Is a future with non-lawyer judges feasible in Singapore?
Singapore has long been at the forefront of judicial tech adoption. From AI-assisted case summaries to speeding up motor-accident claim processing, the city-state has embraced tools that enhance efficiency without undermining core legal principles. The question now is whether artificial intelligence could extend its reach to a controversial frontier: judges who do not hold traditional law degrees.
Current state: AI in courts today
AI is already performing practical tasks that support judges and legal professionals. Algorithms help sift through precedents, organize evidence, and draft routine orders. In civil and motor-claim proceedings, AI can flag inconsistencies, calculate damages, and generate initial recommendations. These capabilities speed up proceedings, reduce backlogs, and free judges to focus on more complex issues. Yet, the definitive role of a judge—interpreting nuanced facts, weighing equities, and applying legal standards—remains inherently human in most jurisdictions.
The idea of ‘non-lawyer judges’: what it would entail
Proponents argue that AI could handle certain decision-making components under rigorous oversight, allowing non-lawyers with domain expertise to interpret algorithmic outputs and contribute to case resolution in limited contexts. Critics warn that law is a discipline built on normative reasoning, rights, duties, and procedural safeguards that require formal legal training. Introducing non-lawyer judges could raise questions about due process, fairness, accountability, and consistency with Singapore’s legal traditions.
Why Singapore might consider evolving the judiciary
Singapore’s legal framework emphasizes efficiency, transparency, and the use of technology to improve access to justice. The judiciary already experiments with risk-based case management, automated document review, and digital courtrooms. If AI can reliably interpret complex facts, surface relevant statutes, and ensure consistent application of procedural rules, some argue that specialized adjudicators—perhaps experts in technology, finance, or public policy—could preside over certain types of cases under strict safeguards and with a legally trained supervising judge. The aim would be to preserve fairness while expanding capacity in a growing economy.
Safeguards, standards, and accountability
Any shift toward AI-assisted or non-lawyer adjudication would hinge on robust safeguards. Potential measures include: independent verification of algorithmic outputs, transparent decision records, continuous auditing for bias and error, and clear jurisdictional limits on what AI-assisted judges may decide. A hybrid model—where AI assists but a legally trained judge makes final rulings—could balance efficiency with constitutional protections. Public confidence would depend on explainability, rights to appeal, and transparent governance around AI systems used in courts.
What this means for legal education and careers
The possibility of AI-influenced judgments may prompt reforms in legal education and professional pathways. Law schools might emphasize interdisciplinary training in data science, ethics, and comparative constitutional law. For lawyers, the evolution could shift emphasis toward expertise in AI governance, risk assessment, and the interpretation of algorithmic outputs. For qualified non-lawyers who bring domain knowledge, opportunities could arise in advisory roles, court observers, or expert adjudicatory panels under tight supervision and ongoing oversight from licensed lawyers.
The role of the public and lawmakers
Public trust is essential. Transparent pilot programs, thorough impact assessments, and clear statutory authority would help residents understand how AI and potential new adjudicators fit within Singapore’s rule of law. Lawmakers would need to define the scope, limits, and oversight mechanisms to ensure that any shift respects fundamental rights, equality before the law, and due process. While the idea of AI-enabled or non-lawyer judges is provocative, it should be approached through careful experimentation, rigorous evaluation, and ongoing dialogue with the judiciary, legal professionals, and civil society.
Conclusion: a cautious but forward-looking path
Singapore’s experimentation with AI in the courts signals a broader trend: technology will increasingly shape how justice is delivered. Whether this extends to non-lawyer judges remains uncertain and heavily contingent on policy choices, public confidence, and proven safeguards. The overarching goal should be to preserve core legal principles while leveraging AI to reduce delays, improve accuracy, and enhance access to justice for all citizens.
