Courting Controversy: The rule of three

Singapore’s Opening of the Legal Year (OLY) ceremony on January 12, 2026 was notable in several respects. While it commemorated the 200th anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice, which established the rule of law in Singapore, it is the addresses delivered by the Chief Justice, the President of the Law Society and the Attorney General at this year’s ceremony that warrant particular attention.

Although distinct in emphasis, the addresses reflected a shared recognition of the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve the public’s access to justice.

Indeed, as Singapore’s Attorney General Lucien Wong SC put it in his address, while a nation may inherit a rich legacy of efforts in furtherance of justice, “it is also to take on the responsibility of stewardship”. That stewardship needs to evolve while developing a strategy for ingraining AI into the legal profession.

One may look to the Rule of Three. Originally developed as a communication principle, the rule has long found favour in the world of law for the desirable sense of rhythm it creates [Patrick Barry, ‘The Rule of Three’ 15 Legal Communication & Rhetoric (2018)]. Indeed, Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar is remembered, in part, for the haunting cadence of its closing refrain – “I am, I am, I am” – a line whose force would be markedly diminished if reduced to a solitary declaration. In keeping with this powerful magic of three, I propose a 3x3 strategy to leverage AI in fostering access to justice.

Mapped along two axes, the proposed strategy situates three institutional actors - the judiciary, the Ministry and legal educators - as stewards of reform who are tasked with improving access to justice by addressing the differentiated needs of judges, lawyers and clients. In designing a suite of AI-based solutions, each of the identified institutions must perform a unique role that necessarily caters to the varying needs of the actors within the legal system.

1)  The judiciary should dedicate resources to identifying appropriate situations for the use of AI within the justice system, especially for case management. Particularly useful may be for jurisprudence to be categorised into casebooks in accordance with subject matter. For instance, a team of legal services officers in Singapore collated a book distilling the landmark precedents on biomedical ethics in a digestible format. Specifically dedicated committees and research units can be set up for this purpose, much like the AI Committee recently constituted by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to guide the adoption of AI tools in the judiciary. Potentially, such tools may assist in the drafting of judgments once the judge has independently arrived at a decision, by organising factual records and relevant precedents.

Concerns that AI would take over judicial application of mind ought to be disbanded. In the past, similar apprehensions were expressed when law clerks were first integrated into the judicial system to assist judges. Experience over two decades has dispelled such fears with law clerks functioning strictly in a supportive capacity, streamlining research and drafting, while leaving judicial reasoning and decision-making wholly intact. AI tools can likewise enhance efficiency without compromising the integrity of adjudication.

2) The Ministry of Law and Justice must also play its role in building relationships with like-minded counterparts to exchange best practices. Inaccessible drafting has long riddled the legal profession and legislators may also improve access to justice by using technology to simplify the manner in which statutes and judgments are worded. Singapore’s universal law revision exercise aimed at modernising the language is instructive.

Further, while commercial AI tools like Harvey and Legora prove to be useful, they may not serve the sensitive interests of clients that legal professionals tend to, given concerns of confidentiality. The Ministry could explore appropriate public-private partnerships to help develop in-house AI tools exclusively for use in the Indian judicial system. For instance, tools that can provide on-demand translations of legal documents can greatly improve a litigant’s access to justice.

3) Legal educators should look to develop appropriate curricula for newly minted law graduates. Similar materials should be disseminated as a part of a much-needed exercise of continuing legal education for legal professionals in the country. Indeed, the President of the Law Society of Singapore in his speech rightly cautioned that a lawyer’s inability to use AI will inevitably hamper their client’s access to justice.

In designing educational materials, inspiration may be drawn from the approach followed by the University of Cambridge, which has actively sought to harness the potential of AI as an enabler rather than a wholesale replacement for existing teaching practice. Further, efforts towards sensitisation and education must not be limited to lawyers alone; they should be extended to parties looking to represent themselves. Solutions in the nature of a simulative video series to guide such parties through court processes may be explored.

Despite their undeniable utility, these suggestions are unlikely to displace legal professionals and surely do not amount to a Shakespearean call to “kill all the lawyers”. Indeed, as Chief Justice Surya Kant cautioned, AI must not overpower judicial decision-making. This sentiment was echoed by Justice Vikram Nath, who rightly pointed to human nature being integral to the conscience of justice as opposed to algorithms. Both of these concerns, albeit valid, do not preclude the careful use of AI to supplement a noble profession long entrusted to the trained human brain.

Properly understood, the promise of AI lies not in replacing independent legal thought, but in relieving the legal system of routine and time-consuming tasks, thereby allowing greater attention to be devoted to the discretion that justice demands. Future-proof legal professionals must be equipped to use AI tools responsibly, lest the opportunity to deploy these tools in service of the rule of law be lost. As Singapore Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, whose words have always commanded deep respect within the international legal community, put it in his speech at the OLY, “more must be done” in the pursuit of access to justice and “we must act now”.

Nakul Dewan is a Senior Advocate and King’s Counsel.