Singapore’s graduate unemployment challenge is intensifying, mirroring trends seen across many developed economies. In July, the government signalled close monitoring of graduate employment as a 2025 survey showed fewer new graduates securing jobs in their first year after finishing school.
Artificial intelligence is not yet commonplace in everyday business operations, but when it is adopted at scale, its impact on jobs is expected to be substantial. Bill Gates has warned that AI could make many human roles redundant, describing the development as deeply profound, rapid, and with no clear upper limit.
With undergraduates and prospective students anxious about prospects, and parents unsure which courses to steer their children toward, the discourse around AI’s potential reaches the legal sector in particular. Law firms are among the early adopters of AI, and the technology’s capabilities are already reshaping entry‑level work.
AI-powered tools in law firms can now generate research memoranda, sift and summarize hundreds of due‑diligence documents, and produce a solid first draft of contracts within seconds. Tasks that once occupied junior associates and required close oversight from partners can be accelerated by AI, prompting concern about the future of junior roles. Yet this transformation also carries the promise of shifting junior workloads toward more value‑adding activities under stronger supervision.
Realising the full productivity gains from AI requires substantial change. AI solutions are not plug‑and‑play; firms must redesign work processes around what AI does well and, crucially, where it falters. Hallucinations remain a challenge, so practitioners must master prompt engineering and carefully curate outputs. Different AI platforms excel at different tasks—some are better for drafting, others for researching—so firms must stay vigilant about choosing the right tools and keeping them secure as technology evolves rapidly.
Governance and risk management are equally important. Client confidentiality, AI‑related governance, and ensuring that AI use aligns with engagement terms must be tightly controlled.
Perhaps most transformative is how legal education and training will need to adapt. If AI can perform more routine tasks, newly qualified lawyers must learn to verify and contextualize AI outputs with a commercial lens. Training programs will need to compress years of experience into targeted, intensive curricula. The future lawyer will be judged not only on knowledge of precedent but on their ability to craft commercial solutions, persuade in negotiations, and adapt to evolving norms in advocacy. AI can tell what the law is, but human judgment—what it should be and how it should be applied in real-world scenarios—remains essential.
Human skills will still matter. Reading a room, interpreting client and judge dynamics, and negotiating effectively are areas where humans outperform machines. This means HR practices will need to evolve to identify and cultivate attributes that are hard for AI to replicate. Change management becomes a central capability, with leadership buy‑in and sustained engagement crucial for a smooth transition.
Industry projections suggest AI-enabled law firms may reduce the number of fresh graduates needed by about 20–30% to produce the same output. Yet the upside is not a simple job wipeout: as technology handles routine tasks, lawyers can tackle higher‑value work, potentially boosting remuneration and enabling the creation of new professional roles, such as knowledge‑management specialists who help firms use AI intelligently.
Singapore will need systemic reforms to realise AI’s productivity potential if it hopes to remain a leading financial and services hub. Education systems should reward critical thinking, communication, and creative problem‑solving alongside traditional knowledge recall. This means rethinking teaching and assessment methods to nurture curiosity and resilience, rather than rote memorisation alone. At the tertiary level, universities may need to balance research prestige with more vocational preparation so graduates exit with tangible workplace capabilities.
On the business side, AI adoption requires a new class of professional talents: guidance on selecting appropriate AI solutions, redesigning work processes, establishing guardrails, and training employees. IBM has highlighted AI expertise as a major bottleneck in integration, underscoring the need for organisations to build internal capability.
AI promises substantial productivity gains that could benefit the economy, reduce worker burnout, and deliver better outcomes for clients. But realising those gains hinges on readiness—both in firms’ internal capabilities and in national systems of education and governance. Singapore’s track record of decisive pivots suggests it is positioned to meet this moment, though the path will demand bold reforms and sustained collaboration among policymakers, educators, and the legal industry.
This column is written by a joint managing partner of TSMP Law Corp and reflects a perspective on how Singapore might navigate AI-driven disruption in the legal sector.
Additional notes and takeaways
– For graduates and students: consider curricula that strengthen critical thinking, communication, and collaborative problem-solving, alongside foundational legal knowledge.
– For educators and policymakers: align assessment methods with the skills demanded by AI-enabled workplaces; explore partnerships with industry to keep training relevant.
– For employers: plan change management early, invest in upskilling, and build governance frameworks that protect client interests while leveraging AI’s strengths.
Overall, the article underscores a pivotal moment for Singapore: AI is reshaping law and work more broadly, but with proactive training, thoughtful policy, and adaptable institutions, the disruption can translate into new opportunities and higher-value careers.