Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Law in light of the recent release of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, what further measures has the Ministry undertaken in relation to the issue of attrition, including improving lawyers' mental well-being.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Law in light of the recent release of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study (a) what is the Ministry's assessment on whether artificial intelligence (AI) will increase or alleviate the stresses placed on lawyers; and (b) what action has the Ministry taken to address the possibility of increased stress among lawyers.

Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Law following the release of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, whether the Ministry intends to take any steps to address the issues identified as contributing to the attrition of lawyers, including toxic work culture, bullying and Court pressures.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law in the light of the findings of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, whether the Ministry will consider setting up an official channel for legal practitioners to provide feedback on judicial conduct with necessary safeguards in place to ensure transparency, fairness, responsibility and protection against undue repercussions.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law in light of the findings in the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, whether the Ministry will consider commissioning an independent audit on interactions between the Bench and the Bar during legal proceedings.

My response will address Question Nos 26 to 31 on today's Order Paper together, as they raise interconnected issues arising from the release of the Legal Profession Sustainability Study, that was commissioned by the Law Society of Singapore. I will also address Written Question Nos 57 and 58 on today's Order Paper by hon Members Ms Diana Pang and Dr Wan Rizal; as well as questions filed by Ms Diana Pang1 for written answer, and by Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh for oral answer for subsequent Sittings. The hon Members may wish to withdraw the Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if their queries are answered today.

The Members' questions raise important issues that are deeply relevant to the legal profession. A strong legal profession underpins the rule of law, access to justice and confidence in Singapore as a trusted place to do business.

The Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) vision is for Singapore to have a first-class legal system powered by a top-class legal profession that is internationally respected and highly capable. At the same time, we must also ensure that our lawyers can build careers that are sustainable, meaningful and fulfilling.

These goals are not in tension but are complementary. We will not have a strong legal industry without strong legal professionals and firms. Lawyers are the centre of the legal industry and it is in our interest to ensure that our lawyers remain supported and inspired, so that the best legal talent will continue to build meaningful and sustainable legal careers in Singapore.

The Legal Profession Sustainability Study has raised important issues and generated significant discussion within the profession. We thank the Law Society for commissioning this Study as well as the lawyers who have come forward with their candid views.

The Study surveyed more than 800 lawyers who gave their views on the difficulties they faced. Some of them reportedly left the legal profession because of these difficulties. This included instances of excessive workload, and a toxic and difficult workplace culture. There were also accounts of young lawyers who actively avoided litigation practice after encountering harsh and demoralising interactions in the Courts and did not feel that there was a safe mechanism for them to provide feedback to judicial conduct. Lawyers also felt the pressure of a fast-paced legal practice as well as demands from clients and raised questions around whether legal education adequately prepared them for practice.

Overall, the survey has revealed some troubling findings, and they must be taken seriously with decisive changes made where appropriate. I am encouraged that the Judiciary and the Law Society have responded swiftly and have established a Joint Committee to review existing dialogue mechanisms and feedback channels. The Committee will also examine whether case management practices and timeline expectations are appropriately calibrated to the realities of practice today, and to ensure that sustainability of practice can be maintained. MinLaw welcomes this and will work closely with the committee to support and implement any recommendations.

Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh asked whether there should be an official channel for feedback on judicial conduct and whether an independent audit of Bench-Bar interactions should be commissioned. It bears noting that the Judiciary is an independent institution, and it is for the Courts to manage and regulate its own procedure. It had previously set up a Judicial Complaints Process, which lawyers can use, and the efficacy of this channel can be something which the Committee reviews.

I expect the Joint Committee to also carefully consider issues including the concern raised by Ms Diana Pang, about how medical conditions and other matters can be accommodated in Court proceedings, whilst at the same time ensuring that the proper administration of justice is not compromised. Ultimately, the Judiciary has a duty to ensure that justice is meted out fairly to all litigants.

Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Hany Soh have raised concerns about toxic workplace culture, harassment and bullying.

Let me say clearly that workplace harassment will not be tolerated. Existing protections, such as the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment, applies with equal rigour across all sectors, including the legal sector. The Workplace Fairness Act, when it comes into force in 2027, will further strengthen these protections. The Law Society has also issued a Guidance Note and Toolkit on Workplace Harassment and Bullying Prevention in October 2025. MinLaw will continue to work with the Law Society and other stakeholders to consider whether additional options may allow lawyers to raise concerns without fear of professional repercussions.

That said, we accept that the Study reflects a more specific concern – that lawyers, especially those who are more junior, may feel unable to raise concerns about harmful conduct in workplaces or in court without putting their careers at risk. Formal frameworks do not, by themselves, address that practical reality. For many lawyers, the professional cost of coming forward may feel too high and that is a concern we should look closely into. In order to tackle this, we should heed the Hon Chief Justice Menon’s exhortation that, "the conduct of leaders, the expectations they set and the culture they foster will play a decisive role in shaping how lawyers experience practice, how they develop and whether they remain in the profession."3

Ms Diana Pang and Mr Christopher de Souza also asked about retention and the long-term sustainability of the profession. As shared in a reply to PQs in May, attrition from legal practice has remained stable over the last decade. That remains the overall picture. The reasons for lawyers leaving are varied – workload, workplace culture, inadequate supervision or mentorship and attractive opportunities elsewhere. Any serious effort at retention has to grapple with this range of reasons.

At the same time, we should recognise that legal practice is inherently demanding. Whilst pressures, such as tight timelines, clients demands and economic pressures, are not unique to the practice of law, what differs is the privilege of advocating for another person, of holding someone's livelihood, liberty or future in your hands. Many have entered the profession precisely because they find meaning in it and are willing to take on the responsibility for it and the stresses that come with it.

The question is, therefore, not how to make the profession easier, but how to make it sustainable, so that those who are drawn to it for the right reasons are not driven out by the wrong ones.

I would add that even as we work on the measures above, MinLaw has been focussed on programs and schemes to help the profession level up as a whole, especially those who might need more support. MinLaw has implemented various schemes to equip and support lawyers and law firms to navigate modern legal practice, examples include the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation initiative, in relation to implementing artificial intelligence (AI) and change management; and study awards for civil law. MinLaw has also worked on initiatives, such as exchange programmes and international networks, that provide lawyers with opportunities to interact with the international legal community, thereby raising their profile and reputation to put them in a better position to compete for cross-border legal work.

These complement existing well-being initiatives by the Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law as previously shared in the May PQ reply.

The Future of Legal Profession Committee will, together with our stakeholders, continue to look into these issues, including rethinking how legal work is organised and produced, how lawyers are developed and supported, and how sustainable careers can be built in today's practice.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the impact of AI on the stresses lawyers face. The reality is that AI is here to stay and we will have to adopt it and use it to our individual and collective advantage. How well we manage the transition and adoption of AI will dictate how the legal industry progresses. AI has the potential to reduce the burden of routine, time-consuming tasks, but it also raises client expectations, compresses timelines and creates genuine anxiety about the future shape of legal careers. If not managed thoughtfully, efficiency gains could be absorbed entirely by increased demands, nullifying any potential upside that AI could bring to improving the sustainability of legal work.

We are, therefore, approaching AI not merely as a productivity tool, but as a force that will reshape training, mentorship, career pathways and workplace culture, in fact, the very practice of law. As we have explained previously, MinLaw is, therefore, looking at this question of AI adoption at a more fundamental level, including whether the structure of legal training from law school through practice needs to evolve to prepare lawyers for this changing landscape.

MinLaw remains committed to supporting lawyers and law firms in strengthening their resilience through grants, training and development, and international platforms, all of which contribute towards reinforcing Singapore's overall legal value proposition. MinLaw will continue to work with stakeholders to advance the development of a first-class legal system even as we navigate an increasingly competitive and disruptive global environment. This also includes examining areas, such as how legal work is charged, something that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh2 raised. The traditional billable-hour model is already being challenged and may well have to evolve further in response to shifting market demands in order for us to remain competitive.

We are aware that the intensifying competition will place greater demands on our lawyers. In such an environment, we must reaffirm the deeper purpose and enduring values of the legal profession – as one that is not merely a career, but a true calling grounded in service, integrity and justice.

The issues raised by Members today all point to the same underlying question: what kind of legal profession do we want Singapore to have and what are we prepared to do to build it? The answer matters beyond the profession itself. A strong legal profession underpins a strong economy and a cohesive society. The goal is not to lower standards, but to sustain excellence in a way that allows lawyers to build long and fulfilling careers, and enables the legal sector to continue to flourish.