Legal Tech Is Experiencing Stunted Growth in Asia
Legal tech is taking off in Asia, but its spread is being slowed by restrictions.
January 13, 2020 at 04:25 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In November, a law firm in Mongolia, where there aren't enough affordable lawyers available, launched an automated online platform that helps small and medium-sized companies with their employment law needs. The site is a solution to the country's lack of lawyer supply. Mongolia is one of the many regions in Asia trying to tackle access to law issues with technology as legal tech takes off in recent years.
Last year, local governments in China's remote Qinghai province deployed similar technology—in the form of real robots—to help answer rural residents' legal questions. In Hong Kong, law students developed a browser extension powered by machine learning that help local citizens find legislation relevant to their legal problems.
Meanwhile in the commercial law space, local law firms are driving the development, with automated legal search engines and document generators becoming more prevalent. In China, appellate and litigation specialist firm Tiantong Law Firm developed Itslaw.com, a data-driven platform that allows private practice and in-house lawyers to assess litigation and compliance risks in searching over 59 million court decisions and 1.5 million regulations. Han Kun Law Offices, best known for its private equity and venture capital practices, launched drafting platform Jianfabang to help early-stage startups generate legal documents at a lower cost.
In Korea, lawyer Rhim Young-yik developed AI-based legal search system U-Lex, and Korean firm DR & AJU last year became the first major commercial law firm to adopt it. In Japan, top firm Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is using natural language processing technology to conduct contract review and due diligence.
Still, many of these efforts appear to be haphazard. Most of the Asian markets, perhaps with the exception of Singapore, lack the ecosystem to scale up their legal tech sector. According to Bloomberg data, disclosed funding raised by global legal tech startups in the third quarter this year hit a record $700 million, nearly all of which was raised by companies based in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
The main restriction on legal tech development in Asia is the region's smaller legal market size. For example, China, which has the largest legal market in the region due to its sheer size, has a roughly $70 billion market. The U.S. legal market is six times that size. Another limitation on legal tech is local regulations. The legal services market is heavily regulated in many Asian jurisdictions, with a web of rules governing who can give legal advice.
In the Singapore Law Academy's 2019 State of Legal Innovation in Asia Pacific report, the authors of the Japan chapter argued that although a serious amount of legal innovation work is underway, it is not occurring in a coordinated fashion. If Japan wants to see greater growth in legal tech, they said, the nation's government, bar associations, lawyers, legal educators and legal tech vendors all need to come together and collaborate.
Similarly, the authors of the Korea chapter pointed to regulatory restrictions as reasons for the limited development of the nation's legal tech sector. Specifically, under Korean law, only licensed Korean lawyers are allowed to give legal advice. "When it comes to a machine-learning-based legal database which automatically finds legal issues for the users, the question of whether this service is in violation of [the law] would arise," the report said.
Perhaps others can borrow a page from Singapore's experiences. So far, Singapore has emerged as a formidable force in developing legal tech using a top-down, government-led approach. A concerted effort began in 2017 when the Singapore Law Academy released a five-year plan to help grow the legal sector's technology capability. Last year it launched Future Law Innovation Programme to organize law firms and startups to promote the use of technology in law. The city-state has also been successful in persuading large law firms to take the lead in adopting more tech-driven solutions. From the Magic Circle's Linklaters and Clifford Chance to major domestic firms Rajah & Tann and WongPartnership, AI-enabled programs are becoming the new normal.
Email: [email protected]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Akerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
- 2Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 3Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 4When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250