Gary Meggitt on Insurance Brokers and AI (New Book Chapter)

"Insurance Brokers and AI"
Gary Meggitt
in Commercial Insurance Law: Emerging Trends and New Perspectives, edited by Barış Soyer (Routledge, February 2026), Chapter 11, pp.209-234
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: It is a widespread fear that thousands of gainfully employed people will soon be made redundant and replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Yet, insofar as insurance brokers are concerned, that anxiety has been replaced by a growing belief that the “human element” of the role – including the relationships with clients and insurers – remains essential and irreplaceable. Indeed, many brokers now expect AI systems such as Marsh McLennan’s LenAI to enable them to focus on such activities.

Yet concerns remain. Principally, how will AI systems affect brokers’ obligations to policyholders and others?

Raymond Wacks on The Rule of Law Under Fire: Will it Survive? (Hart Publishing)

The Rule of Law Under Fire: Will it Survive? (Second Edition)
Raymond Wacks (Emeritus Professor)
Hart Publishing
Published on 19 February 2026

Description

Does the upsurge in populism, authoritarianism, and nationalism threaten the future of the rule of law? In this highly topical book, Raymond Wacks explores the philosophical roots of the concept, and its modern, often controversial, interpretation.

He explores numerous ideological, economic, legal, and institutional attacks on the rule of law. They range from the exercise of judicial and administrative discretion, and parliamentary sovereignty to the growth of globalisation, the 'war on terror', and the increasing power of Big Tech and especially artificial intelligence. The author identifies which threats pose genuine risks to the rule of law, and suggests how they might be confronted to ensure that democratic freedom is successfully fortified and conserved.

(Please click here to view the book reviews of the First Edition)

Angus Young and Grace Li on Technological Disruption as an Agent of Change in Legal Education? Surprises, Disappointments and Experimentations in Australia and Hong Kong (The Law Teacher)

"Technological disruption as an agent of change in legal education? Surprises, disappointments and experimentations in Australia and Hong Kong"
Grace Li and Angus Young
The Law Teacher
Published online: January 2026

Abstract: This article explores how law schools in Australia and Hong Kong address digital disruption, particularly legaltech, and whether curricula equip graduates to manage structural and business-model shifts in legal services. Using a systematic survey of course handbooks identified through keyword searches and coded by inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study maps documented legaltech education. Course descriptions were cross-checked with faculty webpages where possible, though reliance on published handbooks is noted as a limitation. Findings reveal that while legaltech offerings are growing, they remain uneven and fragmented. This gap supports the central argument: law schools must move beyond isolated technology modules to fostering adaptability and change management skills. Practical barriers—such as high software costs and limited staff expertise—further constrain reform despite pedagogical intent. By situating these challenges within broader debates on hybrid legal roles and regulatory disruption, the article underscores the need for legal education to evolve beyond technical knowledge toward preparing graduates for dynamic professional models.

Stefan Lo on The Stillborn Statutory Corporate Rescue Procedure in Hong Kong: Lost Opportunities and Future Possibilities (JICL)

"The Stillborn Statutory Corporate Rescue Procedure in Hong Kong: Lost Opportunities and Future Possibilities"
Stefan Lo
Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol 12 Issue 2, pp. 263-298
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: The process for reform of corporate restructuring laws in Hong Kong to facilitate the rehabilitation of companies in financial distress has been a difficult and protracted one. Since the late 1990s, the Hong Kong government has attempted, unsuccessfully, on a number of occasions to enact a statutory corporate rescue procedure to address gaps and problems in the existing law. The most recent attempt had led to a draft Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill that was close to finalisation in 2020–2021, but the Bill was in the end not introduced into the legislature due to opposition from some stakeholders (such as the labour sector and small businesses) on aspects of the proposed procedure. The reform process is now stalled. It is argued in this article that the perceived difficulties were to a large extent already addressed by the draft Bill and that it is imperative for the Hong Kong government to re-start the reform process to enact reforms which are long overdue and which are vital for development and maintenance of Hong Kong’s status as an international centre of commerce and finance.

Kung Hey Fat Choy 2026

HKU Legal Scholarship Blog wishes everyone a Happy Chinese New Year 2026.

Thank you to Richard Cullen for drawing and sharing his traditional annual cartoon to mark

The Year of the Horse.

Eric Ip and Trevor Wan et al on Harnessing the power of constitutional rights and legal frameworks to scale up public mental health implementation (The Lancet Psychiatry)

"Harnessing the power of constitutional rights and legal frameworks to scale up public mental health implementation"
Michael Ni, Candi Leung, Trevor Wan, Jonathan Campion, Neeraj Gill, Sandro Galea, Eric Ip
The Lancet Psychiatry
Published online: February 2026

Summary: Despite the existence of effective public mental health interventions, global coverage remains low. Only a minority of people with mental disorders receive treatment, far fewer receive interventions to address or prevent the associated impacts of mental disorders, and there is negligible coverage of interventions to prevent mental disorders or promote mental wellbeing and resilience. This implementation failure breaches the right to health and statutory legislation in some countries and results in population-scale preventable suffering, broad societal and individual impacts, and associated economic costs. Various reasons account for public mental health implementation failure, including insufficient policy and implementation according to population needs, and insufficient knowledge, resource, political will, and legal protection regarding the right to mental health. This Health Policy highlights a further reason for implementation failure is that only 12% of constitutions covering 3·5% of the world's population explicitly recognise a constitutional right to mental health, compared with 70% of constitutions recognising a constitutional right to health or physical health. A legal framework that includes explicit constitutional protection for mental health would mean the right to mental health would supersede all other laws. This would thereby provide a basis for legislation and support legal opportunities to challenge, advocate, and improve effective public mental health implementation by different sectors. This framework and associated opportunities would support the scale-up of implementation of cross-sector policy based on the public mental health needs of a population. Such a holistic, coordinated legal approach would support scaled-up coverage of public mental health interventions to treat and prevent mental disorders and promote mental wellbeing and resilience, as well as action to address inequities and protect the rights of those with mental disorders. Improved implementation would result in broad impacts across different sectors and associated economic benefits.

Stefano Osella and Graziella Romeo on Something’s Wrong with Traditionalism: LGBTQI+ Rights in Comparative Perspective (AsJCL)

"Something’s Wrong with Traditionalism: LGBTQI+ Rights in Comparative Perspective"
Stefano Osella and Graziella Romeo
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: January 2026

Abstract: This article problematises traditionalist thinking in constitutional adjudication in relation to the rights of same-sex couples, especially those rights that are connected to family life. It identifies two approaches, represented respectively by the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) and the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) of the Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China. The ItCC has expressly stated that preserving traditional family forms is a reasonable objective per se for the legislature to pursue. The CFA, on the other hand, has challenged this approach to traditionalist thinking in relation to same-sex unions. Despite some contradictory signals within its case law, the CFA has stated that justifying differential treatment based on sexual orientation with reference to tradition is circular reasoning. Drawing on historical, anthropological, and philosophical sources, this article argues that invoking the preservation of tradition, despite its rhetorical force, is empirically and conceptually criticisable and, ultimately, unpersuasive.

LITE Lab@HKU and Brian Tang's work on LawTech and education in 2025

LITE Lab@HKU’s Brian Tang impacting AI’s role in legaltech development and education in 2025

Brian Tang, the Founding executive director of Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship Lab at HKU’s Faculty of Law (LITE Lab@HKU), has had an impactful year in 2025 as the third year since ChatGPT’s launch passes.

Appointment by Hong Kong Department of Justice to develop lawtech in Hong Kong

At the beginning of 2025, Brian was appointed and joined the inaugural meeting of Hong Kong Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Consultation Group on Lawtech Development for the term of January 13, 2025 to January 12, 2028. At the first of a series of the DOJ’s LexGoTech Roundtables (June), Brian was the keynote speaker and then also served as a facilitator for the roundtable comprising legal professionals from the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong. Brian was later also invited to present at Hong Kong Legal Week 2025 Lawtech Week’s  Insight Stage (November), at which the LexGoTech Roundtables Report was also released.

Thought leadership on AI in the legal profession

Brian has continued to speak at numerous industry and academic this past year: HKU Law’s Regulating AI in the Public Interest (February), vlex AI Legal Focus Group – Hong Kong (February), HKU Law’s Hong Kong Lawtech Startup Ecosystem (March), ALB Hong Kong Regulatory and Anti-Corruption Compliance Summit (March), LexisNexis’ Legal Minds, Digital Tools: Partnering with AI for Better Outcomes (April), ALITA x LITE Lab@HKU Evolutions in legal practice: how AI is transforming law firm and legal department operating models (May), 6th Lawtech Summit Asia 2025 in Singapore (May), Future Law 2025 in Tallinn (May), ALITA-ELTA Asia-Pacific – European Legal Innovation & Tech Dialogue and Curated Pitches in London (June), LegalTechTalk 2025 in London (June), Legal Innovation Festival x ALITA Roundtable (September), SMU Law’s Computational Legal Studies Workshop 2025 in Singapore (September), TechLawFest 2025 in Singapore (September), Hong Kong In-House Community Congress 2025 (October), and Hong Kong Law Society Practice Management Committee “Legal AI: Ethics, Opportunities & Risks” Seminar” (November).  

In addition, Brian has been invited to be a judge for FT Innovative Lawyers APAC and was quoted in “Law firm training highlights business relationships and tech skills” (May). And in augmenting  his leadership role as  Asia-Pacific Legal Innovation & Technology Association (ALITA) co-chair, Brian served as chief editor for ALITA State of Legal Innovation in Asia-Pacific 2025 (which publication was covered in industry publications such as Artificial Lawyer, Law.com and Law Gazette), and led ALITA’s response to Singapore Ministry of Law’s Public Consultation on Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector (September).

Thought leadership on AI in broader society

Brian has also been appointed a founding member of Fintech Association of Hong Kong AI Strategic Council and hosted the inaugural panel on AI Regulation and Opportunities in Financial Services (January), and has spoken at Asia Financial Forum 2025 on Regtech Revolution (January), Cyberport AI in Finance Solution Day (March) and Hong Kong Data Summit 2025 (June). He was one of the few invitees from Asia-Pacific to attend International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence (IASEAI)  Conference 2025 in Paris (February).

Thought leadership on AI in Education and specifically at Law Schools

Brian continues to support HKU’s initiatives on incorporating AI ethically in teaching and learning. He spoke at HKU TALIC AI Ethics in Teaching and Learning Symposium (April) and was invited to present a TALIC video on Examples of How Colleagues at HKU Integrate AI and Manage Associated Risks (July), as well as at Inter-University Generative AI Hackathon for SDGs 2025 Workshop (September), at which a LITE Lab team won with a chatbot to assist Hong Kong migrant workers with their legal rights (November).

Specifically, Brian has been invited to present on his LITE Lab@HKU interdisciplinary and experiential pedagogy, including at PolyU’s Transformation of Higher Education in the AI Era: Innovation, Best Practices, and Impact together with a LITE Lab@HKU student (May), at International Future of Law Association Conference 2025 in collaboration with the Association of Law Teachers on Generative AI and the Future of Legal Education & Research at London South Bank University and Kings College (July), and at Global Alliance of Impact Lawyers (GAIL) Annual Summit 2025 hosting a JusticeTech Student AI Workshop with up to 60 students in Mexico (October).

Thought leadership on fintech and digital assets

In addition to AI, Brian continues to be invited by industry to share insights on fintech and digital assets, He joined the HKMA and SFC to present at ADB Digital Bond Forum as part of 42nd ASEAN+3 Bond Market Forum (February); presented at Australia Chamber of Commerce Finance, Legal & Tax Committee (August); at ICMA Innovation in Capital Markets during Hong Kong Fintech Week 2025 (Oct); at Citi x Bloomberg GBA Fintech Initiative (November). and was quoted by SCMP on PBOC’s announcement on digital assets (December).

Benjamin Chen on Do Linguistic Canons Matter? (Connecticut Law Review)

"Do Linguistic Canons Matter?"
Benjamin Chen
Connecticut Law Review
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: For a long time, linguistic canons have been dismissed as dissonant and deficient. But there are ambitions to make linguistic canons guide again. Maxim majoritarianism promises to dissolve opposing canons through the elimination of unsupported pretenders. By empirically identifying the canons that register dominant habits of speech, contemporary jurists hope to bring order to the practice of statutory interpretation.

This Article submits that maxim majoritarianism is futile. It argues that arbitrating between rival canons poses conceptual difficulties that are virtually impossible to resolve. At the same time, it maintains that the co-existence of canon and counter-canon is not necessarily embarrassing. Like practical proverbs, linguistic canons can—and can only—matter if they change beliefs, judgments, and actions—that is, if they are efficacious.

So, do linguistic canons matter? An original experiment tests the efficacy of four classic canons on over 1,500 everyday speakers of English. The last antecedent rule, noscitur a sociis, did not seem to influence how participants construed ambiguous text whereas expressio unius did. These results might be interpreted as further proof of the hollowness of linguistic canons. Yet they also leave open the possibility that linguistic canons can, by signaling avenues of further inquiry, cast fresh light on the ordinary meaning of the law.