Lawyers: AI is a supplementary tool and not a replacement for a lawyer’s judgement

This article was first published on 23 November 2025 in the Singapore Mandarin broadsheet, Lianhe Zaobao.

SLW obtained permission to reproduce the article to give the legal community a broader view of legal reports for various news syndicates.

The two recent incidents involving the submission of fabricated cases created by the use of generative AI occurred in small law firms with fewer than ten lawyers, highlighting how the lack of resources may put more pressure on smaller firms.

Small firms interviewed said that although artificial intelligence has become an essential productivity tool, increasing efficiency significantly, its use requires caution and repeated verification. The combination of common sense and caution, they said, can prevent cases of AI hallucination.

Senior criminal lawyer Mr Foo Cheow Ming of Foo Cheow Ming Chambers said that using specialised proprietary dedicated legal AI helps minimise hallucination and fabrication.

Citing Thomson Reuters’ CoCounsel — a tool he uses — as an example, Foo said it can summarise 14,000 pages of documents in under 10 minutes and produce legal arguments based on court records of evidence, witness testimonies and expert reports. It can also parse, critically analyse and critique an opponent's case, he added.

However, he stressed that he does not use the output directly. “I don't actually use its output ‘right out of the oven’… I pick and choose the useful bits into my own submissions. In short, it's a productivity tool, it's not in the driving seat.”

He added that he has thoroughly tested the system. “I'd say it's at the level of a smart 4^th year undergraduate,” he said, adding that he expects its performance to continue improving.

Ms Lim Bee Li of Chevalier Law LLC said the recent incidents were “instances of people being complacent with the use of AI tools which are only meant to assist and not to be a substitute for our own work”.

She stressed that AI can help by providing an initial overview of obscure areas of law, or a new area of law that she has not dealt with previously, but “we will have to verify that any authorities cited by the AI do indeed exist and stand for the proposition that the AI has cited the authority for”.

On the challenges for smaller firms, she said they may have limited resources, but “we double it up with our lawyers to check through the search results from AI, which very often comes up with the verification results very quickly.”

On whether clearer guidance from The Law Society of Singapore or the judiciary would help, she said: “It may be, but it seems that an application of common sense and caution is more than enough to avoid such problems.”

To cope with the risks of hallucination and the ethical issues surrounding AI, large local law firms are systematically strengthening supervision and accountability for AI use. All the firms interviewed agreed that AI is a supplementary tool — not a replacement for legal judgement — and that lawyers’ personal accountability always takes precedence.

Mr Lim Chong Kin, head of telecommunications, media and technology at Drew & Napier, said the firm has issued internal guidelines covering both enterprise-grade AI tools and public platforms, and will hold a series of training sessions for lawyers and staff on AI policy starting in January 2026.

To avoid the risk of hallucination affecting client work, he said the firm has three safeguards:

First, all lawyers must verify any AI-generated output for factual and legal accuracy before relying on it. Second, the firm conducts structured training with vendors so lawyers understand how to use the tools effectively. Third, lawyers are expected to inform their supervising partner when they intend to use genAI tools. “This allows them to determine the level of review required and whether client consent is needed.” This facilitates proper disclosure when required by courts, clients, or regulators.

Mr Andrew Wong, Senior Innovation Manager at Dentons Rodyk, said the firm has set clear AI user guidelines built on education, security, and ethics, ensuring lawyers understand AI fundamentals, protect client confidentiality, and comply with their professional obligations. He stressed that “accountability always rests with the lawyer in charge,” and every AI-assisted draft has to be reviewed to ensure accuracy and compliance.

The firm provides regular training covering AI fundamentals, limitations, ethical and professional considerations, and techniques such as prompt engineering. "Verification is non-negotiable – review before you rely. Innovation matters, but accuracy and client trust come first."

Dr Stanley Lai SC, head of intellectual property practice and co-head of the cybersecurity and data protection practice at Allen & Gledhill, said the firm believes AI will be transformative for the profession, and that “lawyers who fully embrace AI will gain a distinctive advantage.” The firm has established a GenAI task force, led by the firm’s Managing Partner, and developed a formal internal policy on GenAI to ensure AI usage complies with professional ethics and standards, particularly in relation to client confidentiality and data protection requirements.

It has also developed its own on-premise generative AI tool, A&GEL, designed to enhance data security and better performance output. It integrates a retrieval-augmented generation function and features output designs that facilitate lawyer verification, thereby reducing the risk of "hallucinations."

Lai said that although AI can increase efficiency, lawyers remain fully responsible for their work. Innovation must be paired with restraint, critical evaluation and continuous monitoring to ensure that GenAI tools are used in a way that aligns with professional and ethical standards.

This article first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao.

Source: Lianhe Zaobao © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Business Mandarin for Legal Professionals (Synchronous e-Learning) Harmless fun? People are using Sora to create problematic videos: Opinion