UKSLSS X AUSLSS Bridging the Justice Gap? A Comparative Study of the Use of Legal Technology to Aid Access to Justice Systems across Australia, the United Kingdom and Singapore

Writers: Kelly Lee (AUSLSS), Dheveena Rao (AUSLSS), Isha Ursekar (UKSLSS), Tan Yen Lin Alyssa (UKSLSS)

Editors: Amy Marsh (UKSLSS), Ng Wan Ting Chiara (UKSLSS)

Introduction

Legal aid is a cornerstone of access to justice. It is recognised by the United Nations as a fundamental human right and a basis for “the enjoyment of other rights” [1]. Legal aid is therefore not simply a social service, but rather a mechanism through which individuals can understand, claim, and defend themselves. It is intended to comprise legal advice through "restorative justice processes” [2], legal education, community-based support, and increasingly, technology-enabled pathways that help people navigate complex legal systems. 

Yet across the world, legal aid systems face immense pressure, as demonstrated by the 1.4 billion people whose civil justice needs remain unmet [3]. Rising economic inequality, growing demand, and constrained public budgets have forced legal systems to make difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce legal aid resources. These decisions reflect societal assumptions on the kind of legal problems that matter most, and how different societies conceptualise access to justice. 

Australia, the United Kingdom (‘UK’), and Singapore offer three distinct perspectives on this challenge. Australia’s system reflects an offence-based triage, where legal aid is treated as a public good. On the other hand, in recent years, the UK has operated a sharply reduced, austerity-driven model that exposes the widening gap between formal rights and practical access. By contrast, Singapore adopts a targeted, vulnerability-focused approach, reflecting state support and extensive pro bono partnerships. Together, these models raise a central question: how exactly should limited legal aid resources be allocated?

At the same time, all three jurisdictions are experimenting with technology as a means of widening access despite current constraints. From Singapore’s digital justice tools to Australia’s virtual clinics and the UK’s legal advice applications, technology seemingly serves as a solution to structural gaps in legal aid. However, whether these innovations genuinely expand access or simply shift the burden onto self-represented litigants remains an open question.

This article will address two interconnected questions. Firstly, how should limited legal aid resources be allocated, and to what extent do the existing frameworks in Australia, the UK, and Singapore reflect the needs of the communities they serve? Secondly, how is legal technology deployed to address gaps in access to justice across these three jurisdictions, and what are the limits of what it can achieve? In doing so, this article argues that while legal technology remains a valuable supplement to legal aid, it cannot completely substitute for an adequately resourced legal aid system designed with an understanding of the communities it intends to serve. 

Comparative Legal Aid Frameworks

Legal aid systems are shaped by the institutional, political, and social contexts in which they operate. While Australia, the UK, and Singapore each recognise legal aid as an essential component of access to justice, the frameworks through which they deliver it differ considerably in structure, funding, eligibility, and the role of the state. 

Australia

Australia’s legal assistance sector is decentralised and pluralised, operating through four distinct categories of government-funded providers. The largest are Legal Aid Commissions, which exist in every state and territory as independent statutory authorities established under their respective legislation [4]. They handle a broad range of matters, including criminal law, family law and civil matters involving vulnerable individuals, and represent the primary point of publicly funded legal assistance for most Australians. Eligibility is determined through a combination of means testing, merit assessment, and jurisdictional guidelines that vary between states and territories [5]. This means that access to assistance can differ slightly depending on where a person resides. In an interview with Sally Andersen (‘Andersen’), Deputy Associate Dean at Monash Legal Clinic, she notes that upon initial contact, an administrative team determines whether the matter falls within the organisation’s scope, before cases are allocated by area of law and prioritised according to urgency and available capacity. 

Alongside Legal Aid Commissions, Community Legal Centres (‘CLCs’) operate as independent, community-based non-profit organisations. Located across all states and territories, they assist individuals who may require legal aid but fall outside the Legal Aid Commissions’ eligibility criteria, thereby filling critical gaps in coverage [6]. CLCs generally handle a wider range of issues, with some running specialised programmes targeting a particular demographic or legal issue. Additionally, there are providers who focus specifically on First Nations communities. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services deliver culturally tailored assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, while Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (‘FVPLS’) provide specialist legal support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims of family violence and sexual assault [7]. 

All four provider types are funded through a mix of Commonwealth and state and territory government grants under the National Legal Assistance Partnership [8]. While the Commonwealth committed $3.9 billion over five years through the National Access to Justice Partnership, which commenced in July 2025, the Law Council of Australia has consistently estimated an annual funding shortfall for legal assistance services of $500 million, and the new funding has been criticised for falling well short of that figure [9]. The consequences of underfunding are significant, as strict means testing means that many people on low income or in unstable housing or employment are found to be earning just enough to disqualify them from accessing legal aid, despite their precarious financial circumstances and the high cost of litigation. According to the 2024 Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership, it was recognised that people living below the poverty line remain ineligible for legal assistance under the current means test [10]. This structural gap between legal need and available resources has become a defining feature of the Australian system, and one that has increasingly shaped the role technology plays within it. 

Together, these providers reflect a model in which legal assistance is delivered through a network of institutions operating with considerable independence from the central government. While this pluralism allows specialisation and community responsiveness, it also produces inconsistency, as illustrated by eligibility thresholds, service availability, and the considerable variation in types of matters covered across jurisdictions. 

United Kingdom

The UK operates a hybrid model, centralised in its commissioning and administration, but market-based in its delivery. Civil legal aid in England and Wales is governed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (‘LASPO’) and administered by the Legal Aid Agency (‘LAA’), an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The LAA classifies civil legal aid across eleven categories of law, encompassing family, immigration and asylum, mental health, housing and debt, community care, welfare benefits, claims against public authorities, public law, clinical negligence, discrimination and education. 

Accessing civil legal aid requires satisfying three distinct hurdles. A matter must first fall within scope under Schedule 1 of LASPO [11]. It must then pass a merits test, assessing the strength and likely benefit of the case, and a means test, assessing the applicant’s financial eligibility. Where a matter falls outside the defined scope, legal services may still be available in exceptional circumstances under section 10 of LASPO [12]. 

The delivery of civil legal aid is not carried out directly by the state. Instead, it is outsourced entirely to contracted providers operating under the LAA’s Standard Civil Contract. These include a mix of private law firms and not-for-profit organisations such as Law Centres. This structure, however, means that geographic and demographic coverage is dependent on where the providers choose to operate. 

LASPO represented a fundamental retrenchment of civil legal aid in England and Wales. Whereas previously a legal matter was within scope and qualified for legal aid funding unless specifically excluded, LASPO reversed this position, listing only those areas of law that remained in scope [13]. From this, we can see that LASPO rationing in this way means that whether a person is assisted depends on how their problem is classified, instead of the severity of what is at stake. The cumulative effect has been severe. The number of advice agencies and law centres doing legal aid work dropped 59% compared to 2012, creating large advice deserts [14]. These are areas where people entitled to legal aid can no longer access it. Those who handled their own cases owing to the lack of legal assistance reported that their matters were made worse, with some abandoning cases altogether due to financial, social, emotional, and mental distress [15]. It is within this context of sustained contraction that legal technology has increasingly been positioned as a means of bridging the gap. 

Singapore

Singapore’s legal aid system is understood as a tightly targeted model where its Legal Aid Bureau (‘LAB’), a government-funded civil legal assistance, operates at its core. Akin to the UK, applicants must pass both a means test (assessing financial eligibility) and a merits test (assessing whether the case has reasonable grounds) [16]. LAB primarily handles areas such as family law, housing and employment disputes, and may assign in-house lawyers or private practitioners. By ensuring that support is directed towards those who need it most, this reflects Singapore’s emphasis on fiscal discipline and targeted welfare, as the state plays a primary role in aiding the underprivileged.

Alongside this, Singapore heavily relies upon structured, quasi-institutional actors such as Pro Bono SG to extend support beyond what the state directly provides. Originally a department within the Law Society of Singapore, Pro Bono SG is a charity that has now evolved into a central body for pro bono efforts, mobilising a large volunteer base and working closely with grassroots community partners to increase legal awareness, guidance and representation to those in need [17]. It also has schemes, such as the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which provides representation to accused persons facing non-capital charges who cannot afford counsel, thereby filling a justice gap left by the LAB’s civil-only mandate. More recently, in 2022, Singapore’s establishment of the Public Defender’s Office shows a gradual expansion of the state’s involvement in criminal legal aid, which complements the existing support systems in place.

Singapore therefore presents a hybrid legal aid system too, and arguably a more integrated one than the UK’s, with the state, its formal pro bono schemes and community partners operating together.

Comparison of the Frameworks Across the Jurisdictions

The three frameworks examined above reflect fundamentally different approaches to the allocation of limited legal aid resources. Australia’s decentralised model distributes resources across a broad network of providers, prioritising community responsiveness and outreach. With this comes the issue of consistency, with chronic underfunding undermining the system’s ambitions. The UK’s LASPO framework allocates resources through a narrowly defined scope of eligible matters, effectively rationing access by restricting entitlement, a model that has been proven effective fiscally, but is deeply damaging to society as a whole. Singapore’s targeted, vulnerability-focused approach concentrates its resources on those most in need through tightly administered means and merits testing. Singapore’s approach could be said to achieve the greatest coherence of the three, though partly by narrowing the scope it undertakes to cover. 

These models collectively reveal that there is no neutral, one-size-fits-all answer to the question of allocation of resources. Each framework in place has preexisting assumptions about which legal problems matter, whose needs are most pressing, and what role the state should play in meeting them. In our opinion, of the three, Singapore’s model is arguably the most coherent in directing resources to those most in need. However, its state-controlled structure limits the diversity of legal perspectives available to users. On the other hand, Australia’s pluralistic approach appears to be the most responsive to community needs. Still, its chronic underfunding and jurisdictional inconsistencies mean that responsiveness does not necessarily translate into access. The current UK’s market-based model appears to be the most structurally precarious, as it relies on contractual providers to fill gaps that the state has deliberately chosen to withdraw from, with no guarantee of geographic or demographic coverage. In each jurisdiction, the gap between formal entitlement and practical access has proven persistent. This gap is what legal technology has been positioned as a solution for. 

Integration of Legal Technology into Legal Aid

Across Australia, the UK, and Singapore, legal technology has increasingly been deployed to address systemic gaps in access to justice. However, its role differs markedly between jurisdictions, reflecting the distinct institutional environments in which it operates. Rather than providing a universal solution, legal technology mirrors the structural conditions of each system, supplementing chronic underfunding in Australia, compensating for deliberate retrenchment in the UK, and operating as a formalised instrument of state coordination in Singapore. In each case, technology alone has proven insufficient, and its transformative potential depends on sustained funding and genuinely inclusive design.

Australia

In Australia, legal technology has emerged largely as a pragmatic response to underfunding in legal aid and growing unmet legal need, rather than as a product of deliberate institutional design. Organisations such as Justice Connect use digital platforms to connect individuals and community services with pro bono lawyers across the country, reducing geographical and financial barriers to access [18]. Similarly, Anika Legal operates as a free online legal service in Victoria, assisting vulnerable renters who fall outside legal aid eligibility thresholds and would otherwise have no recourse [19]. AskLOIS further illustrates the targeted use of technology by providing free legal information to community workers in New South Wales supporting women experiencing domestic violence, particularly in regional and rural areas where legal resources are limited [20].

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated these developments, prompting courts and legal service providers to adopt remote access technologies such as teleconferencing, online chat, and self-help platforms. As explained by Andersen, this is reflected in Monash Legal Clinic’s day-to-day operations. The COVID-19 pandemic initially moved all client meetings online via Zoom and phone calls. Following that, the clinic has since adopted a hybrid approach, with some client meetings in person, and others conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams, Zoom or over a phone call. In addition, case management is handled through Action Step and internal coordination runs through Teams. She also notes that, though no purpose-built AI has been integrated into Monash Legal Clinic’s own service delivery, Microsoft Copilot is being used by the organisation. The Orange Door service in Victoria similarly exemplifies this shift by enabling victims of family violence to participate in virtual court proceedings, thereby reducing the risk of re-traumatisation.

On the question of technology’s broader potential, Andersen explains that if technology makes processes easier and quicker, organisations can see more clients and develop greater capabilities. As for barriers to internal adoption, she notes that resistance has been limited as it is largely a matter of training. However, concerns around confidentiality and legal professional privilege remain a significant consideration in the integration of AI tools into legal aid services. 

Despite these advances, technology has not resolved the structural inequalities that underpin inadequate access to justice in Australia. Research from Monash University cautions that innovations developed for domestic and family violence victims, including evidence-collection applications and parenting communication tools, may not be easily usable by traumatised individuals [21]. The accessibility of online court processes has also enabled misuse, with perpetrators exploiting digital systems to file cross-applications for protection orders. Andersen notes a concerning trend whereby in areas such as unfair dismissal, increasing numbers of people are turning directly to AI rather than to legal services, raising questions about whether unguided technology engagement produces adequate outcomes for those in need. However, recently in August 2026, Macquarie University academic Greg Baker won a landmark decision before the Fair Work Commission without legal representation [22]. He relied on AI agents including ChatGPT Pro to run the case, ultimately defeating the university’s experienced legal team and a prominent barrister [23]. Baker however, cautioned that most self-represented litigants use far less capable free tools which produce hallucinated citations and meritless arguments, thereby attributing his success to his individual expertise and resources [24]. More fundamentally, assumptions about language, digital literacy, and access to devices embedded in these platforms risk reproducing the very barriers they seek to overcome. Without sustained funding, targeted research, and trauma-informed, survivor-led design, legal technology risks becoming another obstacle for vulnerable users. This contrasts with Singapore’s centrally coordinated approach, where technology is integrated into a well-resourced institutional framework. Instead, in Australia, digital tools are deployed reactively, filling gaps left by an underfunded system rather than being designed to deliberately be part of one. 

United Kingdom

In the UK, legal technology has developed primarily in response to the significant contraction of civil legal aid following LASPO. With the Legal Aid Agency’s budget substantially reduced and traditional providers struggling to meet demand, the scale of unmet legal need has grown considerably. An estimated third of those with a resolved contentious legal issue are estimated to have an unmet legal need, primarily because they did not obtain professional help [25]. Digital tools have emerged as a means of filling this gap. 

Practice management technology such as SOS Legal has been developed specifically to support the operational needs of legal aid providers, enabling faster triage and advice, automating administrative workflows, and facilitating remote working. At the client-facing level, legal aid applications have proliferated, offering streamlined access to legal advice, often within minutes. Many of these applications specialise in particular areas of law, including immigration, housing and family law. This reflects the specific categories of need left exposed by LASPO’s narrowing of scope. At the City Community Legal Advice Centre (‘CityCLAC’), case management, video consultations and document collaboration tools are used to extend limited volunteer resources, and a chatbot was introduced in October 2024 to train students in client interviewing, with AI also drafting triage forms and referral resources so that high volumes of enquiries receive tailored responses [26]. Matthew Smith, a solicitor volunteering as a supervising solicitor at the clinic, reports that its use of technology has made reviewing documents and meeting students and clients considerably smoother [27]. Director Sally Gill describes such technology as “a powerful equaliser” [28].

An increasing number are integrated with broader support services, including social work agencies and welfare assistance. According to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) and legal technology hold particular promise in this context, through supporting legal aid and advice providers with automation, document drafting, legal research, and case management [29]. This has reduced administrative burdens, extended service reach to remote or marginalised groups, and improved efficiency and responsiveness where resources are stretched. AI also offers potential for language support, online service delivery, and faster client engagement through tools such as chatbots. 

Despite these developments, technology has not fully compensated for the scale of retrenchment in civil legal aid. The main barrier to using AI to access legal services includes a lack of trust in AI technology, as cited by 51% of respondents in the Legal Needs Survey 2023 of individuals in England and Wales. This is coupled with the lack of human oversight, as cited by 49%. Notably, people appear to distrust AI as a source of legal help and to use it anyway where nothing else is available, which shows a system that is failing instead of technology succeeding in helping legal aid. Stuart Pearson of the Citizens Advice SORT group explained how Caddy, an AI chatbot that was piloted within the Citizens Advice network, drafts responses from pre-approved sources for a supervisor to approve or reject before an adviser relays them [30]. With roughly 80% of drafts approved and response times halved, it was emphasised that Caddy still operates under their “core ethical principle” that "Clients must always speak to a human" [31], which reflects a general public scepticism of AI. The BIICL has identified three intersecting forms of exclusion that legal technology struggles to address: situational exclusion through economic hardship and geographical isolation, issue-based exclusion where legal problems are simply too complex for automated tools, and group-based exclusion through systemic discrimination affecting marginalised communities. Moreover, smaller organisations, often those closest to the underserved communities, frequently lack the technical capacity and funding to adopt and maintain these systems, risking further entrenchment of existing inequalities. Unlike in Australia, where digital exclusions stem primarily from a lack of funding and geographical remoteness, the UK’s digital divide is compounded by policy retrenchment. Communities left behind by LASPO are the same communities with the least ability to access the digital tools that have emerged to replace what was taken away.

The risks of digital dependency came to light in May 2025, when the Legal Aid Agency suffered a major cyberattack [32]. The attack had a devastating effect on the sector, particularly on the cash flow of legal aid providers, coming on top of decades of underinvestment. This incident underscores a broader tension at the heart of legal technology, that the very infrastructure designed to widen access to justice may, without sufficient security, expose those it serves to further harm. 

Singapore

Singapore presents a model in which legal technology is centrally coordinated and deeply embedded within the judiciary and government entities. In an interview with Sujesh Anandan (‘Anandan’), a Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (‘CLAS’) Advocate at Pro Bono SG, Anandan notes that the integration of legal technology “has definitely improved our internal efficiency, particularly in matter management and client triaging”. Through a range of online court services and tools deployed to enhance access to justice, the “information barrier” is meaningfully lowered. Anandan notes that tools available before individuals step into their office help them understand their legal rights and eligibility for schemes such as the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (‘CLAS’), which is one of the primary channels through which individuals can access pro bono services. Technology also plays a vital role when coordinating between Pro Bono SG’s internal team of Advocates and Fellows and its wider network of volunteer lawyers. 

While this high level of institutional integration promotes efficiency, consistency, and broad reach, it also presents notable challenges. Legal knowledge within this framework is effectively state-controlled, with users guided along predefined pathways that may not reflect the full complexity of individual circumstances. Compared to more independent, NGO-driven ecosystems, this model is less pluralistic, narrowing the diversity of perspectives available to users whilst potentially encouraging over-reliance due to its perceived authority and state-backed credibility. Taken together with the two jurisdictions above, the comparison suggests that the value of a technological tool depends largely on the existing system within each country. It can be observed that Singapore’s tools are built into a working and functional system, while Australia’s and the UK’s are built into a comparatively underfunded one.

Across all three jurisdictions, technology performs best where the underlying legal problem is procedurally simple, high-volume, and low-stakes for the individual client. Singapore’s Intelligent Legal Assistance Bot (‘iLAB’) and AskLOIS both succeed for the same reason: they answer information-based queries such as ‘Am I eligible?’ and ‘What are my rights?’ that do not require weighing conflicting evidence or exercising legal judgment. Additionally, iLAB delivers customised legal information by identifying an individual’s legal issues and providing relevant information. iLAB can also generate simple legal documents and check one’s eligibility for legal aid [33]. The UK’s specialised area-specific legal aid applications work on the same principle, succeeding where triage and information provision, rather than representation, are the primary need. Alternatively, technology performs worse and risks causing active harm when the underlying matter is complex, emotionally charged or when the client’s capacity to engage with a screen itself is compromised. This is exactly identified by the aforementioned BIICL’s ‘issue-based exclusion’ category for problems too complex for automation. Notably, this is not a jurisdiction-specific problem that can simply be solved with better design or funding alone. 

Concluding Remarks

In all, regardless of jurisdiction, it is important to recognise, as Anandan himself acknowledges, that technology cannot replace the "human touch" required in criminal and community law contexts. This limitation is particularly acute given that many clients are present in positions of vulnerability and may not be easily accessible to traumatised individuals with limited digital literacy, as suggested by Andersen. This raises questions about whether technologically-mediated access to justice can ever be truly equitable without corresponding investment in human support. 

Our own view, having compared all three systems, is whether the investment in technology is worth it at all. On the evidence here, that is in triage and information delivery, not in representation or judgment-based casework, and any jurisdiction that treats digital tools as a way to defer investment in human legal aid capacity, rather than as a complement to it, risks widening the very gap that it aims to close.

Bibliography

[1] United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, UN General Assembly Resolution 67/187 (20 December 2012), Principle 1, [1].

[2] Ibid, [8].

[3] World Justice Project, Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World (World Justice Project, 2023).

[4] Australian Pro Bono Centre, ‘Legal Aid in Australia’ (Australian Pro Bono Centre, July 2024) <https://www.probonocentre.org.au/legal-help/legal-aid/#:~:text=Grants%20of%20Legal%20Aid,and%20some%20civil%20law%20cases.> accessed 27 March 2026.

[5] Australia Pro Bono Centre, ‘Chapter 3.1: Legal Aid Commissions’, The Australian Pro Bono Manual (Web Page, 2022) <https://www.probonocentre.org.au/aus-pro-bono-manual/part-3/chap-3-1/>.

[6] Australia Pro Bono Centre, ‘Legal Aid in Australia’ (n 4). 

[7] Attorney-General’s Department, ‘First Nations People and Family Law’ (Web Page) <https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/first-nations-people-and-family-law>. 

[8] National Access to Justice Partnership 2025–30.

[9] ‘Media Release: Court and Tribunal Funding Welcome, but Legal Assistance Services Deserve More’ Law Council of Australia (Australia, 14 May 2024). 

[10] Warren Mundy, Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership Final Report (28 May 2024) <https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/NLAP-review-report.PDF>.

[11] Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (UK), sch 1.

[12]  Ibid, s 10.

[13] Terry McGuinness, Legal Aid: the review of LASPO Part 1 (House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper Number 43720, 7 May 2020) <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8910/>.

[14] The Law Society, ‘LASPO Act’ (The Law Society, 28 January 2025). <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/legal-aid/laspo-act> accessed 27 March 2026.

[15]  Olubunmi Onafuwa, ‘LASPO 2012: ten years and beyond – a socio-legal study of the impact of legal aid cuts on service providers in England and Wales.’ (2024) Legal Ethics, 27(1), 45–62. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2024.2399921> accessed 27 March 2026.

[16]  Ministry of Law, ‘Do I Qualify for Legal Aid?’ (Web Page) <https://lab.mlaw.gov.sg/legal-services/do-i-qualify/>. 

[17] Pro Bono SG, ‘Our Story’ (Pro Bono SG, 2026) <https://www.probono.sg/our-story/> accessed 27 March 2026.

[18] LawCPD, ‘3 Australian Initiatives Using Technology to Improve Access to Justice’ (Blog Post, 9 May 2023) <https://lawcpd.com.au/blog/technology-access-justice-australia/,,>

[19] See ibid. 

[20] LawCPD, ‘3 Australian Initiatives Using Technology to Improve Access to Justice’ (n 18). 

[21] Delanie Woodlock et al, ‘Legal Tech for Justice: Enhancing Ac,cess to Justice in Family Violence Legal Services’ (Research Paper, Australian Centre for Justice Innovation, Monash University, May 2022), 9. 

[22] David Marin-Guzman, ‘AI wins landmark Fair Work Commission case for Macquarie academic’, Australian Financial Review (online, 16 August 2026) <https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/ai-wins-landmark-fair-work-commission-case-for-macquarie-academic-20260813-p60o1m>.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] YouGov, The Legal Services Board and The Law Society, Legal Needs of Individuals in England and Wales (Report, 18 April 2024) 22 <https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/LN2023-Summary-report-18.04.24-updated.pdf>.

[26] Dr Shamim Quadir ‘Leveraging technology in pro bono clinics: a step forward for access to justice’ (City St George, 4 November 2024) <https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/november/leveraging-technology-pro-bono-clinics-step-forward-access-justice> accessed 21 August 2026.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Iris Anastasiadou and Jean-Pierre Gauci, Bridging the Justice Gap: How Smart Technology can Support Access to Legal Advice for Underserved Communities (Report, 24 October 2025), 4 <https://www.biicl.org/documents/197_ai_legal_access_vulnerable_groups.pdf>.

[30] Margaret Hagan, 'How AI is Augmenting Human-Led Legal Advice at Citizens Advice' (Stanford Legal Design Lab, 20 March 2025) <https://justiceinnovation.law.stanford.edu/how-ai-is-augmenting-human-led-legal-advice-at-citizens-advice/> accessed 23 August 2026.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Jessica Murray, ‘Legal Aid Cyber-Attack has Pushed Sector Towards Collapse, Say Lawyers’, The Guardian (online, 3 August 2025) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/aug/03/legal-aid-cyber-attack-has-pushed-sector-towards-collapse-say-lawyers>.

[33] ‘Tech-ing on a Better Tomorrow, Ministry of Law (Web Page, 1 March 2021) <https://insight.mlaw.gov.sg/articles/legal-developments/2021-03-01-tech-ing-on-a-better-tomorrow/>.

[34]