI) already employed in complex legal case summaries and the processing of motor accident claims, the idea of AI transforming Singapore's justice system, including the role of judges, is not far-fetched.
For Justice Aidan Xu, who heads transformation and innovation in the judiciary, many people already think that generative AI could affect jobs in the legal sector, even his own.
But instead of AI completely replacing humans, Justice Xu said in an exclusive interview with CNA that the technology might eventually allow judges to be appointed even if they do not have formal legal training.
"There is a strong likelihood that you won't need a lawyer to be a judge," the National University of Singapore alumnus said as he also stressed that a fully AI judge or lawyer is improbable in the near future.
"The human element will be an important part of the role of a judge, in deciding cases, in deciding who to believe, in deciding what outcome should follow," he said.
Possessing "specialist legal knowledge", on the other hand, might become less important in a decade or two as AI advances, said Justice Xu.
For example, a family law judge of the future could focus on his ability to provide counselling or guidance for couples undergoing divorce, while AI supplies the legal expertise.
Or, there could be an engineer playing the role of a judge in construction dispute cases, with supplementary assistance from AI.
"That's where I think it might actually evolve, and I think there's a chance I might see it during my lifetime, and certainly for lawyers, I think the role of lawyers will change," said Justice Xu, who started out as a justices' law clerk in the Supreme Court in 1997.
Under the State Courts Act, a person can be appointed a district judge only if he or she has been a "qualified person" as defined under the Legal Profession Act for at least seven years.
The 55-year-old court veteran added that he is not "a deep techie" but is someone "comfortable with tech".
Over the past few years, Justice Xu as well as his colleagues in the judiciary have unveiled a slew of AI and other advanced tech initiatives in the Singapore courts.
For example, the courts recently announced a collaboration with American start-up Harvey AI that has resulted in a summary tool for Small Claims Tribunals, where parties are self-represented.
The tool generates summaries of each side's case to help parties who do not have law expertise have a clearer, punchier snapshot of the legal arguments involved. The tool can also help the tribunal magistrate, who has to go through voluminous documents in a short time.
Another earlier project by the courts was the development of algorithms or rules for motor accident claims.
These algorithms can consider various factors, such as the nature of the collision, where it occurred and the type of damage, in order to narrow down the range of likely outcomes in a court setting.
This can help people in motor traffic accidents decide what their next step is, whether they would like to negotiate or accept a form of settlement.
Harvey AI also has a translation tool that was made available in March this year and is now used for Small Claims Tribunals cases to help translate witness statements and documentary evidence.
In the future, the courts are looking at more extensive use of AI like bulk translation, and a possibility of providing AI-enabled transcription of testimony or oral proceedings to court users at "a low cost", said Justice Xu.
"We're not thinking of replacing our human translators or interpreters, but we can see that there is room for more extensive use of AI in terms of bulk translation," he said.
"I think for general translation in court proceedings, the human element will still be necessary and required."
The courts have been exploring AI-enabled court transcription systems for several years, testing various systems with various databases, said Justice Xu.
He said the challenge was that the AI and the software are just one part of it, and there were issues that cropped up that were not anticipated.
"One of it, for example, is the acoustics of some of our older courtrooms. Acoustics can be quite bad," said Justice Xu.
To this end, there has been much work trying to improve the various microphone systems employed in courtrooms to improve the quality of voice recordings, which are then processed by AI.
But this also led to some unintended "hot mic" moments.
"Sometimes we run up against human habits. Again, as a lawyer myself, and I think some of my colleagues in the Bar still do it - we will speak to the judge, but often we turn around and start speaking to our colleague, hopefully in a softer voice. But because our systems are quite sensitive, we'll pick up things we're not supposed to."
Another issue in Singapore's context is that people sometimes switch languages as they speak.
"We testify in English, but there'll be something that comes up in Mandarin. The system may not realise we're actually speaking Mandarin ... and will try to translate the Mandarin sounds as English," said Justice Xu.
This is the "sheer unpredictability of how the courtroom will function", versus transcription in a controlled setting like a call centre with a person speaking into a headset, he said.
Already, existing commercial court transcribers are aided by AI.
However, there is a hefty premium for court users that can be upwards of thousands of dollars per day. The judiciary hopes to make accurate transcription available to general court users at a low fee, said Justice Xu.
In the more distant future, he said the courts hope to explore whether it is possible for Harvey AI to propose settlement outcomes by looking at ranges of other cases, among other things.
"In the field of maintenance claims, it might be possible to have a system that will apply an algorithm to propose outcomes or solutions to parties who are in dispute about the maintenance they might be owing or might be claiming," said Justice Xu.
Justice Aidan Xu shares his ideas for the future of the Singapore courts. (Photo: CNA/Wallace Woon)
Justice Xu said that one of the challenges
"And importantly, that they see AI is only a tool, and they cannot use it as a shortcut," he said.
"So we want them to understand that they must continue to fulfil their functions as judges, judicial officers or administrators in the right way, and they don't click on an AI button and generate (an) answer and just pass that off as their work. It's a temptation that I think applies across the board in all industries," said Justice Xu.
To address this, the courts are working out mechanisms, some in the form of training, some as guidance and others as monitoring.
The courts also rolled out a guide last year for court users who intend to use AI.
Justice Xu said the courts had thought of implementing a disclosure system such that a user had to disclose if they were going to use AI, but they quickly realised this would not work. AI could potentially be used in everything from the initial search to crafting of documents, for example, he said.
Asked about the misuse of AI by legal practitioners, Justice Xu said these instances of misuse will "continue to fester" and the courts are monitoring them.
Last month, a lawyer was made to pay personal costs for citing a fake legal case created by AI. In a separate case on Nov 3, two lawyers of local law firms were also chided for citing non-existent cases that were hallucinated by AI tools, reported the Business Times.
For now, the individual judges dealing with each case would "address their minds to it".
"But I suspect there will continue to be instances for some time, and we will be monitoring and seeing what might be appropriate and if the circumstances call for it, we'll have to discuss with the Chief Justice whether there might be some more systemic-wide response that might be required," he said.
As for how the judiciary has reacted to the advent of AI and such technology, Justice Xu said that for the judges, there has been "a lot of curiosity" and "enthusiasm coupled with a bit of anxiety".
While people can see the advantages of AI, there has been some reluctance stemming from the fear of AI hallucinations or unreliable information. Hallucinations happen when an AI model generates incorrect, misleading or nonsensical information while presenting it as factual.
Some of the applicants who were called to the Bar virtually on May 13, 2020. (Photo: Supreme Court)
"The advantage of the Singapore legal industry has been that we've gone through a lot of technological changes in the last 20, 30 years. So by this time, everyone is quite used to technology, and they understand there is a need for it," he said.
Asked about how court caters to users who are not familiar with digital systems, Justice Xu said the courts are aware of this and are "constantly on the lookout for pain points".
He said there is a conscious effort to see how to provide information in a better, simpler way and to provide the human touch where necessary, such as student volunteers.
Not every solution for every problem is a technological one, Justice Xu said, pointing to the courts' philosophy, as laid down by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.
"Our approach is to really make sure we understand what the problem is and then think of the appropriate solution," he said. "So in some cases, the solution may be AI, it may be some other form of technology, but in some other cases, it may be no technology at all."
"So we always have to bear that in mind, and that's one of my roles, really, to make sure that we bring a non-techie perspective, sometimes, so that we don't always bring technology to bear on a problem that doesn't quite need technology," said Justice Xu.
"Sometimes the answer for us might actually be to relook some of our legal rules, our procedural requirements, sometimes even our business processes, and to see whether we can solve the problem by amending these things rather than trying to deploy technology."
On whether the advent of generative AI could affect jobs or has already done so, Justice Xu reiterated that it has "opened the way for a lot of change across all industries" and Singapore is beginning to see the impact.
"Some of it will be a bit hard for us to be definite about for some time, but I suspect the way things are going with the greater deployment of technology to assist lawyers, in particular, with drafting, with going through evidence, with kind of searching through precedents," he said.
"A lot of the kind of grunt work, or basic work that is currently done by younger lawyers, is going to be affected, and there will be less need to deploy young lawyers in these areas."
He said the main challenge for the Singapore legal sector would be to "weigh the impact of these changes".
That means that legal professionals should consider what might be needed to "improve or replace the work that has been taken away", and to boost training for young lawyers before they enter the profession as well as in the first few years when they become practicing lawyers.
The judiciary is aware of these challenges and that the Chief Justice has initiated a number of projects to start looking at this and prepare for the necessary changes,
"The solutions will probably not be easy, nor I think can they be one dimensional.
"We may have to do more of other things, such as role playing, for instance, we may have to have more intensive training in some other areas, we may have to provide more manuals, books, instructions and that sort of thing, but it's really something that we have to grapple with and address."
Despite the emergence of AI in the legal sector, Justice Xu stressed that there will always be demand for Singapore's legal talent.
"It's a testament to the quality of legal education that our graduates are in demand across the legal world. And I think that is going to intensify," he said.
"There are many, many more opportunities for our graduates in different countries, in different specialisations. I think where AI will affect the equation is that it may accelerate the kind of pressure to explore new areas of work. It will open new doors. It might close off some, but it will open up others."
He said it is important for young lawyers and graduates to continue to be nimble and flexible in what they expect.
"I think it's an exciting time to come out," said Justice Xu.
Continue reading...
For Justice Aidan Xu, who heads transformation and innovation in the judiciary, many people already think that generative AI could affect jobs in the legal sector, even his own.
But instead of AI completely replacing humans, Justice Xu said in an exclusive interview with CNA that the technology might eventually allow judges to be appointed even if they do not have formal legal training.
"There is a strong likelihood that you won't need a lawyer to be a judge," the National University of Singapore alumnus said as he also stressed that a fully AI judge or lawyer is improbable in the near future.
"The human element will be an important part of the role of a judge, in deciding cases, in deciding who to believe, in deciding what outcome should follow," he said.
Possessing "specialist legal knowledge", on the other hand, might become less important in a decade or two as AI advances, said Justice Xu.
For example, a family law judge of the future could focus on his ability to provide counselling or guidance for couples undergoing divorce, while AI supplies the legal expertise.
Or, there could be an engineer playing the role of a judge in construction dispute cases, with supplementary assistance from AI.
"That's where I think it might actually evolve, and I think there's a chance I might see it during my lifetime, and certainly for lawyers, I think the role of lawyers will change," said Justice Xu, who started out as a justices' law clerk in the Supreme Court in 1997.
Under the State Courts Act, a person can be appointed a district judge only if he or she has been a "qualified person" as defined under the Legal Profession Act for at least seven years.
UPCOMING TECH INITIATIVES IN COURT
The 55-year-old court veteran added that he is not "a deep techie" but is someone "comfortable with tech".
Over the past few years, Justice Xu as well as his colleagues in the judiciary have unveiled a slew of AI and other advanced tech initiatives in the Singapore courts.
For example, the courts recently announced a collaboration with American start-up Harvey AI that has resulted in a summary tool for Small Claims Tribunals, where parties are self-represented.
The tool generates summaries of each side's case to help parties who do not have law expertise have a clearer, punchier snapshot of the legal arguments involved. The tool can also help the tribunal magistrate, who has to go through voluminous documents in a short time.
Another earlier project by the courts was the development of algorithms or rules for motor accident claims.
These algorithms can consider various factors, such as the nature of the collision, where it occurred and the type of damage, in order to narrow down the range of likely outcomes in a court setting.
This can help people in motor traffic accidents decide what their next step is, whether they would like to negotiate or accept a form of settlement.
Harvey AI also has a translation tool that was made available in March this year and is now used for Small Claims Tribunals cases to help translate witness statements and documentary evidence.
In the future, the courts are looking at more extensive use of AI like bulk translation, and a possibility of providing AI-enabled transcription of testimony or oral proceedings to court users at "a low cost", said Justice Xu.
"We're not thinking of replacing our human translators or interpreters, but we can see that there is room for more extensive use of AI in terms of bulk translation," he said.
"I think for general translation in court proceedings, the human element will still be necessary and required."
The courts have been exploring AI-enabled court transcription systems for several years, testing various systems with various databases, said Justice Xu.
He said the challenge was that the AI and the software are just one part of it, and there were issues that cropped up that were not anticipated.
"One of it, for example, is the acoustics of some of our older courtrooms. Acoustics can be quite bad," said Justice Xu.
To this end, there has been much work trying to improve the various microphone systems employed in courtrooms to improve the quality of voice recordings, which are then processed by AI.
But this also led to some unintended "hot mic" moments.
"Sometimes we run up against human habits. Again, as a lawyer myself, and I think some of my colleagues in the Bar still do it - we will speak to the judge, but often we turn around and start speaking to our colleague, hopefully in a softer voice. But because our systems are quite sensitive, we'll pick up things we're not supposed to."
Another issue in Singapore's context is that people sometimes switch languages as they speak.
"We testify in English, but there'll be something that comes up in Mandarin. The system may not realise we're actually speaking Mandarin ... and will try to translate the Mandarin sounds as English," said Justice Xu.
This is the "sheer unpredictability of how the courtroom will function", versus transcription in a controlled setting like a call centre with a person speaking into a headset, he said.
Already, existing commercial court transcribers are aided by AI.
However, there is a hefty premium for court users that can be upwards of thousands of dollars per day. The judiciary hopes to make accurate transcription available to general court users at a low fee, said Justice Xu.
In the more distant future, he said the courts hope to explore whether it is possible for Harvey AI to propose settlement outcomes by looking at ranges of other cases, among other things.
"In the field of maintenance claims, it might be possible to have a system that will apply an algorithm to propose outcomes or solutions to parties who are in dispute about the maintenance they might be owing or might be claiming," said Justice Xu.
Justice Aidan Xu shares his ideas for the future of the Singapore courts. (Photo: CNA/Wallace Woon)
CHALLENGES FACED
Justice Xu said that one of the challenges
"And importantly, that they see AI is only a tool, and they cannot use it as a shortcut," he said.
"So we want them to understand that they must continue to fulfil their functions as judges, judicial officers or administrators in the right way, and they don't click on an AI button and generate (an) answer and just pass that off as their work. It's a temptation that I think applies across the board in all industries," said Justice Xu.
To address this, the courts are working out mechanisms, some in the form of training, some as guidance and others as monitoring.
The courts also rolled out a guide last year for court users who intend to use AI.
Justice Xu said the courts had thought of implementing a disclosure system such that a user had to disclose if they were going to use AI, but they quickly realised this would not work. AI could potentially be used in everything from the initial search to crafting of documents, for example, he said.
Asked about the misuse of AI by legal practitioners, Justice Xu said these instances of misuse will "continue to fester" and the courts are monitoring them.
Last month, a lawyer was made to pay personal costs for citing a fake legal case created by AI. In a separate case on Nov 3, two lawyers of local law firms were also chided for citing non-existent cases that were hallucinated by AI tools, reported the Business Times.
For now, the individual judges dealing with each case would "address their minds to it".
"But I suspect there will continue to be instances for some time, and we will be monitoring and seeing what might be appropriate and if the circumstances call for it, we'll have to discuss with the Chief Justice whether there might be some more systemic-wide response that might be required," he said.
As for how the judiciary has reacted to the advent of AI and such technology, Justice Xu said that for the judges, there has been "a lot of curiosity" and "enthusiasm coupled with a bit of anxiety".
While people can see the advantages of AI, there has been some reluctance stemming from the fear of AI hallucinations or unreliable information. Hallucinations happen when an AI model generates incorrect, misleading or nonsensical information while presenting it as factual.
Some of the applicants who were called to the Bar virtually on May 13, 2020. (Photo: Supreme Court)
"The advantage of the Singapore legal industry has been that we've gone through a lot of technological changes in the last 20, 30 years. So by this time, everyone is quite used to technology, and they understand there is a need for it," he said.
Asked about how court caters to users who are not familiar with digital systems, Justice Xu said the courts are aware of this and are "constantly on the lookout for pain points".
He said there is a conscious effort to see how to provide information in a better, simpler way and to provide the human touch where necessary, such as student volunteers.
Not every solution for every problem is a technological one, Justice Xu said, pointing to the courts' philosophy, as laid down by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.
"Our approach is to really make sure we understand what the problem is and then think of the appropriate solution," he said. "So in some cases, the solution may be AI, it may be some other form of technology, but in some other cases, it may be no technology at all."
"So we always have to bear that in mind, and that's one of my roles, really, to make sure that we bring a non-techie perspective, sometimes, so that we don't always bring technology to bear on a problem that doesn't quite need technology," said Justice Xu.
"Sometimes the answer for us might actually be to relook some of our legal rules, our procedural requirements, sometimes even our business processes, and to see whether we can solve the problem by amending these things rather than trying to deploy technology."
IMPACT OF AI ON JOBS
On whether the advent of generative AI could affect jobs or has already done so, Justice Xu reiterated that it has "opened the way for a lot of change across all industries" and Singapore is beginning to see the impact.
"Some of it will be a bit hard for us to be definite about for some time, but I suspect the way things are going with the greater deployment of technology to assist lawyers, in particular, with drafting, with going through evidence, with kind of searching through precedents," he said.
"A lot of the kind of grunt work, or basic work that is currently done by younger lawyers, is going to be affected, and there will be less need to deploy young lawyers in these areas."
He said the main challenge for the Singapore legal sector would be to "weigh the impact of these changes".
That means that legal professionals should consider what might be needed to "improve or replace the work that has been taken away", and to boost training for young lawyers before they enter the profession as well as in the first few years when they become practicing lawyers.
The judiciary is aware of these challenges and that the Chief Justice has initiated a number of projects to start looking at this and prepare for the necessary changes,
"The solutions will probably not be easy, nor I think can they be one dimensional.
"We may have to do more of other things, such as role playing, for instance, we may have to have more intensive training in some other areas, we may have to provide more manuals, books, instructions and that sort of thing, but it's really something that we have to grapple with and address."
Despite the emergence of AI in the legal sector, Justice Xu stressed that there will always be demand for Singapore's legal talent.
"It's a testament to the quality of legal education that our graduates are in demand across the legal world. And I think that is going to intensify," he said.
"There are many, many more opportunities for our graduates in different countries, in different specialisations. I think where AI will affect the equation is that it may accelerate the kind of pressure to explore new areas of work. It will open new doors. It might close off some, but it will open up others."
He said it is important for young lawyers and graduates to continue to be nimble and flexible in what they expect.
"I think it's an exciting time to come out," said Justice Xu.
Continue reading...