Gaythri Raman, the Managing Director SEA & India, LexisNexis, in her presentation at the AI for Law Forum, outlined a structured approach to artificial intelligence at LexisNexis, grounded in professional responsibility and ethics. She emphasised that the organisation prioritises accuracy, relevance, and transparency, with all output supported by verifiable legal citations. This is complemented by a strong commitment to data protection, privacy, and intellectual property, guided by RELX’s Responsible AI Principles, centering on fairness, explainability, human oversight, and real-world impact.

To contextualise current developments, she outlined the evolution of AI in legal practice across three stages. The first stage, extractive AI, focused on supporting legal research, e-discovery, and contract analysis, improving efficiency while retaining the central role of lawyers, particularly junior practitioners. The second stage, generative AI, marked a significant shift, enabling systems to draft contracts, summarise cases, and prepare client communications. This has begun to automate first drafts and routine tasks, effectively augmenting the nature of junior level work.

Gaythri Raman
Managing Director SEA & India,
LexisNexis

She highlighted that the legal sector is now entering a third stage, agentic AI, where systems are capable of planning, decision making, and executing multi step workflows such as due diligence, litigation support, and compliance checks. At this stage, not only discrete tasks but entire junior level workflows may be subject to automation, signaling a deeper and structural transformation of legal practice.

Against this backdrop, she emphasised that competitive advantage in the legal profession is shifting away from speed and volume of output towards judgment, ethical reasoning, and the cultivation of client trust; capabilities that remain distinctly human

Turning to legal education, she observed that AI is already deeply embedded in academic life, with the majority of law students routinely using AI tools for coursework and assessments. The concern, however, is not AI use itself, but the absence of structured guidance and training around it. Without a framework for responsible and informed adoption, students risk a gradual erosion of foundational competencies, including critical thinking, persuasive writing, and crafting legal arguments, while simultaneously failing to develop the new skills and working practices that an AI-augmented profession demands. The danger, she cautioned, is a generation of graduates caught between two worlds, underprepared for both. She further noted that legal systems are responding with increasing scrutiny. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have sanctioned lawyers for submitting AI generated or fabricated citations, reinforcing the principle that all submissions must be independently verified. The use of AI does not diminish professional responsibility but rather intensifies it.

From a regulatory perspective, she pointed to emerging governance frameworks, including the risk-based approach of the EU AI Act, alongside developments in jurisdictions such as Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore and Australia. Malaysia, she noted, is moving in a similar direction, although global consensus remains limited.

In conclusion, she underscored a clear position. AI should be used as a tool rather than a replacement, as a tutor rather than a ghostwriter, and as a support for research rather than a substitute for thinking. While AI can enhance legal processes, responsibility, interpretation, and accountability remain firmly within the domain of the legal professional.