Law Tech Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region

Transcript of Interview of Kok Thong Lee (Josh) 

Legal Policy Officer and Criminologist, Legal Policy Division, Ministry of Law

Now here’s your host and Keynote speaker on all things Law Tech Thomas Giglione

Thomas: OK so we have today on Law Tech Lawyer of the Week

Kok Thong Lee (Josh) in Singapore. He's a legal policy officer and criminologist in the legal policy division of the Ministry of Law in Singapore. He holds a bachelor of laws with distinction Cum Laude, and he's very much into law tech. I'm honored to have you here on this podcast, Josh. And how are you today?

Josh: I am good thank you. Thanks, Thomas for having me

Thomas: Now I'm looking at your bio here and it's quite impressive. You worked for litigation associates Lee and Lee; you worked on some Canadian arbitration cases in some high court proceedings. You’re an author and a co-author of several publications. So tell me, I’d like to touch on a few things about how you got interested in the legal tech and industry and coming from being a lawyer, how did you get this interest to law technology?

Josh: I got in law and technology; I guess it was something that happened naturally because, since young, I was always interested in technology. Things related to the latest advancements, for example, I mean as a young boy, I would always be interested in looking at the latest Gameboy for example. I would be interested in looking at the latest computers, latest games but there was a burning passion or burning interest in technology since I was young.

In 2011 I joined law school and you know that was when there was so much talk in Singapore about technology disrupting the legal sector and when it came to sometime around 2015 /2016, it finally hit me. So there is an intersection between something I'm trained in and something that I'm really interested in which is the law and technology. If you combine these two things together that's law and technology, which is legal technology. And I was lucky enough to be able to attend a big-time conference known as the Conference on Future Lawyering in Singapore. I think it was organized by the Singapore Academy of Law if I remember correctly, and it was held at the Singapore Supreme Court. That was where there were all these speakers who were talking about how technology is going to disrupt the development of legal practice as well as our laws. So I also met some people who were students who were from another the law school in Singapore. I'm from the Singapore Management University; these guys who I met were from the National University of Singapore. And they were basically exploring topics or they were thinking of setting up a student group in their school, primarily about legal technology. And when I asked them they said “ feel free to join us because it's not something that's not official for any of us, it's something that's open to everyone regardless of whether you're a student or a practitioner or basically anyone just interested in legal technology so I said “Yeah, sure count me in”. And so I jumped onto the bandwagon.

 Thereafter, I think what got me really started into this space is that they said if they were interested in setting up an online publication that covers legal technology and this is now known as Law Tech Asia. I began to write and research articles and started publishing some articles on this online publication.

Thomas: You use the words “how technology is going to disrupt the legal industry”.. Do you actually think initially it's going to be a disruption to the industry or do you think it's going to be a slow evolution that's going to be absorbed?

Josh: I mean there is a reason why people are saying that the legal sector in many countries has been sheltered for a really long time and that’ because the practice of law in the 20th century, at least that’s what I know, was something that was based on national jurisdiction, it was something that was domestic largely and it regulated the affairs of the citizens, so there was not much reason for lawyers or for the industry as a whole to go looking at cross-border stuff. But the problem with technology right now it is effectively cross-border and what's happening in America will happen in the U.K. and it's going to bound to hit Singapore and the Asia Pacific region. Therefore I think, to answer your question, I personally think that whether or not the industry will be disrupted or it’s kind of like a slow change, it really depends from country to country, and more pertinent today, it depends on the mindsets of the people who are inside the legal industry in each of these countries.

The question is not so much of whether this invisible hand will affect you, but whether you're able to shake hands with the invisible hand, whether you're able to prepare yourself in your industry in a position that you're ready to take the invisible hand when it comes. And that comes down to each country's regulation and it comes down to each country’s mindset to what is technology.

I think generally in Singapore, based on my interactions through Law Tech Asia, with various lawyers, with various academics, law practitioners, they all seem correct that disruption is going to come very soon, there are initiatives that come out that are currently being generated by the Singapore government, by the courts, by for example the Singapore Academy of Law. They have these programs like funds for firms to be able to able to adopt legal technology. And these are some of the ways that we can prepare lawyers to embrace the future. But it will only come and we will only be able to deal with it if each and every single lawyer that is out there, will be ready to embrace the technology when it comes because there will be a learning curve.

Thomas: What areas have you actually worked on and explored with legal tech, Josh?

Josh: At this point in time, I'm interested in a wide range of areas. Things like artificial intelligence really interest me. Other areas that I've been fortunate enough to be involved in for example, through Law Tech Asia is areas like online dispute resolution, as long as even things like the future of a lawyer’s office in Law because I've written some pieces about this in Lawtech Asia.

Thomas: Yeah let's talk about a Law Tech Asia. You're a writer for Law Tech Asia. It is “Singapore's First and Foremost Law and Technology Review”. Tell me how you got started with this publication.

Josh: We wanted to share a context that is Southeast Asian. Personally, I decided to come in because I thought that the legal technology sector in Singapore has lots and lots of cool people so that's a way really to meet all these cool people and tap into their energy, their knowledge, their experience.

Thomas: Actually your writing skills are quite impressive. I like to also mention that Josh and I co-authored a piece on O.D.R. that recently appeared on Law Tech Asia. Let's talk about that article and hey it's online, people can read it and actually after reading it again I was quite impressed because I think the article really touched on some really important key points. Did you want to talk a little bit about your contribution and how it worked with my contribution?

Josh: Sure. I think that this article was really something that was quite insightful not just because of the research that I had to do to write that article but it was exciting because it's the first time I'm co-writing an article with someone else. I'm so glad that it happens to be you. You are really knowledgeable in this area. The was a personal challenge as well because, I mean I had to balance this with work commitments and other commitments as well you know. The article that we were going to write on is actually a series. It's a two-part series on recent developments on online dispute resolution in South East Asia. And so the first question that naturally would be what are the recent developments really and to me, it made sense to go back to the history of online dispute resolution and that's basically what the first part of this series covers which is now on Lawtech Asia. So what we have covered and what I've discovered through the course of my research is that online dispute resolution, the idea of it started sometime in the 1980s and it's gone through about three stages possibly four, up to this present stage.

To put it simply the first and second stage was about the industry as well as governments trying to feel about and see what the power of technology is like. When the Internet first started getting commercialized and it went public, there were all these online forums and all these chat rooms and obviously given that humans interact on these chat rooms there was bound to be disputes in relation to these chat rooms. Began disputes about email, spam in fact. There was this online dispute resolution case with the issue of spam mail. So that was the first and second stages which went up to about the late 90’s and then when it came to the turn of the century and then you start to see people realizing the power of online dispute resolution and recognizing that if the online realm or the virtual realm is going to play such a large part in our lives, it makes sense to also have disputes resolved within this virtual realm, because it's something like if the nature of the dispute is something that so integrally connected with the online realm, for example, the fact that it is cross jurisdiction, dealing with a wide range of people in a whole range of issues then it kind of makes sense in a lot of situations to deal directly with the disputes online as well.

We're right now doing research into the second part of the article. One of the recent developments of ODR right now so for example, one key example will be the EU (European Union) wide system on ODR. And the question is can we make it relevant to the Southeast Asian context. From what I know, I think Southeast Asia is the fastest growing region in the world in relation to digital technology. Millions of people are going online every year and these are people who are connecting to the Internet and finding finally finding the purchasing power to be able to buy a smartphone and be connected and governments around this region are beating up their data networks and you're going to have a whole host of people who are going online and this presents fundamentally vast opportunities in e-commerce. As these people get into disputes online, they rub against each other online, they have tensions, and then there is a vast field of opportunity for online dispute resolution options as well. So the question is if all these people are going to directly interact with each other online especially within Southeast Asia, then can the E.U. ODR ODR system somehow work in the Southeast Asian context of course with other considerations according to the local circumstances. And so that's what we're going to explore actually in the second part of this series and I'm looking forward to writing it.

Thomas: I'm sure we will add some new material to the second part of your writing but thank you again for co-authoring the article and shedding some light on where we are what we're doing now and now the second part is where we are going with this.

And yeah I know it's a second part series but doesn't stop after the round two.

Josh: Looking forward to co-authoring more; definitely

Thomas: I've I read your part several times and you're a very talented writer so you know our listeners please take a look at that article it's very nicely written and very insightful. So tell me you're a lawyer in Singapore. What is it like to be a lawyer in Singapore and being surrounded with all this opportunity for technology and such? Is it is assimilated in the law practice in the legal community there? Are you looked upon as a pioneer, how does it work in you know being a lawyer in the law tech field in Singapore?

Josh: Perhaps I could share about that one three levels. One is a personal level. The other is the level of lawyers as well as the level of law students because I was recently graduated as well.

So on the personal level, I was fortunate enough to have experience practicing law in the first year I entered the workforce. So I was in a Law firm, one of the largest law firms by lawyer’s headcount in Singapore – Lee, and Lee. I was doing international commercial arbitration there. And personally, I found that the legal tech scene in Singapore or rather than the knowledge that legal tech is going to create some sort of revolution or disruption Singapore, it was equal parts exciting as well as confusing for me.

It's exciting because it's really interesting to know how this will change in the future and so many opportunities to learn more to go up the value chain and do more interesting legal work and let machines and AI technology and do more of the daily routine stuff that really takes up so much time and is so tedious, so it's really exciting. But what is confusing is that at the same time because they're looking at things in the future, so you really don't know, I mean the fact that when people say it’s disruption is going to be true. Some people when they face the learning curve, some of them are going to climb the learning curve and learn but some of them are going to give up and fall out and the question is if these people are the ones who are leading the law firms, what is going to happen to the law firm? Is that law firm going to be able to survive in that type of environment? So that is really the confusing part for me. So at the lawyers level, I would say that there is likely to be some traction among the lawyers, I mean of course this is from my perspective so I’m not really sure whether it's really something that it's official or anything but based on my interaction with my circle of friends and the people whom I talk to, there is starting to be emerging realization that you know clients out there, it always start with the clients, the pressure comes from them. Clients are asking about “Hey are you going to use technology in your business?” “Are there legal technology tools that I can make use of to reduce the cost that you're going to charge me?” And some will say “hey look, I need to start getting my head into this type of technology”.

The problem is though, there is an understanding among lawyers at the top, and I wouldn’t say all of them. Definitely there are some of them who are thinking, “Hey I practiced law all the last thirty, forty years, I practiced law in this way and basically, I am going to retire soon, this is not really my business". But these guys without the experience are just lost, so there is a certain kind of like a disconnect to put very simply. One generation will think it's not my problem anymore, another generation will say it’s my problem now but I have no idea where to start. The initiatives that I’ve heard of is F.L.I.P. for example, by the Singapore Academy of Law, known as the Future Law Innovation Program. That program is about allowing or rather exposing smaller law firms to be able to tap into legal technology to improve their productivity and to embrace new ways of working. It's a Singapore initiative by the Singapore Academy of Law.

I’m going to also share from a law student’s perspective. Primarily when I was leaving school, I had the idea that many of the people I knew still kind of harbored the idea that the way that the law was practiced in the past century is something that was still low in the twenty-first century and were not so much concerned about the disruption that will come as compared to concerns about “oh how am I going to manage my work-life balance? “Am I going to be retained in my firm or will I get kicked out?” “How long will it take before I gain partnership?” “How much is my pay different from my friends’?” More of these practical day to day concerns, not so much, looking at the future and saying, “Oh how is my practice or the work that I'm going to do now still relevant ten years or twenty years of the road?” Those are the type of things that I think on now.

I feel that among the law students, luckily enough, in the younger generation is starting to be some spark of thinking about legal technology because of all these statements out there now, but it is still gaining traction and I mean it really is for time to tell whether the traction will begin in time so that this generation of law students will be ready when the disruption and when the wave of technology really hits. I think recently there was a speech by Chief Justice of Singapore. I think just earlier this week, in fact where he shared that our law school students will need to adapt in our adapting that curriculum in order to help these students realize that technology is going to play a fundamental role in their practice in the years to come. So I think that is a very pertinent and very relevant reminder to say that things are going to change and please don’t take it for granted. Use the time that you have to upgrade yourself and look into new areas.

Thomas: What impact do you see tech affecting the judiciary and arbitration and arbitration centers?

Josh: When you have the courts and the dispute resolution mechanisms you realize that to resolve cross-border disputes at a mass volume but very low in value as compared to the current cross-jurisdictional legal battles that we see today. The court systems, the conventional court systems may not be able to deal with that volume on a day-to-day basis. I think sooner or later that there should be a turn towards the possibility of resolving these arbitral disputes online. I think this space is being closely watched in Singapore, I think based on what I see in the public realm and yeah, it's really exciting to know how these will evolve

I know for a fact that during my time when I was interning in some of the law firms in Singapore, certain EHR pretrial conferences, certain procedural hearings were already through video, so that was a few years to go and that as the technology gets better, it is going to seep into more of these into all of these different areas where people won’t have to necessarily go to court every day.

Thomas: You stated in your bio that “Learning and improving oneself is of first importance, but it's not enough”, but what do you mean by that?

Josh: I think that just knowing that you have to learn to become a master at something that alone is not sufficient because when you get to the top what next?

One of the biggest reasons why I went into legal technology and all those things about knowing about the future and what the future holds, is really because I think that in this day and age just having technical knowledge alone is not enough. People really want to ask about what is the future going to hold for me right, which means that knowledge of the future will be power. People will want to know what the future holds for them and what better way to know the future than to shape yourself.

Thomas: Josh I understand you went to a conference in Singapore, can you tell me a little about that and you met a fellow compatriot from Canada from Ottawa, and just tell me a little bit about that?

Josh: I was at this conference known as the Future of Law Conference organized by the Singapore Management University. It was really fortunate that I managed to get in there and to listen. I think the keynote speaker was this professor from the University of Ottawa in Canada. His name is Dr. Ian Kerr Based on what I read, he's an expert at the forefront of research in emergent issues in law and the things he talked about in the conference were in relation to artificial intelligence and I felt that that was personally, I really felt that it was interesting, because for one, artificial intelligence is going to be prevalent in the years to come, we already have AI systems built in cars, planes, already they are there in ships and in the internet of things you're going to see them in phones, they already are going to get smarter and they're going to do so much work for us.

So he was talking about the possibility that A.I systems have this thing called emergent behavior, which is that when the developer develops that this AI technology is such that the AI behaves in ways that the developer never expected it to behave. So one example that I know of is this game of GO where I think in Google Deep Mind it produced AlphaGo which beat human competitors in GO, the world's best GO players in the game Alpha Go by learning human techniques. But what astounded me is that in Google Deep Mind went further than that by building the system, if I'm not wrong though, known as AphaGo Zero. Yes, what they did was they let this AI system run its own; they programmed into it the rules of goal but not the strategies. And they just implemented the reward system what is right what is good, what gets closer to the objective and what doesn't get closer to the objective and input these two basic rules it into that of AlphaGo Zero and they let it run on its own and I think it's forty-eight hours or something it was able to beat Alpha Go by playing like forty million games against itself or something and it beat Alpha Go not just once but three hundred to one times. And I think during this process Google Deep Mind another the researcher found that this Alpha Go Zero came up with a strategy that humans had never even thought of before. That is simply just astounding, basically using computing power to figure out something that humans have never figured out before, so this is an example of emergent behavior

Thomas :I would like to add, that I read recently that now we are going to have the next developmental phase where AI is going to be learning from each other and exhibiting even more surprising emergent behavior and that that's where the area which nobody knows where it's going to go. It is pretty scary stuff that we will be talking about with other leading experts in the field.

Josh: I just wanted to say thanks for this opportunity. It was really great chatting with you. To all the people, listening to this podcast. I just want to say again thanks, thanks for having me, thanks for watching.

#lawtechlawyer #blockchain #AI #Legal