Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Keynote Address at the Litigation Conference 2024

KEYNOTE ADDRESS, LITIGATION CONFERENCE 2024

“The Transformation of Litigation and the Litigator of the Future”

Wednesday, 3 April 2024

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*
Supreme Court of Singapore

Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen

I. Introduction

1                 Good morning. I am delighted to address you at the opening of this 10^th edition of the Litigation Conference. Just over a decade ago, the Civil Practice Committee of the Law Society noted that although there were many arbitration-related conferences in Singapore, there were few if any similar events dedicated to litigation. They resolved to develop a platform that would fill this gap and, today, this Conference has become a central forum for litigators, judges, and other key stakeholders to come together to discuss important and topical aspects of litigation. I congratulate the Law Society for overseeing the successful growth of this event. And I would also like to thank the organisers for inviting me to deliver this address, and for all their work in planning and coordinating this year’s Conference.

2                 As we mark this milestone in the history of this Conference, it is timely for us to survey the state of litigation and to look ahead to the future. That is what I propose to do in this address, and my remarks will fall into two main parts.

1. First, I will suggest that we are in the midst of a profound and far-reaching transformation of litigation. This is being driven by three main trends: first, the rise of artificial intelligence (or “AI”) and other advances in technology; second, the complexification of disputes; and third, the internationalisation of litigation. I will unpack these trends and suggest some key implications they might have for our practice of litigation.
2. In the second part of my address, I will turn to the mindset and capabilities that litigators will need if they are to thrive in the rapidly developing landscape. I will suggest that the litigator of the future will require certain attitudes or dispositions, should acquire a range of new skills and knowledge, and should even reimagine the approach to her calling.

II. The transformation of litigation – three central trends

3                 Let me begin with the ongoing sea-change in litigation. This is a product of several trends, the most prominent of which is perhaps the rise of AI and other advances in technology.

A. The rise of AI and other advances in technology

4                 In September last year, the International Bar Association (or “IBA”) issued a Legal Agenda on the leading issues for the legal profession. AI was ranked as the foremost issue, with the IBA hypothesising that AI will have a vast and multi-faceted impact on lawyers.⁽¹⁾ I share those sentiments, and suggest that AI and other digital innovations will transform litigation, in at least three ways.

5                 First, there will be a proliferation of new substantive legal issues. It might be helpful to think of these issues as falling into at least two main categories.

1. The first set of issues relates to whether AI systems should be ascribed legal rights. Such questions underlay the DABUS litigation brought by Dr Stephen Thaler in several jurisdictions, which concerned whether an AI system could be recognised as the inventor of certain patents.⁽²⁾ These issues raise deep philosophical and policy concerns, and will require careful consideration. I anticipate that our societies will take some time to arrive at the appropriate legal responses, which will likely be reflected in new legislation.
   
2. The second set of issues relates to liability for the development and use of AI systems. For instance, in the context of civil liability, the New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, contending that millions of its articles were used to train chatbots that now compete with it as a source of information.⁽³⁾ And new issues of criminal liability will also arise. Suppose, for example, that an autonomous bus were to crash into a crowd of pedestrians, causing serious injuries to people. In such a case, can a criminal charge be filed? Who would be the appropriate accused person? I suggest that unlike the first set of issues, questions of liability may call for an immediate judicial response given the harm or loss involved, even if specific regulatory regimes to cater for these issues have yet to crystallise. Hence, AI liability issues will likely become prominent in litigation, and litigators will have to assist the courts to arrive at fair and principled outcomes using the existing legal frameworks.

6                 The second way in which AI and other advances in technology will change litigation is by transforming its methods. Litigators will increasingly come to rely on AI tools, rather than junior lawyers or paralegals, for research, drafting, and other basic legal tasks. Such products are already being used by major legal players. For instance, Allen & Overy, PwC, and Macfarlanes have adopted Harvey, a generative AI tool that can answer legal queries, summarise information, and create documents.⁽⁴⁾ And software such as the OpenAI GPT Builder, which enables users to create custom AI models without the need for coding, will foster the development of in-house products⁽⁵⁾ like fleetAI, a client-secure chatbot developed by Dentons.⁽⁶⁾

7                 Such generative AI tools are already highly capable. To take one example, Lawrence, an “AI paralegal” created by Lawhive, a lawtech firm, scored 74% on the first half of the UK Solicitors Qualifying Examination, significantly exceeding the typical pass mark of around 60%.⁽⁷⁾ And, law firms stand to reap substantial costs savings in the short-term by deploying such tools, in place of junior lawyers or paralegals, to carry out certain tasks. Hence, it seems likely that litigators will look to AI products to provide an increasing amount of the support work that they require.

8                 And this will likely change the composition of litigation teams, in at least two main ways.⁽⁸⁾ First, there will likely be fewer junior lawyers and paralegals as more routine legal tasks become automated by technology. This, of course, has serious implications for how we will train our juniors in such an environment, but that is a subject for another occasion. Second, we can expect growing demand for professionals able to develop and refine AI and other digital tools for litigation. In particular, legally trained persons with expertise in technology, whom I refer to as “legal technologists”, and allied legal professionals skilled in data science, design thinking and related fields, are likely to come to the fore. Litigators will likely work closely with these other professionals in multi-disciplinary teams, to develop and deploy digital tools that will aid them in litigation.

9                 I turn to the third and perhaps the most significant way in which AI and other digital tools are likely to affect litigation. These innovations will probably reduce the demand for traditional litigation services and even the role of litigation as a means to resolve certain basic or routine legal problems. Let me unpack these two points.

10                 First, AI and other digital products will enable the ordinary citizen to take part in certain types of litigation without engaging a lawyer. Indeed, as Professor Richard Susskind, one of the world’s leading experts in this field, puts it, “[t]he main social benefit of legal AI” will be in “empowering people who are not lawyers to handle their own legal affairs”.⁽⁹⁾ Digital tools are already assisting laypersons with legal research as well as the creation and filing of court documents. One example is the Legal Aid Bureau’s Intelligent Legal Assistance Bot, which can answer queries on civil and family disputes, assess a user’s eligibility for legal aid, and even generate legal documents.⁽¹⁰⁾ Similarly, the Divorce and Probate eServices offered by the Singapore courts can help users create and file the necessary documents for divorce and probate applications.⁽¹¹⁾ And last year, our courts signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Harvey, the AI startup behind the eponymous tool, to develop a generative AI program that aims to help users of the Small Claims Tribunals. We hope that the tool will be able to answer legal queries, help users create court documents and prepare their case for hearing, and even provide an assessment of the likely outcome of litigated cases.⁽¹²⁾ Such tools have the potential to assist parties to represent themselves in court proceedings, and in that way reduce some demand for litigation services.

11                 Beyond this, and even more fundamentally, AI and other digital tools will diminish the very role of litigation as a means of resolving certain legal problems. Take the Motor Accidents Claims Online simulator (or “MACO”), a free online platform developed by our courts and the Singapore Academy of Law.⁽¹³⁾ This enables the parties involved in a road accident to assess their liabilities and the likely amount of compensation that might be awarded for any injuries. MACO ultimately serves to facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes, which averts the need for litigation. Similarly, in the UK, AI-driven alternative dispute resolution (or “ADR”) tools are being integrated into online court platforms. These tools will encourage court users to engage in pre-action ADR processes like mediation or early neutral evaluation, and thereby filter out many disputes from the court system.⁽¹⁴⁾ In these ways, digital legal products will help bring about what Professor Susskind calls “a shift from dispute resolution to dispute avoidance”.⁽¹⁵⁾ The upshot is that litigation will probably play a less conspicuous part in the justice systems of the future, at least in so far as simpler and more routine matters are concerned.

B. The complexification of disputes

12                 Let me turn to the second key trend that is transforming litigation: the increasing complexity or complexification of disputes. This is especially evident in commercial disputes, many of which are already highly complex and sophisticated and involve voluminous amounts of evidence. Yet this trend is not limited to commercial cases, but is rearing its head across the whole spectrum of disputes.

1. “Mega-litigation” is becoming a feature not just of high-stakes or technical commercial disputes, but has begun to take hold in other areas like criminal litigation. Take the John Soh prosecution, which centred on charges relating to stock market manipulation. There, the trial before the General Division of the High Court lasted a total of 169 days, and the court’s written decision spanned almost 900 pages.⁽¹⁶⁾


2. And at the other end of the spectrum, disputes that typically have been considered routine are also becoming more complex. For example, in a recent civil claim arising out of a road traffic accident, the General Division of the High Court had to consider several pieces of technical evidence to resolve a question of contributory negligence. The court examined speed and location data from Strava (a fitness application used to track physical exercise), as well as various facets of a complex accident reconstruction dealing with such concepts as perception reaction time and point of hazard perception.⁽¹⁷⁾

13                 What, then, are the forces driving the phenomenon of complexification? I suggest that the root cause is a profound and continuing transformation in the nature of information,⁽¹⁸⁾ which has two main aspects.

1. The first is what has been called “information inflation”⁽¹⁹⁾ or “the information explosion”: that is, the exponential growth in the sheer amount of available information. This can be traced to advances in digital technology, which have dramatically expanded the amount of information that is created and recorded. In turn, this has led to evidential complexity, which refers to the increasing volume of data and documents that are generated, stored, and then produced as evidence.⁽²⁰⁾ This trend shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, it has been suggested that the growing prevalence of smart devices will drive a surge in “digital habit evidence”, in the form of records of patterns of behaviour that are gathered by digital gadgets.⁽²¹⁾
   
2. The second aspect of the transformation of information relates to its increasingly technical nature. Scientific advances have opened up new and vast fields of knowledge, and have led to a proliferation of arcane concepts and methods. This has given rise to what has been called the “scientization of factual inquiry”, which refers to the growing use of technical analysis and procedures to ascertain the facts in almost every area.⁽²²⁾ The result has been a tremendous increase in the technical complexity of litigation.⁽²³⁾

14                 I suggest that the complexification of disputes carries serious implications for litigation. Traditionally, in common law jurisdictions, litigation has involved an adversarial system, liberal discovery, and an exhaustive search for the truth. Yet as a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia once observed, that model of litigation developed when “the world was innocent of typewriters and carbon paper”, to say nothing of contemporary technology.⁽²⁴⁾ Indeed, complexification exerts a serious strain on our paradigms of litigation in at least two ways.

1. First, complexification puts considerable pressure on adjudicators who will face significant challenges in delivering justice under the traditional model of common law litigation. That model calls for the painstaking analysis of all the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, but this will increasingly run up against the finite limits to the amount and difficulty of material that any human adjudicator can process. Studies have found that once these thresholds are breached, decision-makers tend to overlook relevant material and to rely on mental shortcuts, which compromises the quality of their decision-making.⁽²⁵⁾
   
2. Second, complexification renders the orthodox model of litigation a disproportionate tool for many disputes. Applying that model would require significant time and expense to be spent on resolving even routine disputes, as these become increasingly complex.⁽²⁶⁾ This would undermine the key procedural value of proportionality, which calls for the cost and speed of the dispute-settlement tool to bear a reasonable relation to the size of the dispute.⁽²⁷⁾

15                 There is, therefore, an urgent need for us to reconsider and reform the practice of litigation so that it may remain relevant in our environment of growing complexity.

C. The internationalisation of litigation

16                 I turn to the third main trend that is affecting litigation. This relates to the internationalisation of litigation, which has at least two aspects.

17                 First, legal disputes today increasingly feature transnational elements. This is again particularly evident in the commercial field. The growth of cross-border business has meant that commercial disputes often involve parties from different jurisdictions, as well as transactions spanning multiple countries. Such disputes are increasingly being litigated in Singapore, due to our rise as a nodal jurisdiction for the resolution of commercial disputes.⁽²⁸⁾ This is reflected in the steady growth of the caseload of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre as well as that of the Singapore International Commercial Court (or “SICC”), which has now issued over 160 judgments since its establishment.⁽²⁹⁾

18                 And beyond commercial disputes, many types of disputes that used to be considered “domestic” now often have transnational facets. This is perhaps best illustrated by reference to family disputes. In the past, such disputes were largely confined within a national jurisdiction. However, a steady growth in the number of transnational families has led to a rise in troubled marriages involving citizens or residents of different countries, who often hold assets across the world.⁽³⁰⁾ This has spawned a range of novel and complex legal issues, including those relating to international child abduction and relocation⁽³¹⁾ and the appropriate judicial approach to parallel family proceedings in multiple forums.⁽³²⁾

19                 Significantly, many transnational disputes that will be litigated in Singapore will raise issues relating to civil law. This is because many Asian countries have civil law systems, and disputes involving parties and events in those countries will come to our jurisdiction due to our growing status as a centre for the resolution of disputes in Asia. This suggests a real need for litigators to be familiar with civil law systems, especially those of key Asian jurisdictions. I will return to this later.

20                 The second dimension of the increasingly transnational nature of litigation relates to the development of instruments that facilitate cross-border communication and collaboration between courts. A prime example is the Judicial Insolvency Network (or “JIN”) Guidelines. These set out a framework for cooperation between courts that are presiding over different parts of cross-border insolvency disputes, in areas like the sharing of documents and the convening of joint hearings. The JIN Guidelines have formed the basis of cross-border protocols between our courts and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in three cases, including a recent dispute involving Garuda Indonesia.⁽³³⁾

21                 Apart from the JIN Guidelines, there are other important mechanisms that might not yet be fully appreciated. Let me give two examples.

1. First, the Supreme Court of Singapore has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with several major courts, including the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, on references of questions of foreign law.⁽³⁴⁾ These instruments provide for issues regarding the law of the counterpart foreign court to be referred to that court either for determination or for the rendering of a non-binding opinion. In other words, if such a reference were made, a foreign court may play a significant role in helping to resolve issues in a dispute litigated in Singapore.
   
2. And, in the context of family disputes, the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children has developed an innovative protocol. This provides for communication between designated persons, where cross-border family disputes involving children arise within ASEAN, to arrange the mediation of such disputes.⁽³⁵⁾ In gist, under this mechanism, a family judge in Singapore may collaborate with a foreign counterpart to facilitate the mediation of a cross-border family dispute.

D. The implications for litigation

23                 These, then, are three key trends that are transforming litigation; and in summary, I suggest there are five major implications.

1. First, litigation will likely come to play a less significant role in resolving certain routine civil disputes. Such disputes will often be settled through ADR tools, many of which will be powered by online AI models.
2. Second, we can expect growing pressure for a new model of litigation that is proportionate to and viable for the increasingly complex disputes that will arise.
3. Third, AI and other digital tools will become central to the methods and work practices of litigators.
4. Fourth, new legal issues relating to AI and technology will emerge.
5. Fifth, both legal disputes and the litigation process will become more transnational.

III. Part 2: The litigator of the future

24                 How, then, can the litigator of the future excel in this brave new world? In the remainder of my address, I will take up this question; and I will focus on the mindset as well as the skills and knowledge that I think a litigator will need going forward.

A. Mindset

25                 I begin with the mindset. I suggest that the litigator of the future must have three basic attitudes or dispositions, and in addition, should reconceptualise the approach she takes to the practice of her vocation.

26                 First, the litigator of the future must dedicate herself to lifelong learning. This is key because the central challenge presented by all three trends that I have spoken on relates to what has been called the decreasing “half-life of knowledge”.⁽³⁶⁾ This refers to the diminishing span of time that it takes for the body of knowledge in a field to be superseded or supplemented by new information. As I will explain shortly, AI, complexification, and the growing internationalisation of litigation all make it imperative for litigators to acquire new skills and knowledge; and yet, these proficiencies may be becoming obsolete even as litigators are acquiring them. This presents an existential threat for litigators, because specialised knowledge lies at the heart of their value proposition. Hence, litigators must commit to a lifelong quest to learn in order to secure their continued relevance.

27                 Continuing legal education will therefore be critical. It is therefore timely that the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education has recommended an annual 16-point Continuing Professional Development requirement for all practising lawyers, though this change will be introduced in stages for more senior practitioners.⁽³⁷⁾ I encourage all lawyers to support this proposal, which is ultimately intended to help you navigate and thrive in our rapidly changing landscape.

28                 The second key disposition that a litigator must have is a commitment to collaboration. At first glance, this might seem surprising and somewhat at odds with the role of a litigator. The traditional archetype of a litigator has been that of a gladiator, who wages a battle to advance the client’s interests.⁽³⁸⁾ But I contend that a purely adversarial approach to litigation may no longer be apt, especially given the reality of complexification. The problem of complexification calls for a change in our perspective on litigation, and a collaborative ethos will be fundamental to that new paradigm. Let me explain this.

29                 Two of the key strategies to address the problem of complexification, are containing disputes before they escalate, and downsizing them once they arise.⁽³⁹⁾ Procedures that reflect these strategies have already been introduced by our courts. For example, the SICC offers a Litigation-Mediation-Litigation (or “LML”) framework, which enables aspects of a dispute to be hived off in mediation.⁽⁴⁰⁾ Similarly, the Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol for cases on the Technology, Infrastructure and Construction List of the SICC empowers parties to streamline their disputes. Under this procedure, the parties can agree, for instance, that the outcome of certain lower value claims will be pegged to the outcome of their main claims, and thereby avert the need to present evidence and submissions on those minor claims.⁽⁴¹⁾

30                 Yet all these mechanisms can only work with cooperation between the parties.⁽⁴²⁾ For example, the LML protocol will only be effective if the parties and their lawyers approach the mediation phase in a spirit of collaboration, and strive to settle aspects that need not be taken through litigation. And the Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol only applies if the parties are willing to forgo a contest over their lower value claims. This illustrates why an ethos of collaboration will be essential to the success of strategies to manage complexification.

31                 This requires us to reimagine the archetype of a litigator. A rigidly adversarial mindset will only deprive the client of the benefits of tools that can manage complexity, and thereby secure more efficient and effective dispute-resolution. In this environment of increasing complexity, advancing the client’s interests will require that litigators adopt a more collaborative philosophy, in suitable cases.

32                 The third main disposition of the litigator of the future is a willingness to embrace technology. This is critical because new and emerging digital tools offer many opportunities, including new ways of addressing the challenges arising from the three trends that I have touched on. For example, eDiscovery software can help to manage the problem of evidential complexity by rapidly sifting through material to identify relevant information.⁽⁴³⁾ Similarly, generative AI tools can help litigators cope with having to digest materials on novel legal issues by providing useful summaries.

33                 Litigators should therefore be open to testing and adopting new digital tools. But beyond this, there will be a need for substantial human resource and capital investments, because these will be required to build the multi-disciplinary legal teams and customised products that will support litigation in the future. I therefore encourage practitioners to take a long-term view when assessing the value of such investments, and to make the necessary commitments.

34                 Finally, in this context, the litigator of the future should reimagine the approach to the practice of her calling in at least two other ways.

1. First, litigation must be seen as just one and not necessarily the best tool for resolving a dispute, especially for certain basic or routine civil disputes that will increasingly be capable of being resolved effectively and efficiently through ADR mechanisms. Those areas of practice may become increasingly obsolete, and litigators should therefore focus on the complex legal work that will not be easily replaceable by technology.⁽⁴⁴⁾
   
2. Second, litigators should come to see their practice, even in what has typically been considered “domestic” areas like family law, as an increasingly transnational endeavour. This has implications for the expertise, skills, and knowledge that litigators should seek to acquire, and it is to this, I now turn.

B. Skills and knowledge

35                 There are at least three important areas that will need attention: substantive legal knowledge, digital legal practice skills and ethical principles.

36                 In relation to substantive legal knowledge, litigators should keep abreast of the new and emerging legal issues arising from advances in AI and other legal technology. In particular, as I mentioned earlier, liability issues will soon have to be addressed, and litigators will therefore need to be aware of the latest legal developments to assist the courts in coming up with solutions. I do not envision that we will be able to resolve all of the emerging legal issues simply by applying existing legal concepts and frameworks. Rather, rapid advances in technology may well bring some significant developments in basic areas of the law like contract and tort.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Hence, it is imperative that litigators apprise themselves of the evolving case law from other legal centres as well as legislation relating to AI and other technology already being developed around the world.

37                 Next, given the increasingly transnational nature of litigation, knowledge of civil law systems and cross-border legal instruments will be essential.

1. First, litigators must be familiar with civil law principles and procedures because, as I noted earlier, Singapore will increasingly attract disputes linked to other Asian jurisdictions, and many of those jurisdictions have civil law systems. Recognising this reality, the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education has recommended that law students be exposed to core elements of civil law relating to basic aspects of civil and commercial practice, and in particular to relevant tenets of Chinese and Indonesian law.⁽⁴⁶⁾ But beyond a basic grounding in civil law, litigators will likely need a sufficient understanding of the relevant civil law concepts and practices in their respective fields of practice. Hence, they should endeavour to acquire, expand, and refresh their knowledge of civil law systems on an ongoing basis.
   
   
2. Further, litigators will need to be aware of the mechanisms for court-to-court collaboration which I spoke on earlier. These are likely to take on an increasingly prominent role in court proceedings, and you must therefore appreciate when they apply, how they operate, and the benefits that they can bring to the resolution of a transnational dispute.

38                 The second type of expertise that litigators will require relates to digital legal practice skills. I will focus on two aspects of this.

1. First, as generative AI products are increasingly adopted in legal practice, litigators must become adept in the use of such tools. For instance, it has been suggested that “prompt engineering” will be vital.⁽⁴⁷⁾ This refers to the ability to craft suitable forms of input or prompts for a generative AI system that can trigger the system to produce the most useful output. At the same time, another key proficiency in relation to such tools is a keen awareness of their limitations. In particular, one must appreciate that text-generative AI models are essentially word-prediction engines with no grasp of the truth, and can therefore produce apparently credible output that is entirely false.
   
   
2. Litigators must also acquire at least a basic understanding of data science and digital thinking. As I mentioned earlier, law firms will likely come to comprise multidisciplinary teams of lawyers, legal technologists and allied legal professionals, and knowledge of these other areas will be key to enable litigators to work effectively in such teams. It is worth exploring courses such as the Singapore Management University’s Graduate Certificate in Law and Technology, which includes modules on data, design thinking, and other areas related to legal technology.⁽⁴⁸⁾

39                 Finally, the litigator of the future should be familiar with ethical principles relating to AI and other technology.

1. In terms of professional ethics, litigators must be aware of what their professional conduct obligations require in relation to the use of AI tools. Let me mention two basic precepts. First, given that text-generative AI can produce completely fabricated material, litigators must verify the accuracy and currency of all AI-generated output before submitting such material to the court. Second, litigators must ensure that they do not include client information in the prompts that they enter into public generative AI tools, so as to avoid breaching their duties of client confidentiality.⁽⁴⁹⁾ These are just two tenets, and the Judiciary is considering issuing more detailed guidance to the profession in due course. This should be complemented by law firms providing sustainable workplaces where lawyers are mentored, supported and empowered to pursue high ethical and professional standards generally, including in the use of AI tools. Sound work practices, structured mentoring, access to quality resources and a firm culture emphasising education and instruction will be crucial to the effective and ethical use of AI in the profession in the long-term.
   
   
2. And beyond professional ethics, the litigator of the future should also apprise herself of the normative issues arising from the use of AI and other digital tools. For example, there is an ongoing debate over the use of AI tools in adjudication and whether this might infringe what has been called “the right to a human decision”.⁽⁵⁰⁾ That conversation would be greatly enriched by the informed views of practising lawyers, and I hope that litigators will come to grips with the ethical concepts and contribute to the conversation.

IV. Conclusion

40                 The subject of my address has been the transformation of litigation and its implications for litigators. But I would like to conclude by addressing what should not and cannot change. In a speech delivered in 1947, Sir Norman Birkett, one of the most renowned advocates of his time, observed that every civilised community must have a body of persons trained in the law who will give voice to the ordinary citizen. That goal, as he put it, is “the centre of all the … work and the … ambition [of a litigator]”.⁽⁵¹⁾ Some eight decades on, and even in the midst of the ongoing sea-change around us, that still rings true; and this suggests that the litigator’s core role of defending and vindicating the rights of her client must and will endure. My purpose today has not been to cast a shadow over that role, but to shine a light on the major changes that are sweeping across litigation, and to suggest how the litigator of the future should evolve so as to continue to perform that essential service to society.

41                 Thank you very much, and I wish you all a fruitful conference.

^{*       I am deeply grateful to my law clerk, Bay Jia Wei, and my colleagues, Assistant Registrars Bryan Ching, Tan Ee Kuan, and Wee Yen Jean, for all their assistance in the research for and preparation of this address.
(1)       The International Bar Association (IBA) Legal Agenda 2023/2028 at p 4.
(2)       Courts in several jurisdictions have held that the DABUS system could not be recognised as an inventor. For example, the UK Supreme Court held that under the Patents Act 1977 (UK), an inventor must be a natural person; hence, DABUS could not be an inventor under UK law: see Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49.
(3)       Michael M Grynbaum and Ryan Mac, “The Times Sues OpenAI and Microsoft over AI Use of Copyrighted Work”, The New York Times (27 December 2023): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html.
(4)       Sara Merken, “UK law firm is latest to partner with legal AI startup Harvey”, Reuters (21 September 2023): https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/uk-law-firm-is-latest-partner-with-legal-ai-startup-harvey-2023-09-21/.
(5)       Joanna Goodman, “Generative AI – one year on”, The Law Society Gazette (1 December 2023) (“Goodman, “Generative AI – one year on””): https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/generative-ai-one-year-on/5118084.article.
(6)       Dentons, “Dentons to launch client secure version of ChatGPT” (1 August 2023): https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2023/august/dentons-to-launch-client-secure-version-of-chatgpt.
(7)       Thomas Connelly, “‘AI paralegal’ passes SQE”, Legal Cheek (24 November 2023): https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/11/ai-paralegal-passes-sqe/.
(8)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Legal Systems in a Digital Age: Pursuing the Next Frontier”, Opening Address at the 3rd Annual France-Singapore Symposium on Law and Business (11 May 2023) (“Legal Systems in a Digital Age”) at para 31; John Armour, Richard Parnham and Mari Sako, “Augmented Lawyering” (2022) University of Illinois Law Review 71 (“Armour, Parnham and Sako”) at 74–75, 81–82 and 95.
(9)       Richard Susskind, “Forget the firms, we should be asking what legal AI means for clients”, The Times (15 December 2023) (“Susskind”).
(10)       Ministry of Law, “Guide to iLab”: https://www.lab.mlaw.gov.sg/resources/guide-to-ilab/.
(11)       SG Courts, Divorce and Probate eServices: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/services/e-platforms/divorce-eservice; https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/services/e-platforms/probate-eservice.
(12)       Lee Li Ying, “Small Claims Tribunals to roll out AI program to guide users through legal processes”, The Straits Times (27 September 2023): https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/small-claims-tribunal-to-roll-out-ai-program-to-guide-users-through-legal-processes.
(13)       Singapore Academy of Law, Motor Accident Claims Online: https://motoraccidents.lawnet.sg/.
(14)       Geoffrey Vos MR, “The Future for Dispute Resolution: Horizon Scanning” (17 March 2022) at paras 3, 6 and 42.
(15)       Susskind.
(16)       PP v Soh Chee Wen & Quah Su-Ling [2023] SGHC 299.
(17)       Chia June Theo Grace (alias Xie Yunzhen) Mrs Grace Doney and others v Selvakumar Ranjan and another [2023] SGHC 117 at [56]–[57] and [63]–[96].
(18)       George L Paul and Jason R Baron, “Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt?” (2007) 13 Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 1 (“Paul and Baron”) at para 1.
(19)       Paul and Baron.
(20)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age”, Goff Lecture 2021 (9 November 2021) (“The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age”) at paras 16–22.
(21)       Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, “Digital Habit Evidence” (2023) 72(4) Duke Law Journal 723.
(22)       Mirjan R Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (Yale University Press, 1997) at 143.
(23)       The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age at paras 8–15.
(24)       Ronald Sackville, “Mega-litigation: towards a new approach” (2008) 27(2) Civil Justice Quarterly 244 at 249.
(25)       The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age at paras 28–34.
(26)       The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age” at paras 48–49.
(27)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Technology and the Changing Face of Justice”, Keynote Lecture at the Negotiation and Conflict Management Group ADR Conference 2019 (14 November 2019) at para 57.
(28)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Transnational System of Commercial Justice and the Place of International Commercial Courts”, Lecture in Bahrain (9 May 2023) (“Lecture in Bahrain”) at paras 49–54.
(29)       Singapore International Commercial Court, Judgments: https://www.sicc.gov.sg/hearings-judgments/judgments.
(30)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “International Family Justice as Collaborative Justice”, Paper delivered at the 18th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific (17 November 2022) (“International Family Justice as Collaborative Justice”) at paras 7–9 and 14.
(31)       See, eg, TUC v TUD [2017] 4 SLR 877.
(32)       See, eg, VEW v VEV [2022] 2 SLR 380; International Family Justice as Collaborative Justice at paras 28–29.
(33)       Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 1; Lecture in Bahrain at para 41. The other two proceedings involved Ezra Holdings Ltd and Three Arrows Capital Ltd respectively.
(34)       SG Courts, “References of questions of law between Singapore and foreign courts”: https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/who-we-are/references-questions-of-law-singapore-foreign-courts.
(35)       International Family Justice as Collaborative Justice at para 66.
(36)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “A Profession of Learners”, Mass Call Address 2019 (27 August 2019) at paras 9–10; Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Answering the Call in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, Mass Call Address 2023 (21 August 2023) (“Answering the Call in the Age of AI”) at paras 12–13; Fritz Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States (Princeton University Press, 1962); Samuel Arbesman, The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date (Penguin, 2013).
(37)       Report of the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education (January 2024) at paras 164–171.
(38)       Limor Zer Gutman and Karni Perlman, “The hybrid lawyer: changes in lawyers' practices in light of settlement-oriented adjudication” (2023) 42(3) Civil Justice Quarterly 276 at 281.
(39)       The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age at paras 53–62.
(40)       Singapore International Commercial Court, Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Framework: https://www.sicc.gov.sg/litigation-mediation-litigation-framework; Philip Jeyaretnam J, “Address on Appropriate Dispute Resolution”, Launch of Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Protocol & SICC Model Jurisdiction Clause for International Arbitration Matters (12 January 2023) at para 11.
(41)       SICC Rules 2021, Appendix E (Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol).
(42)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Constructing Collaboration: Remoulding the Resolution of Construction Disputes”, Keynote Address at the 9th Annual Conference of the International Academy of Construction Lawyers (14 April 2023) at para 20.
(43)       Legal Systems in a Digital Age at para 25.
(44)       Sundaresh Menon CJ, Response at the Opening of the Legal Year 2024 (8 January 2024) at para 36(c).
(45)       Answering the Call in the Age of AI at para 15.
(46)       Report of the Working Group for the Reform of Legal Education (January 2024) at paras 59–60.
(47)       Goodman, “Generative AI – one year on”.
(48)       Answering the Call in the Age of AI at para 17(a).
(49)       Answering the Call in the Age of AI at paras 21–22.
(50)       See, eg, John Tasioulas, “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: What it is and why we need it”, The 2023 Elson Ethics Lecture (4 October 2023).
(51)       Sir Norman Birkett, “The Art of Advocacy” (1947) 25 Canadian Bar Review 1039 at 1042.}