LAWYes, a Malaysian-built AI platform for legal research, drafting and case management, was launched in Kuala Lumpur on 27 October 2026 by Deputy Law Minister M. Kulasegaran. Developed by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia law academic Associate Professor Dr Shahrul Mizan Ismail, it came with a clear message from the minister: lawyers must never blindly rely on AI-generated information.
Key takeaways
- What: a Malaysian legal AI platform for research, drafting and case-based workspaces.
- Who: developed by Associate Professor Dr Shahrul Mizan Ismail of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Faculty of Law.
- When: launched on 27 October 2026 at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Memorial Auditorium, Kuala Lumpur.
- The warning: M. Kulasegaran cited Singapore cases where lawyers paid costs personally over fictitious citations.
- The three tests: verification, client confidentiality and lawyers’ own core skills.
What is LAWYes?
LAWYes is an artificial intelligence platform built for legal practice. According to the New Straits Times, it combines legal research assistance, document drafting and workspaces organised around individual cases.
It is designed to reduce hallucinations by keeping its answers grounded in the legal materials available to it.
RTM reported that the minister described LAWYes as among the first initiatives of its kind, one that could benefit the public as well as lawyers by widening access to more efficient and affordable legal services.
Who built LAWYes?
Associate Professor Dr Shahrul Mizan Ismail, a lecturer at the UKM Faculty of Law, developed LAWYes with YF Associates Sdn Bhd, the company he chairs.
M. Kulasegaran said he was proud that the platform was a Malaysian innovation, built from scratch by someone with a legal rather than a technology background. He argued that Malaysia should not be content to use tools developed elsewhere and needed the confidence to build its own. RTM reported that he also said the government would consider how it could help the initiative succeed.
The developers are already looking beyond software. According to RTM, they plan to launch a cooling jacket for legal practitioners in 2027, fitted with NFC technology so users can open LAWYes by tapping a compatible device.
What did the minister warn lawyers about?
M. Kulasegaran, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), said AI should strengthen a lawyer’s judgement, not replace it. He said any discussion of AI in the profession must return to service quality, responsibility and public trust.
He pointed to Singapore, where lawyers have been ordered to pay costs personally after non-existent cases appeared in their court submissions. He did not name the cases, but Singapore’s courts have made such orders more than once:
- In Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul v Suriaya binte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33, a lawyer was ordered to pay S$800 after citing an AI-generated authority that did not exist.
- In Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49, two solicitors were each ordered to pay S$5,000 after fictitious authorities appeared in their closing submissions. Neither could confirm how the cases got there, but the judge found an AI tool had “most likely” been used.
What are the minister’s three tests for lawyers using AI?
- Accuracy and verification. Lawyers must confirm that every authority they cite exists and is relevant. Responsibility for the work, and for protecting the client’s interests, stays with the lawyer handling the matter.
- Confidentiality. Lawyers must understand how AI tools process, store, and protect client information so clients can trust their data is secure.
- Core skills. Young lawyers, pupils in chambers and law students should keep developing their research, drafting and independent analysis. AI should complement those skills, not replace them.
He added a less common point. He hoped lawyers would use the time AI saves to look after their own wellbeing, rather than simply taking on more work.
What does this mean for law firms in Southeast Asia?
LAWYes joins a growing group of legal AI tools built for national legal systems in Southeast Asia. In Malaysia, NEXLAW AI and Thomas Philip launched an AI trial copilot, and LexisNexis has been developing AI for legal analytics in the region. Global platforms are moving in too, with Harvey and Legora both opening offices in Singapore.
Local builders have a fair argument: a tool grounded in Malaysian statutes and case law may handle local questions better than a general-purpose model.
But “grounded” is a claim firms should test for themselves. The key questions are how complete the underlying database is and how the tool responds when it cannot find an answer.
The minister’s message also shows where regulators’ attention is heading. Verification, confidentiality and training are becoming baseline expectations for AI use in practice, and both the Malaysian Bar and Singapore’s courts have already said so in writing. Firms adopting these tools should put their own verification and data-handling policies in writing before they need them.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the minister mention Singapore?
Singapore’s courts have ordered lawyers to pay costs personally after fictitious cases appeared in their submissions. In [2025] SGHCR 33, counsel admitted a junior lawyer had used an AI app; in [2026] SGHC 49, the judge found an AI tool had “most likely” been used to draft the submissions.
What does the Malaysian Bar say about lawyers using generative AI?
Bar Council Circular No 242/2025, issued on 3 July 2025, warns of hallucinated citations, breaches of client confidentiality and overreliance on unverified output. It tells members to check AI output against official legal databases, keep personal and client data out of AI tools, and subject all output to human oversight.
What rules apply in Singapore courts when lawyers use generative AI?
The Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users, in force since 1 October 2024, does not ban AI but makes court users fully responsible for their documents. They must verify that cited cases and legislation exist. A court can ask whether AI was used, and lawyers who fall short can face personal costs orders.
Sources
- Inas Farid, “Lawyers must not rely blindly on AI, says Kulasegaran“, New Straits Times, 27 October 2026.
- “LAWYes manfaatkan AI, tingkat kecekapan guaman“, Berita RTM, 27 October 2026.
- Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul v Suriaya binte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33.
- Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49, also reported by CNA.
- Malaysian Bar, Circular No 242/2025: Updates on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, 3 July 2025.
- Supreme Court of Singapore, Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users, effective 1 October 2024.
