When a major law firm calls a lateral hire a "rare find," it usually sounds like standard PR fluff. But when Singapore legal giant Rajah & Tann brought on Scott Tan as a partner in its international arbitration team, the phrase actually hit the mark.
Tan spent six years directing the International Disputes Practice Group inside the International Affairs Division at Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). Before that, he worked across the Singapore Legal Service as a district judge, assistant registrar, special assistant to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, and deputy public prosecutor.
That isn't a routine resume for a private practice hire. Moving directly from defending a sovereign state before global courts into advising commercial clients on cross-border disputes gives Rajah & Tann something most regional law firms struggle to offer: first-hand insight into how governments think, negotiate, and litigate.
Here is why this move matters for Asia's dispute market, what it tells us about where international arbitration is headed, and why private law firms are suddenly hunting for public sector legal talent.
The Shrinking Line Between Public Law and Private Commerce
For decades, commercial arbitration and public international law lived in separate worlds. Private disputes were about breach of contract, joint venture fallouts, and shareholder fights. Public international law dealt with maritime borders, trade tariffs, and state sovereignty.
That separation doesn't exist anymore.
Look at what is happening across Southeast Asia right now. Infrastructure projects are tied to state-backed entities. Renewable energy transitions are governed by rapidly shifting regulatory policies. Supply chains are tangled in sovereign sanctions, digital trade treaties, and national security restrictions.
When a multinational corporation gets into a high-stakes disagreement with a foreign government or a state-owned enterprise, a standard commercial litigator often hits a wall. They know contract law, but they don't understand sovereign immunity, state responsibility, or treaty interpretation.
That’s where someone with Tan's background comes in. During his time at the AGC, he represented Singapore in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the World Trade Organization. He helped handle trade negotiations, including the upgrade of the China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement in 2023 and the EFTA-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement in 2025.
When you've sat on the government side of the table during multilateral treaty negotiations, you view commercial risk differently. You know how state actors structure contracts, where their legal vulnerabilities lie, and how political pressures influence settlement decisions.
Why Private Firms Want Ex Government Lawyers Now
Rajah & Tann’s hire isn't an isolated incident. In late 2025, the firm brought in David Menon, another former deputy director from the AGC. Other top-tier firms in Singapore and Hong Kong have been quietly making similar moves.
Why the sudden appetite for government talent?
First, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases are getting more frequent and far more expensive across Asia. As foreign direct investment flows into ASEAN infrastructure and tech sectors, conflicts over regulatory changes, land rights, and asset nationalization are multiplying.
Second, sanctions and trade compliance have become major headaches for multinational companies. Navigating state immunity and public policy exceptions requires deep familiarity with state mechanisms.
Third, law firms realize that corporate clients want more than just legal theories—they want practical strategy. A lawyer who spent years advising government ministers knows how public institutions make decisions under pressure. That perspective is invaluable when trying to settle a multi-hundred-million-dollar dispute before it turns into an open political battle.
Managing Partner Ng Kim Beng made this explicit when discussing the appointment, pointing out that Tan’s arrival targets cross-border matters where legal, commercial, and policy issues collide. That intersection—where policy meets corporate profit—is where the biggest legal fees are being generated today.
What Makes This Specific Profile Hard to Find in Asia
To understand why experienced government advocates are in such high demand, you have to look at how legal careers usually unfold in Southeast Asia.
Most private practice arbitration partners build their careers in law firms from day one. They start as associates, work on corporate disputes, draft pleadings, and climb the partnership track. They get very good at institutional arbitration rules like SIAC, ICC, or HKIAC.
However, very few get any exposure to public international law or state-level diplomatic work.
On the flip side, public sector lawyers who spend a decade in government ministries often stay in the civil service or transition into judicial roles. They rarely make the jump to commercial law firms late in their careers because the business model of private practice—billable hours, client pitch books, business development—is so fundamentally different.
Finding a senior advocate who has handled judicial duties, prosecuted criminal cases, advised the head of the judiciary, represented a nation in international courts, and possesses the drive to build a private client practice is genuinely unusual.
The Bigger Picture for Singapore as a Disputes Hub
This hire also highlights Singapore's relentless drive to maintain its spot as Asia's premier dispute resolution hub.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) consistently ranks alongside London and Paris as one of the world's top arbitral institutions. But maintaining that position requires an ecosystem of top-tier talent. It isn't enough to have modern arbitration laws and clean courts. The local legal bar must be able to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes without having to yield lead roles to global firms headquartered in London or Washington.
By pulling top advocates out of government service and placing them directly into local powerhouse firms like Rajah & Tann, Singapore strengthens its domestic legal market. It signals to multinational corporations that they don't need to fly in magic circle partners from Europe to handle complex treaty or sovereign disputes. The expertise is sitting right in Marina Bay.
How Businesses Should Evaluate Their Cross Border Legal Counsel
If you run a enterprise operating across international borders, this trend offers a practical lesson for how you choose your legal representation.
Look Beyond Standard Commercial Litigation Credentials
When dealing with cross-border investments or state-linked joint ventures, standard litigation experience isn't enough. Ask prospective legal teams whether they have actual experience with treaty claims, state immunity rules, and sovereign enforcement challenges.
Assess the Team’s Regulatory and Policy Savvy
Disputes involving governments or heavily regulated industries rarely get solved strictly on the text of a commercial contract. You need counsel who understand regulatory policy and can anticipate how a state entity will react to legal pressure.
Verify Hands On International Experience
There is a massive difference between a lawyer who has read about international tribunals and one who has actually stood in front of judges at International Court of Justice or international investment tribunals. Experience in those forums changes how a lawyer structures arguments, manages evidence, and frames risks.
Companies planning major cross-border transactions or facing high-value multi-jurisdictional conflicts should audit their current legal rosters immediately. Ensuring your external counsel possesses genuine public international law capability—rather than just standard arbitration experience—is becoming essential for mitigating sovereign and regulatory risk across Asia.
