LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.30 pm

Mr Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill contains amendments to the Legal Profession Act and the Singapore Academy of Law Act necessary for the establishment of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, and an examination to qualify foreign lawyers to practise limited areas of Singapore law. The Bill also contains amendments to streamline and improve the current framework for admission to the Singapore Bar. There are miscellaneous and technical amendments to enhance various procedures, clarify the meaning and application of various provisions, and repeal outdated provisions.

_Singapore Institute of Legal Education
_
Clause 4 introduces a new Part II to the Act, to dissolve the Board of Legal Education and to establish the successor Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE). The SILE will come under the governance of the Singapore Academy of Law. Its Board of Directors will comprise representatives of key stakeholders in the legal fraternity including the Attorney-General, the President of the Law Society and the Deans of the NUS and SMU law schools.

The SILE will assume the functions currently performed by the Board of Legal Education. In addition, the SILE will also exercise the following functions:

First, our legal services sector is growing quite rapidly. There is a need to ensure that training of lawyers in Singapore is of a high standard. SILE will

Column: 2586

take on the role of overseeing and ensuring that such high standards are maintained.

Second, the SILE will determine the requirements for, as well as co-ordinate and exercise supervision over new mandatory continuing professional development obligations that will be introduced for the legal profession sometime in 2012.

Third, the SILE will conduct a new foreign practitioner examination to allow foreign lawyers who pass this examination to practise limited areas of Singapore law. Let me explain the rationale for introducing this new qualification.

Foreign practitioner examination and c ertificate

The Legal Profession Act was amended in 2008 to allow Qualifying Foreign Law Practices (QFLPs) and Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) to practise in "permitted areas" of Singapore law, which refer to all areas of legal practice other than ring-fenced domestic areas such as litigation, constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, conveyancing and family law.

This Bill contains the amendments to establish the framework for a proposed "Foreign Practitioner Examination" (FPE). The FPE allows foreign lawyers who pass the examination to practise in "permitted areas" of Singapore law if they work in QFLPs, JLVs or Singapore Law Practices. If they are working in a Foreign Law Practice (FLP), their practice of Singapore law will be restricted to those areas allowed for FLPs, ie, to render Singapore law advice in the context of international commercial arbitration work.

Foreign practitioners who are called to the Bar of any foreign jurisdiction and who are able to meet eligibility criteria

Column: 2587

which will be set down in the Rules, can apply to take the examination, which will be administered by the SILE. Those who pass the examination can then register with the Attorney-General to obtain a "Foreign Practitioner Certificate" (FPC). The FPC will be renewable on a yearly basis like the Singapore Practising Certificate.

As FPC holders are primarily foreign lawyers, the Attorney-General will undertake the role of primary regulator. In respect of their practice of "permitted areas" of Singapore law, FPC holders will be subject to the same disciplinary regime applicable to Singapore Practising Certificate holders working in foreign law firms. This means that the Attorney-General will share concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over them with the Supreme Court and the Law Society.

To ensure that FPC holders integrate with the local legal fraternity, FPC holders will be foreign practitioner members of the Law Society. They will also be members of the Singapore Academy of Law. Mandatory continuing professional development requirements, when introduced, will apply to FPC holders, with suitable modifications.

_Streamlining and improving the legislative and procedural framework for admission to the Singapore Bar
_
The Bill also contains amendments which streamline and improve the legislative and procedural framework for admission to the Singapore Bar; and enhance the practice training framework.

Improvements to admission requirements and procedures

Admission requirements to the Singapore Bar are now found both within the main Act and various Rules. Due to policies introduced at various points over these 17 years or so, the main Act and

Column: 2588

subsidiary legislation contain many transitional and historical provisions.

We have decided to re-look at these provisions and put them in sequence, and remove some provisions which are no longer necessary. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIA governing admission to the Singapore Bar. As far as possible, the detailed requirements contained in the current Act and various Rules have been amalgamated and will be moved into two distinct sets of Rules, to make the legislation more user-friendly:

(i) The first set of Rules will lay out the criteria for a person to be "qualified" to seek admission to the Singapore Bar. In this regard, historical and transitional provisions that have run their course will be phased out.

(ii) The second set of Rules will lay out the procedural requirements with which a "qualified person" must comply, in order to be admitted to the Singapore Bar. In this regard, one key improvement that will be made relates to the notice period required for a person’s call to the Singapore Bar.

At present, any person who applies for admission to the Singapore Bar must post a notice of his application on the Supreme Court notice board for a continuous period of six months. During this notice period, members of the public will be entitled to raise objections as to the suitability of that person to be admitted to the Bar.

There is no real need for this six-month notice period. My Ministry in consultation with the Supreme Court, Attorney-General’s Chambers and Law Society has reviewed the admission procedure to improve and streamline it. For example, in England and Wales, the United States (New York State), Australia (New South Wales) and Hong Kong, there is no requirement for a six-month posting of the notice of application.

Column: 2589

We will reduce the six-month notice period to a 30-day period, during which information relating to the applicant’s admission will be posted on the Supreme Court website to afford members of the public an opportunity to raise objections. In addition, the admission procedure will be revised to require an applicant to make the necessary declarations regarding his suitability for admission to the Singapore Bar at the very outset when he files his admission application. Currently, he does so only after the six-month notice period has expired. This streamlined process will also give relevant stakeholders involved in the call process, namely, the Law Society, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the SILE, more time to conduct their assessments of each application, than they currently have.

With the enhancements and changes, the overall minimum time required for a person to be admitted will be shortened from the current six months to around two months.

_Practice training
_
Next, under the current framework, a practice trainee undergoing his practice training contract may gain practical experience by being part-called to the Bar. This will allow him to appear before the Courts in limited types of hearings. A practice trainee may be entitled to be part-called only if he has served a minimum of four months of his six-month practice training period.

Taking into account feedback from lawyers, the minimum period will be reduced to allow a practice trainee to apply to be part-called after he has served three months of his practice training period. In addition, once part-called, instead of the present limited types of hearing, a practice trainee may, under the

Column: 2590

supervision of his supervising solicitor, appear in Court for all hearings.

These amendments will enhance the practice training experience for trainees. They can now be part-called earlier and handle a broader scope of work.

The Bill also contains various miscellaneous and technical amendments. The key amendments are:

First, to clarify that the provision of legal services by in-house counsel in their own organisations does not contravene section 33 of the Act, which criminalises certain acts if done by an "unauthorised person". The reference to an "unauthorised person" includes a person who does not have in force a practising certificate. In-house counsel had raised concerns that there was uncertainty whether their activities as in-house counsel would be considered illegal since they do not hold practising certificates. This is not the policy intent.

Second, provision is made for Rules to be prescribed to clarify the circumstances under which certain categories of legally-trained individuals can provide pro bono legal services. This would create greater certainty for pro bono work.

Third, amendments are made to permit an officer of a company, a limited liability partnership or an unincorporated association, to act on the entity’s behalf, without a solicitor, in certain Court proceedings in accordance with requirements that will be set out in the Rules of Court.

Sir, the establishment of the SILE, the introduction of the foreign practitioner examination scheme and the other changes I have mentioned are part and parcel of ongoing efforts to ensure that the framework supporting Singapore’s legal profession and legal services continues to develop in tandem with dynamic changes that have been taking

Column: 2591

place both in the local as well as international landscape.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.39 pm

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Bill.

Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as a practising member of the legal profession in Singapore.

The amendments proposed in this Bill are but one part of a process of liberalisation of the legal profession in Singapore. This process has been going on for some time and includes changes permitting foreign law firms to enter into joint ventures with local law firms, permitting foreign firms to practise both foreign and local law in certain specified areas of the law as the Minister has highlighted and allowing more graduates from overseas universities to practise in Singapore.

In general, I support this liberalisation and optimisation process. It has added a different dimension to legal practice in Singapore. It has opened up many opportunities for our local lawyers, who I am happy to say are keenly sought after by many of the international law firms. It has also forced local law firms to up their game so as to remain competitive in a global market. In the result, many local law firms have even expanded by opening offices abroad.

It is heartening therefore to see this process of liberalisation and optimisation of the legal profession continued in this Bill. The establishment of a Singapore Institute of Legal Education to replace the Board of Legal Education is one such step. The Institute will, amongst other things,

Column: 2592

prescribe not only the rules governing the admission of advocates and solicitors to the Singapore Bar, but will also govern the continuing professional development of practising advocates and solicitors, both foreign and local.

To this end, may I ask the Minister if he could provide some indication of the form he envisages the continuing professional development of advocates and solicitors will take? Whether it will go the way of our fellow professionals, the doctors, who have to accumulate a certain number of points each year to continue in practice? And whether the Minister will consider including in continuing professional development a certain minimum number of hours of pro bono legal work?

Further, I note that the period that a trainee lawyer is required to serve in training prior to being part-called to the Bar will be reduced from four months to three months and the matters which a part-called trainee may deal with in Court have now been extended to include all hearings before a Judge or Registrar of the Supreme or Subordinate Courts. This I feel will greatly benefit trainees who are preparing to become litigation lawyers. The previous requirement of having to complete four of the six months of training did not make a part-call worthwhile as the time between part-call and a full call to the Bar was only slightly more than a month. Exposure to first-hand open Court hearings will also allow trainees to gain experience and, more importantly, confidence in Court sooner rather than later.

One of the main areas that the Bill seeks to amend is section 130 of the Legal Profession Act. This section deals with the jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of foreign and local practitioners. Under the existing provisions, all disciplinary matters concerning foreign

Column: 2593

lawyers practising either foreign law or Singapore law and local lawyers practising foreign law come under the auspices of the Attorney-General. In respect of local lawyers practising Singapore law in a Joint Law Venture or foreign law practice, the Attorney-General may either deal with the disciplinary matter himself or refer the matter to the Law Society. Lawyers practising Singapore law in a local firm are dealt with only by the Law Society.

In the amendments that are sought to be made in this Bill, there appears to be a rationalisation of the disciplinary process based on the type of law that is being practised by the advocate and solicitor, ie, either foreign law or Singapore law. Under the proposed amendments, all foreign lawyers practising Singapore law and local lawyers practising Singapore law in a Joint Law Venture or foreign law practice will be dealt with by the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General can refer the matter to the Law Society. Foreign lawyers or local lawyers practising foreign law, however, remain under the sole charge of the Attorney-General.

May I ask the Minister if he would kindly clarify the following issues?

(a) Why the change in policy to allow the Attorney-General to either deal with disciplinary matters himself or refer the matter to the Law Society, where Singapore law is being practised?

(b) Why the Attorney-General retains exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters concerning lawyers practising foreign law?

(c) Will having the Attorney-General and the Law Society dealing with disciplinary matters concerning lawyers practising Singapore law lead to a divergence in the way similar disciplinary

Column: 2594

matters are dealt with and therefore to uncertainty in the process?

(d) What is the reason for giving the Attorney-General discretion to either deal with the matter himself or refer it to the Law Society?

(e) The disciplinary process of the Law Society is clearly set out in the Act. This includes hearings before an Inquiry Committee, a Disciplinary Committee and finally a Court of Three Judges. No such process is spelt out for disciplinary matters that are dealt with by the Attorney-General. Would it not be more transparent and fair for the disciplinary process of the Attorney-General to be spelt out in the Act as well?

With that, I support the Bill.

4.45 pm

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me also declare my interest as a practising advocate and solicitor and I speak in support of the Legal Profession Amendment Bill.

I applaud the setting up of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education and, specifically, the introduction of continuing professional development of lawyers. In all good intent, I verily believe that the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course aims to maintain, improve and broaden the knowledge and skills and to further develop the personal qualities and competence required of our legal professionals to move with the times. The CPD will help the legal profession to entrench a commitment to being professional, keeping up to date and relevant, and continuously seeking to push back the frontiers of knowledge to maintain a competitive edge.

This idea of CPD for the legal profession is not new. In England and

Column: 2595

Wales, all solicitors and legal executives who are in legal practice or employment, or who work 32 hours or more per week, are required to complete a minimum of 16 hours of CPD per year. In Scotland, all solicitors who are in full-time employment and wish to retain their Practising Certificates are required to undertake a minimum of 20 hours of CPD per year. In Queensland, Australia, each legal practitioner is required to undertake 10 hours of CPD each year.

In my view, for our proposed CPD to be engaging, informative and progressive, it should preferably be of about 12 hours’ duration to be taken over two weekends of three hours per session. The CPD should be designed to embrace "best practice" and with easily digestible knowledge. It should not be excessively demanding. It should stimulate a desire to learn and develop our practitioners’ competencies and encourage active participation. To this end, I hope that the new institute, which has been vested with new and immense powers to determine CPD requirements, to review the implementation of its programmes and curricula and to coordinate and supervise, would bear in mind the realities on the ground for successful introduction, implementation and possible mandating of CPD for the legal profession.

In particular, I am drawing attention to the already hectic and exacting demands on our legal practitioners. As we try to attract more people to join the legal profession and to retain them in the legal profession for as long as we could, we must bear in mind that such new CPD requirements, when introduced, should not be too onerous on our legal professionals. I feel that it is important to always bear in mind that the implementation of the CPD should be incremental and that consultation and feedback from existing active practitioners should be solicited. Notwithstanding this, there should be greater clarity of what

Column: 2596

category of legal professionals will be impacted by this new CPD requirement, as there are legal professionals working in-house as legal counsellors or advisers or teaching in institutions of higher learning and others. It is also necessary to make known if there will be a form of examination at the end of the CPD course, and how the failure to achieve a pass would impact the legal professionals. Many practitioners that I have spoken to feel that the CPD should end without any test or examination as not passing the test or examination would add more stress and lead to unnecessary speculation of their competence and undermine them, thus affecting their morale.

Notwithstanding this, the CPD should cover relevant areas such as: Professional Skills, Practice Legal Ethics, Practice Management and Business Skills, and Substantive Law and Procedure.

Lastly, and most importantly, our practitioners should be availed an adequate buffet choice of content and style of delivery. Courses can range from traditional sit-down lecture or seminar format to exploiting the new media and e-learning through "live" webcast, online self-study, and "offline" courses which include books, videos and audio podcasts. There should also be the occasional dinners or tea sessions for practical sharing which I believe no amount of theory or thesis can replace. All these would add to holistic and meaningful learning and let our legal practitioners and professionals willingly embrace CPD as an immensely important component in lifelong learning, considering our new operating landscape.

With this, I support the Bill.

4.50 pm

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I thank Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Michael Palmer for their

Column: 2597

support for the mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements.

It is envisaged that lawyers who hold practising certificates and new foreign practitioner certificate holders will be subject to these mandatory CPD requirements. Non-Practising Certificate (PC) holders such as in-house counsel and academics will not be subject to the requirements but will be strongly encouraged to participate in CPD activities.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) is also looking at the details of the scheme, taking into account best practices in other jurisdictions, feedback from law firms as well as practitioners. No doubt, they will also find Ms Lee’s and Mr Palmer’s comments useful. Mr Palmer’s suggestion of a mandatory minimum of pro bono hours as part of CPD is an interesting one. We have many avenues for lawyers to contribute pro bono now, and their work in this area is important to the community.

The SILE will have the task of calibrating the various aspects of the CPD scheme to take into consideration the practical realities faced by the profession. In that context, as I have said, I am sure they will take into account the comments that have been made.

I now turn to Mr Palmer’s comments on the regulatory framework for Foreign Practitioner Certificate (FPC) holders. As mentioned earlier, FPC holders are foreign lawyers. Traditionally, the Attorney-General has been their regulator. However, as FPC holders will be granted the privilege to practise Singapore law in permitted areas, there is a need to extend the disciplinary regime applicable to

Column: 2598

Singapore Practising Certificate holders to them to the extent that is required to regulate their practice of these areas of Singapore law.

The framework, therefore, envisages that while the Attorney-General will have primary oversight of FPC holders, he will refer matters where relevant and which relate to the practice of Singapore law to the discipline of the Law Society. This framework is not new. It is modelled after the existing disciplinary and regulatory framework we have in place for PC holders working in foreign entities which we introduced in 2009 together with the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice scheme. We recognise that liberalisation has brought many changes into the legal services sector as we know it. I have asked the Attorney-General to chair a committee to look into the regulatory framework in place for the legal services sector in a comprehensive way. These disciplinary mechanisms will be within the purview of the Attorney-General’s committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.