\n<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
Possessing “specialist legal knowledge”, on the other hand, might become less important in a decade or two as AI advances, said Justice Xu.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Or, there could be an engineer playing the role of a judge in construction dispute cases, with supplementary assistance from AI.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The 55-year-old court veteran added that he is not “a deep techie” but is someone “comfortable with tech”.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Another earlier project by the courts was the development of algorithms or rules for motor accident claims.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
“I think for general translation in court proceedings, the human element will still be necessary and required.”<\/p>\n
The courts have been exploring AI-enabled court transcription systems for several years, testing various systems with various databases, said Justice Xu.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“One of it, for example, is the acoustics of some of our older courtrooms. Acoustics can be quite bad,” said Justice Xu.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
But this also led to some unintended “hot mic” moments.<\/p>\n
“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.”<\/p>\n
Another issue in Singapore’s context is that people sometimes switch languages as they speak.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Already, existing commercial court transcribers are aided by AI.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n