Ng Kim Beng took over as Managing Partner of Rajah & Tann, Singapore a year back.
In this conversation with Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja, Beng talks about why the firm has grown from just over 30 lawyers to more than 1,100, why India remains part of the firm's vision and why AI's efficiency gains haven't touched the billable hour just yet.
He is candid, too, about what worries him: a wave of US firms turning to private equity funding that Asian firms, without similar backing, may struggle to match.
[Watch Interview]
Edited excerpts follow.
Pallavi Saluja (PS): What have been your priorities since you took over as Managing Partner at Rajah & Tann a year ago?
Ng Kim Beng (NKB): My predecessor Patrick Ang laid out: people, processes and practice.
On people - making sure we continue to attract and retain the right talent and support their growth. One topic that's very current within the firm is the profession's sustainability and, within that, career prospects for younger lawyers. They're often unfairly labelled as a "softer generation," but I think they come with ambition, drive and motivation, on top of the evergreen qualities of diligence and industry. What's changed is a sense of purpose. In my time, that came easily: you joined a good firm, worked under a good mentor, kept your head down and a path more or less opened up for you. That's changed now. The space is far more crowded, competition among peers is sharper, clients are more sophisticated and technology has accelerated all of it. It's about helping them navigate those conditions and helping them see a future for themselves here.
On process, the firm has grown enormously since I joined straight out of university, when we had just over 30 lawyers. Today we're 450 fee earners in Singapore and over 1,100 across Southeast Asia. Some of our systems and processes have served us well but are now worn and need upgrading and replacement. We need clearer, more consistent processes and better centralised support, making sure that it is set up in a way that there is a good degree of accessibility. One thing I've learned is that management can end up in a bubble: colleagues out doing hearings and travelling for work don't always know what support is available at HQ. So communicating that accessibility matters just as much as building the systems themselves.
Finally, practice is probably the most important of the three, because it's what funds everything else. How we continue to shape our practice to be relevant to the demands of the client. We've grown large enough that it's no longer efficient for partners to practise in isolation from each other. It's in a collaboration that you can really unlock the value across the different practice groups that are all invested in the same sector.
PS: Yourself, Ang and Kelvin Poon have all come through the firm rather than laterally. How much do you think that continuity shapes the culture of the firm?
NKB: It's an interesting question because in the history of the firm, I believe I'm the sixth managing partner and we've all been homegrown. The credibility we bring comes from relationships already built with fellow partners. We're a partnership after all and that trust and familiarity are essential to the role.
That said, we are open to outside talent taking on senior roles. We have Sandy Foo, our head of corporate, who joined us about ten years ago from another large Singapore firm. She quickly earned the respect and trust of colleagues and partners, and now oversees a team of more than 200 lawyers.
The firm runs on meritocracy. If you're good and we trust that you're good, you're entrusted with greater responsibility.
PS: Rajah & Tann has talked about becoming an Asian firm on the international stage. What does that actually mean?
NKB: Geography, brand, scale and talent. On geography, we now have ten offices across Southeast Asia and two representative offices in China, with over 100 fee earners there. That gives us the mass to look beyond our immediate region, something reinforced by conversations with firms in Northeast Asia, South Asia, Europe and the US, who often ask, "where else are you thinking of being next?"
We're not growing for growth's sake. Our network started because we had a strong talent pool in Singapore that was growing faster than the domestic market, alongside a broader shift toward more cross-border work. At the time, other firms were forming alliances with international firms; we chose a different path to protect our identity. That identity is ultimately Asian.
We may not have set up with the intention to grow the brand as a regional international brand, but the realisation is that there is equity now in the brand and that equity can continue to grow if we continue to be judicious and to be strategic in how we grow our footprint.
PS: Singapore's legal market has international law firms and some have presence with local firms. How has that changed the competitive space in Singapore over the years?
NKB: It's raised the overall quality and level of service the profession delivers, both here and beyond. Singapore's openness to international firms setting up and practising foreign and local law through alliances has propelled it to global recognition as a hub for quality legal services. It hasn't all been smooth; when I was at the local office of an international firm earlier in my career, real cultural syncing was needed. We speak English and practise common law, but the approach to issues here differs from the US or UK, and firms coming in from those markets have had to adjust to local cultural norms and client expectations. Some have come in and left; others have remodelled their approach. It's not an easy market, even though it's open and welcoming. Success comes down to resourcefulness and inventiveness.
PS: Where do you feel the competitive heat most? On fees, lateral hires or landing the mandate itself?
NKB: All three, with different weight at different times. During the pandemic, it was talent. On opportunities, the trend has actually reversed. As Singapore has grown as a regional hub, we're seeing far more interesting RFPs than in the past and partly because services like arbitration are now hubbed here. SIAC has done a remarkable job establishing itself as a leading global institution, which means we now compete for large, complex, cross-border disputes with no real connection to Singapore other than being SIAC-seated. 5-10 years ago, we wouldn't have seen these at this frequency. Of course, that also means competing shoulder to shoulder with international firms. That is always challenging, but I'd rather have that challenge than not.
On fees, it's a perennial topic, and technology and AI have added a new dimension to it. But fees are never really the central issue; they're just constantly under the microscope and being evaluated and re-evaluated time and time again.
PS: Is retaining talent an uphill task, given you're competing with international firms with deeper pockets and global exposure?
NKB: We're fairly happy with our ability to attract and retain talent. Yes, we lose people, but not necessarily to international firms. In fact, young lawyers today leave the profession for a variety of reasons, often going in-house or leaving law altogether. Of those who leave, only a fraction go to rival international firms.
We can’t control how our competitors make their environment attractive and welcoming for talent. We can control our environment here to make it as hard as possible for people we want to keep to leave. So each time someone leaves for an international firm, it's an occasion for us to do that introspection, to see if there's something that we missed or we should have done better. We are actually constantly looking to improve the conditions and the amenities, the attractions that will appeal to our lawyers to stay here and to commit their career here.
PS: Where do you think Rajah & Tann has an edge over international firms?
NKB: It comes back to identity. Lawyers in the region want to build careers close to home, near family, while still doing cutting-edge work. We offer that blend of familiarity and opportunity together, along with the sense that, as Asian lawyers, we can deliver an edge that sets us apart from international competitors.
PS: Where does India stand on the international stage vision?
NKB: India looms large in that vision. If the question is whether we have plans for a physical presence there, the answer right now is no; we're watching and waiting. That's not slowing our collaboration with Indian firms, though; if anything, it's deepening.
PS: Coming to technology and artificial intelligence, you’ve flagged AI's potential to reshape legal practice as part of the backdrop to your tenure. Concretely, what has Rajah & Tann changed operationally in the last year because of it?
NKB: Quite a few initiatives. We now have a Chief Technology Officer and a Chief Information Security Officer. That reflects how much weight we give to maintaining data security within the firm.
I think we're one of the earlier adopters of Harvey. I believe Rajah & Tann is the first organisation in Southeast Asia to take on Microsoft Copilot at an enterprise level. Part of that stems from our close working relationship with Microsoft. The tools have been amazing in terms of the efficiency that's introduced into some of the tasks that we perform. But I would say that there's still a lot of potential that's left to be unlocked. Which also speaks to the challenge that we are confronted with.
It's already hard enough to get lawyers to use the rest of Microsoft Office beyond Word; asking them to learn an entirely new tool is a genuine challenge. Younger lawyers pick up AI fluency almost naturally; more senior lawyers find it tougher. Getting AI fluency across the firm as quickly as possible is one of my real management challenges and it doesn't happen organically from the ground up. We're now considering bringing in outside consultants to help, though even that's difficult, since there aren't many consultants with real expertise in this yet. There's a bit of stumbling in the dark as we try to get this right, quickly.
PS: Do you see AI reducing the need for hiring junior lawyers or simply reshaping the early careers of young lawyers?
NKB: I don't think it reduces recruitment; our numbers have actually gone up. But it will reshape how they learn, the tasks they perform and ultimately the roles they play. It's not one-size-fits-all: in arbitration, for instance, AI is already helping marshal evidence, organise it and draft chronologies and summaries. Other practices don't lend themselves as readily to AI adoption. It'll take time before a settled picture emerges of how associates across different practice groups actually use it, but it won't mean fewer lawyers, just a more intentional engagement with AI as part of the mix.
PS: Are you feeling the pressure from clients for use of AI and change in the traditional billable hour system?
NKB: Yes, and I expect that pressure to grow. Clients already ask what AI's value proposition means for their fees. For now, our answer is that we still charge conventionally, because even with AI improving efficiency and accuracy, there's still a human in the loop at every step. Until regulation sets clearer parameters on how hands-off a lawyer can be, that human oversight will remain a requirement, so the "lower fee through AI" benefit isn't quite there yet. What AI is delivering directly to clients is faster turnaround on some deliverables. As for the billable hour, it may well end in certain practice areas, though the truth is we've already seen that model sunsetting there for some time. AI is just accelerating it.
PS: What's the hardest conversation you've had with a partner since becoming managing partner?
NKB: I'll answer that in the abstract. Not one conversation, but a recurring theme. We have over 100 partners, so naturally a wide range of views. My priority is that our growth can't come at the expense of those who've helped get us here. So when a partner feels that opening an office somewhere doesn't make sense for their practice, sometimes because it could actually divert work from their region, that's a conversation I need to have. The hard part is calibrating expectations and moving the partnership in a direction together, without losing sight of what I believe is a limited window to make the most of the brand and platform we currently have.
PS: Any big structural changes facing leading Asian law firms that keep you up at night?
NKB: I read in the Financial Times last week that several leading US firms are exploring aligning with private equity funding. That could supercharge firms that already have deep resources. That does keep me up at night: the prospect of a wave of PE-backed firms we simply don't have the means to compete against.