A recent report by Appian, a software company that automate business processes, says that the implementation of new technologies and digital tools is reshaping Australia’s public sector, with new research showing 85 percent of government workers surveyed had recently experienced a digital initiative being implemented within their department or agency.

A survey of 425 Australian government workers undertaken by Appian found that most government workers believe that their agency’s own digital transformation projects have had positive impacts on the public, with 63 percent of those surveyed saying that the adoption of new technologies had made government services more accessible to citizens.

“Making government services accessible to citizens is a critical function of the public sector. Through innovative technologies like automation, AI, and user-friendly digital platforms, government bodies can streamline processes, reduce complexities, and ensure that their services are more readily available to all citizens, regardless of their location or background. This is not just about convenience; it’s about empowering citizens and enhancing the democratic process,” said Luke Thomas, area vice president for Asia Pacific & Japan at Appian.

Positively, the introduction of new technologies within government departments and agencies has led to better organizational communication, with 64 percent of workers experiencing improved collaboration following new solutions being deployed.

However, contrary to any belief that the digitization of traditional work processes would ease the workloads of government employees, a vast majority of public sector workers reported their daily workloads had either increased (47 percent) or remained at the same level (43 percent) since the introduction of new digital processes.

Data silos were identified as a significant issue in the Australian public sector, with a majority of government workers reporting that data accessibility was a problem in their workplace. Alarmingly, only 11 percent of public sector employees said that they did not have issues with accessing the data they needed in their roles. This issue has led to 33 percent of government workers saying that they often had to undertake tasks without all the data they required, due to inaccessible information within their department or agency.

“Data silos in the public sector pose significant challenges. Without a unified view of data, government workers can struggle to make informed decisions, negatively impacting their efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover, these silos create barriers to collaboration, preventing different departments and agencies from working together seamlessly. Breaking down these silos is essential to improve public service delivery, enhance collaboration, and ultimately serve the community better,” said Luke.

With a continuing increase in the use of technology, tech lawyers, who inhabit the intellectual property department at many law firms, should be in high demand in coming years. Facing this bright future for tech and IP work in Australia, we turned to IP professionals in the region in order to understand better what clients need today. Asia IP asked regional professionals – mostly in-house counsel and corporate legal managers – what they were looking for from their legal service providers. From their answers, we have compiled our list of Australia’s IP Experts, those lawyers who understand just what their clients need and are able to provide them with the best practical advice.

It comes as no surprise that some of Australia’s largest firms dominate our list of IP Experts: Allens place four lawyers on our list (Tim Golder, Richard Hamer, Miriam Stiel and Andrew Wiseman), while Ashurst (Anita Cade, Stuart D’Aloisio and Lisa Ritson), Davies Collison Cave (Marion Heathcote, Ian Pascarl and David Webber), Gilbert + Tobin (John Lee, Lisa Lennon and Michael Williams) and King & Wood Mallesons (Kate Hay, Cate Nagy and Matthew Swinn) each placed three lawyers on our list of experts.

Lawyers from a total of 32 firms were honoured on our list of experts, demonstrating the shifting of Australia’s legal market, where many well-known lawyers have left some of the country’s larger practices to join smaller ones, or to go out on their own. Examples of such moves include former Griffith Hack lawyer Wayne Condon forming Biopharmalex, former Spruson & Ferguson senior associate David Müller-Wiesner joining GLMR, former Norton Rose Fulbright global head of IP joining Deloitte Legal, former Addisons partner Karen Hayne forming Omoi IP, former K&L Gates partner forming Pearce IP and Wayne McMaster, the former senior legal director at MinterEllison who created a law firm using his name, Wayne McMaster. All were named to our list this year.

Our survey includes only those lawyers working at law firms in Australia.

Most of the lawyers named to our list have multiple practice specialties. Many of them are litigators, while others concentrate on prosecution work or provide strategic advice.

All of them have something in common: they are Asia IP’s IP Experts for Australia. – GREGORY GLASS

Australia’s IP Experts is based solely on independent editorial research conducted by Asia IP. As part of this project, we turned to thousands of in-house counsel in Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific, as well as Australia-focused partners at international law firms, and asked them to nominate private-practice lawyers, including foreign legal consultants, advisers and counsel.

The final list reflects the nominations received combined with the input of the editorial team at Asia IP, which has more than 50 years of collective experience in researching and understanding the legal market in the region.

All private practice intellectual property lawyers working at law firms in Australia were eligible for inclusion in the nomination process; there were no fees or any other requirements for inclusion.

The names of our 50 IP Experts are published here. Each IP Expert was given the opportunity to include their biography and contact details in print and on our website, for which a fee was charged.