Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Opening Address at the Legal Profession Symposium 2026

LEGAL SYMPOSIUM 2026

Opening Address

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

Supreme Court of Singapore

Ladies and gentlemen 

I. Introduction

1. Thank you for joining us for at the Legal Profession Symposium 2026. I am delighted to have this opportunity to deliver this opening address. Last year, we had a wide-ranging conversation about how we should develop young lawyers, how we should respond to artificial intelligence, and build sustainable careers and workplaces. Today, we carry that conversation forward, by consolidating what we have learnt and, most importantly, by translating our understanding into practical action. 

II. The continuing conversation

2. You will hear from the incoming Chief Justice later. But before that, let me offer some reflections on how far we have come. As most of you will know, the sustainability of legal practice is not a new concern. It has been examined over the course of several years through surveys, consultations and direct engagement with the profession. 

3. One important strand of this work began at the Opening of the Legal Year 2023, when I announced the formation of the Ethics and Professional Standards Committee, which I will call the Ethics Committee.⁽¹⁾ The Committee was tasked with developing a strategy to reaffirm the moral centre and values of the profession, and to renew our understanding of the law as a calling to be answered with honesty, integrity and dedication.⁽²⁾ Although its starting point was professional standards, it soon became clear that such standards are best and perhaps only sustainably pursued in environments that provide the necessary conditions for them to flourish.⁽³⁾ The work of the Ethics Committee therefore came to encompass the conditions of sustainable practice.⁽⁴⁾ 

4. This wider enquiry drew support from the 2023 SAL Young Lawyers’ Survey, which examined not only young lawyers’ understanding of ethical and professional standards, but also the conditions in which those standards may be formed and sustained. The survey found that respondents generally understood what was expected of them, but they identified harassment, excessive workload and a culture of unethical behaviour as the leading impediments to successful practice. By contrast, a balanced lifestyle, reasonable workload and good leadership were identified as the strongest foundations of sustainable practice.(5)

5. We returned to these issues at last year’s Legal Profession Symposium. Participants spoke candidly about gaps in mentorship, the difficult transition from law school to practice, misaligned incentives and anxieties about the impact of AI on the training and development of junior lawyers. I also spent time during the Symposium engaging with the managing partners of our law firms on the need to rethink how legal practice is organised if it is to be sustained. My purpose was simple – to build a shared recognition that these were systemic challenges that no single institution will be able to resolve. I was greatly encouraged by the candour of the discussions and by the evident resolve to move beyond acknowledging the problems to actually addressing them. 

6. Since then, the conversation has continued through focus groups and dialogues with young and senior lawyers, from small and large firms, as well as with in-house counsel. When I joined one of these dialogues just two weeks ago, with more than thirty young lawyers, they spoke frankly about the difficulties they face in practice and offered some creative ideas and solutions. We have collated the observations arising from all of these various discussions, and they will inform our response.

7. The recent Anthro–LawSoc Legal Profession Sustainability Study,⁽⁶⁾ which I will call the “Sustainability Study”, adds to this body of evidence. Its findings will not surprise many of us, but they provide us with a stronger empirical basis for deepening the work that is already under way. It also raises concerns about pressures arising from court processes, to which I will return later. 

III. A structural and multifactorial challenge

8. The broader point from the discussions and surveys over the past few years is clear: sustainability is not a single-issue problem. It is the cumulative product of interconnected pressures across the legal ecosystem. I suggest five of them deserve particular attention: the intensity of legal work; the incentive structures through which that work is measured and rewarded; workplace culture; leadership and mentorship; and differing generational expectations.

9. Let me touch on each of these beginning with the intensity of legal work. The law is, and will remain, demanding. Mastery will require discipline, resilience and sustained effort. Sustainability cannot mean eliminating pressure, or lowering professional standards or treating every difficult demand as objectionable.  At the same time, we have to understand that young lawyers today experience the intensity of legal work in a way that previous generations did not, largely because of the pervasive and invasive effects of technology. Earlier generations could take home only as much work as their briefcases could carry. Today, work follows lawyers everywhere, all the time, and the possibility of being contacted at any hour, by seniors and by clients, can quickly become an expectation, and indeed, a demand of constant availability. Combined with keen competition, both domestically and internationally, and demanding client expectations, this can make it increasingly difficult for lawyers to disengage, recover and therefore, to sustain performance over time.

10. The second factor is how the work of our lawyers is measured and rewarded. Young lawyers have consistently identified billable targets as a major source of pressure. They speak of being held accountable for targets or for securing their own clients or for developing profitable practices early in their careers without adequate support or guidance, all despite having limited control over work allocation or fee recovery. All this raises some deeper questions. First, do our incentives reward what we should truly value: such as efficient work, sound judgment and ethical practice? Second, are we realistic in setting the burden of such expectations on our young colleagues even as they are struggling to bridge the gap between law school and the rigours of practice? Third, are we devoting enough time and attention to preparing them for a long, intense but very fulfilling career? And perhaps just as importantly, changing the way we work? Should we not be devoting attention to whether the hourly billing model remains relevant in this age of AI?

11. This leads to the third factor, which is workplace culture. Demanding work can remain meaningful and sustainable when undertaken in an environment of trust, respect and collegiality. Conversely, pressures that might otherwise be manageable can become intolerable when they are compounded by bullying, abusive communication, intimidation, or insufficient psychological safety. Not surprisingly, both the Final Report of the Ethics Committee⁽⁷⁾ and the Sustainability Study⁽⁸⁾ found workplace culture to be closely connected with lawyers’ ability and willingness of lawyers to remain in practice. Let me be clear that not every demanding deadline, late instruction or disagreement amount to bullying. Partners and senior lawyers must manage competing clients and matters and make difficult judgments under pressure. There must therefore be understanding on both sides, as I emphasised to the young lawyers I spoke to two weeks ago. But abusive emails, humiliation, and persistent disrespect towards colleagues have no place in our profession. 

12. The fourth factor pertains to gaps in leadership, mentoring and professional development. Mentorship is one of the most important ways through which a profession renews itself. Young lawyers do not become good lawyers just by receiving assignments and producing work. They develop by observing others, receiving feedback, and by being entrusted progressively with responsibility under proper supervision. In this way, mentors transmit not only technical competence, but also judgment, integrity and a devotion to the values of our profession. This is how the profession passes its standards and values from one generation to the next.

13. It is not surprising that the young lawyers I have spoken to were clear that they wanted more guidance from seniors who would create meaningful opportunities for them to learn, grow and develop. Yet only about one in ten respondents to the Young Lawyers’ Survey had participated in a structured mentorship programme.⁽⁹⁾ Part of the difficulty stem from the fact that lawyers are trained in law, and not necessarily in personnel management, while seniority is often assumed, without more, to equip us to supervise, delegate, lead teams and develop people. But the reality is that technical excellence does not automatically produce managerial or mentoring ability. We must therefore be more deliberate about equipping senior lawyers to lead and mentor well, and about recognising these responsibilities as a central part of professional leadership.

14. The fifth and last factor is a generational gap within the profession. Many senior lawyers entered practice when the path was relatively settled, and when long hours and personal sacrifice were regarded as part and parcel of what it would take to master the craft, while providing a secure route to partnership. Many younger lawyers place greater weight on boundaries, flexibility and meaningful work, a shift that the Ethics Committee has attributed in part to their having experienced the COVID-19 pandemic at a very formative stage of their lives and careers.⁽¹⁰⁾ In addition, as I have observed, a sort of constant connectivity and excitement, accessibility that they are subjected to simply not part of the reality that I, and I dare say, most of our senior colleagues, have endured at a comparable stage of our careers. And then there is the fact that the route to partnership may no longer be seen as secure or as reachable. These are tensions not to be equated with demands for an easier profession. But rather, they may reflect a different understanding of what professional commitment can sustainably require. If each generation reduces the other to stereotypes – one as unwilling to endure the demands of the craft, and the other as indifferent to the adverse costs of established practices – mutual misunderstanding will deepen disengagement.

15. The cumulative effect of these five pressures may be chronic stress, burnout, and anxiety. And the consequences extend beyond the individual. The Sustainability Study found that poor mental health was the strongest predictor of weakening attachment to the profession itself.⁽¹¹⁾ In other words, a lawyer worn down for long enough, stops asking whether to change firms, and starts asking whether to remain a lawyer at all.

16. That question is a much more viable one today than it was for many earlier generations. Younger lawyers have choices that earlier generations did not have in the same measure: moving to another firm, taking an in-house role, entering public service or academia, working overseas, or offshore, or leaving legal work altogether, all possible options.  A law degree is highly versatile, and the opportunity cost of remaining in practice is therefore much more visible.⁽¹²⁾

17. This mobility is undoubtedly a good thing for our young lawyers. But a continuing loss of talent could leave the practising profession insufficient to sustain the long term needs of our profession. Sustainability is therefore not merely an employment or organisational concern. At its core, it is a rule-of-law issue. The justice system cannot remain strong if the profession on which it depends cannot sustain meaningful and enduring careers.⁽¹³⁾

18. It follows that both the causes and consequences of unsustainable practice are ecosystem-wide, affecting litigation and transactional practice alike. The pressures are generated by interacting forces across firms, clients, markets, technology and wider social and economic change; and their consequences are then felt across workplaces, career pathways, professional standards and ultimately, the collective strength of the legal profession. No single intervention, and no single institution, can provide the answer.

IV. From diagnosis to action

19. The practical implication is that each stakeholder must act on the levers within its control, and work together with others where the issues cross institutional boundaries. This is precisely why we established the Future of the Legal Profession Committee, or the FLPC. It is co-chaired by my colleague Justice of the Court of Appeal Hri Kumar Nair, Deputy Attorney-General Valerie Thean and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law Luke Goh, and guided by the Future of the Legal Profession Steering Committee, which the Chief Justice co-lead with the Minister for Law. Crucially, the FLPC draws its membership from across the legal ecosystem: the Government, the Judiciary, law firms, in-house counsel, academia and professional bodies. What this signifies is that we have moved from debating whether there is an issue of sustainability affecting our profession, to developing actionable solutions. That is our focus at this year’s Symposium, as you see in the tagline, finding sustainable solutions.

20. In that light, let me mention three of the workstreams identified by the Future of the Legal Profession Committee that respond to some of the pressures I have outlined. 

(a) First, in response to the mentorship gap, the Business and Leadership Skills workstream will strengthen business and people-centred leadership capability across the profession, through practical programmes and shared frameworks for supervision, communication and talent development. 

(b) Second, the Bridging Legal Education and Industry workstream will build a closer and more systematic feedback loop between participating law schools, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the industry. This will be complemented by the Future Lawyers Network, which will provide law students earlier exposure to the values, realities and responsibilities of professional life.

(c) Third, the Sustainability and Wellbeing workstream will rethink how legal work is structured, supervised and valued, and will use platforms such as the Lawyers Sustainability Alliance to promote healthier workplace cultures, sustainable leadership practices and more respectful professional relationships across the legal ecosystem.

21. None of this will succeed unless we know our interventions are actually making a difference. That is why the Legal Profession Observatory, a joint initiative of the SAL and the SMU, will provide the data and empirical insights we need in order to evaluate these reforms over time.

22. But whether these reforms will make a tangible difference will depend on the daily decisions made within workplaces. Law firms will therefore be central to this effort because they have the greatest direct influence over the day-to-day experience of most lawyers. Firms can start by examining how work is allocated, how targets are set, how feedback is given, how unacceptable conduct is addressed, and how opportunities for development are distributed. In this connection, the renewed Advocacy Pledge will encourage firms to take a more structured approach to developing young advocates, by creating meaningful opportunities for oral advocacy, supported by proper supervision, training and feedback.

23. The Judiciary must and will play its part. This includes engaging the profession on procedures and timelines that may create avoidable pressure, while continuing to ensure that justice is administered in a timely manner. The Sustainability Study also records concerns over some interactions with the Bench. Judicial officers must control proceedings and uphold exacting standards, but they must always do so with courtesy and respect. Let me say, without reservation, that discourtesy or abusive conduct will not be tolerated. It is not in keeping with the standards we are all entitled to expect. I also consider that a core part of a judicial officer’s skill consists of striking the balance correctly between the need to uphold our rules, to prevent abuses of our processes, and to accommodate the reasonable requests, needs and circumstances of those who appear before us. I think in fairness to my judicial colleagues, the vast majority of them understand and adhere to these standards. I have also asked the Presiding Judges and Registrars to reiterate them. But on the occasions when those standards are not met, we need to be alerted so that we can respond appropriately. There are already feedback mechanisms in place, but I have asked the Chief Executive of the Office of the Chief Justice and the Registrar of the Supreme Court to work with the Law Society to enhance and strengthen their feedback.

V. Conclusion

24. This Symposium is neither the beginning of our work on sustainability nor the end of it. The ground has been prepared over several years, through the surveys, the consultations, the work of the Ethics Committee, and the candid conversations we had at last year’s Symposium. I should in this context acknowledge Professor David Wilkins, who helped us greatly last year in shaping those conversations, synthesising the feedback we received, and identifying some of the root causes of the pressures facing the profession. That work helped us formulate the work plan of the FLPC.

25. Professor Wilkins has continued to work closely with us in designing this year’s programme. In particular, he has guided our thinking on how we might harness the ideas, experience and energies of members of the profession to generate practical, ground-up solutions. As part of the preparations for this Symposium, a focused hackathon was convened to generate ideas and possible solutions in response to the challenges that have emerged from our engagements with the profession. Professor Wilkins has worked with a group of volunteer younger leaders from the profession to distil the ideas and solutions generated through that process into a set of concrete proposals, which will be discussed over the course of the day. I am grateful to Professor Wilkins for the generosity, wisdom and commitment he has brought to this work, and for the care with which he has helped us shape today’s conversations. And let me tell you he is a personal friend, and I know he does this because he joined the UN.

26. I urge all of you to engage actively in those discussions. The purpose of today is not simply to describe the challenges or to endorse broad aspirations. It is to test, refine and strengthen practical proposals that can improve the daily experience of our lawyers, and especially our younger lawyers. We are committed to taking this work forward, and to implementing solutions that are sound, workable and capable of making a tangible difference.

27. The strength of our profession has always rested on its capacity to renew itself without losing sight of what is essential. That is our task now: to preserve the values, the standards and the spirit of service that make the law an honourable calling, while rethinking the structures and habits that no longer serve us well. This work will not be finished today, but as you will hear next, my successor will carry it forward with the same sense of purpose and commitment. But its success will depend on our collective efforts.  We now have the opportunity, and the responsibility, to build a profession that remains honourable and sustainable for generations to come. I invite every one of you to help us build it.