From liew li xuan
The Financial Times recently introduced a former junior lawyer who built a legal artificial intelligence (AI) startup, which is now valued at US$5 billion.
Beyond the headlines of entrepreneurial success, the story captures something bigger. This is how technology is beginning to change one of the oldest professions in the world.
Laws often considered to be resistant to change are now being reshaped by machine learning, automation and data-driven systems.
For Malaysia, this moment must be both inspiration and warning.
The billion-dollar legal technology companies' growth isn't just about efficiency. It illustrates a structural change in the way legal services are delivered, consumed and regulated.
In the past, tasks like reviewing contracts, carrying out due diligence, and investigating precedents required a team of long-time junior lawyers. Today, many of these functions can be executed faster and more accurately by algorithms.
AI tools have not completely replaced lawyers, but they have changed the role of lawyers. Encourages a focus on high levels of judgment, advocacy and strategy, and the machines handle repeated or technical basics.
This transformation has attracted the attention of investors around the world. With a clear value proposition, venture capital flows into legal technology. Reduce costs, increase speeds, and global scalability.
Companies with well-trained AI systems can serve their entire jurisdiction much more quickly than traditional law practices. However, this rush to automation raises deep questions of regulation, accountability and fairness.
What happens when an algorithm makes a mistake that harms the client? How do you store legal privileges in an environment where sensitive documents are being processed by third-party platforms? How can I prevent AI tools from encoding or amplifying bias? These are not abstract concerns.
In many jurisdictions, regulators are already working on them. In the European Union, AI Act creates a new compliance regime to manage high-risk AI applications, including laws and justice.
In the US, state bars publish guidance on how lawyers can use AI tools ethically.
Even Singapore has begun to integrate AI into conflict resolution, but at the same time it is creating frameworks to protect equity and transparency.
Malaysia can't afford to fall behind. Our legal system has long been proud to adapt common law principles to local realities, but the pace of technology change has required more intentional action.
On the positive side, Malaysia already has regulatory infrastructure such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA).
However, neither law is designed with AI in mind, and both need to be updated to address issues of algorithmic transparency, automated decision-making, and cross-border data use.
There are two risks of inaction. First, without clear guidelines, AI adoption in the legal sector can go in a fragmented or inconsistent way, putting clients accountable to uncertainty and attorneys.
Second, the benefits of legal technology can only occur in large companies with the resources to acquire expensive systems, leaving small businesses, solo practitioners, and underserved communities behind.
Access to justice, an already pressing issue, could become even more inequality as AI tools expand rather than fill the gap.
What Malaysia needs is a proactive approach. This includes establishing clear rules regarding the acceptable use of AI in legal practices and requires human surveillance as needed. Also, given that AI systems are trained on a vast amount of legal documents, contracts and sometimes sensitive personal information, this means enhancing data protection and privacy protection.
There must be a commitment to exceeding regulations and ensuring accessibility.
Government grants, university incubators, and legal aid initiatives can make AI tools available beyond elite circles, so innovation is useful for many people rather than a few.
Legal education also needs to evolve. Future lawyers don't just need to know the law and case law. They need to understand how algorithms work, where they fail, and what ethical risks pose.
Embedded law school technology and ethics training will enable the next generation of lawyers to use AI responsibly, not blindly.
At the same time, collaboration between regulators, law firms, universities and start-ups is essential. A regulatory sandbox controlled environment that allows AI legal tools to be tested under supervision allows Malaysia to encourage innovation while protecting its rights.
The story of a junior lawyer became the founder of a US$5 billion AI legal company. It is a signal where the legal profession is heading. Laws always require human judgment, but tools of practice are becoming computational.
Code, data and models are now part of the lawyer's toolbox. The challenge for Malaysia is whether to accept this transformation with visionary views or allow ourselves to overtake.
When this is right, AI legal innovation can streamline courts, reduce costs, and increase access to justice. If we fail, we risk embedding inequality, undermining rights, and losing faith in the very system that supports the rule of law.
The choice is ours.
Liew Li Xuan is youth advocate and founder of Lifeup Malaysia, an organization dedicated to digital well-being, preventing cyberbullying and promoting fraud awareness.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.
