LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.52 p.m.

The Minister for Law and Science and Technology (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to bring about necessary and desirable changes to the Legal Profession Act in the light of present day conditions. These changes have been contemplated for some time and have been rendered all the more urgent as a result of the recent spate of cases involving lawyers who have failed to live up to the high ethical standards required of their profession.

The work of a practising solicitor involves handling large sums of money on behalf of his clients. On any day a solicitor may have a few million dollars in his Clients' Account. So this demands a high standard of reliability and honesty. This may be said to be true of all professional men, but with regard to solicitors these requirements are a sine qua non to practice. The law itself recognises that the relationship between a solicitor and his client must always be one of uberrimae fidei, a Latin expression that presupposes the existence of the utmost good faith on the part of the solicitor towards his client.

The Act confers on advocates and solicitors the exclusive right to legal practice in Singapore. In effect, it creates a monopoly. It is of utmost importance that this exclusive right is not abused, if public confidence in the profession is to be maintained.

Needless to say, the respect for the professional code of conduct and its strict adherence is the responsibility of the governing body of the profession - the Council of the Law Society. It follows that the law has to ensure that the Council can and will effectively discharge its duties and obligations as guardian of those in practice so that the public standing of the profession will be maintained if not enhanced.

In the interests of both the profession and the public, the main provisions of the Bill seek to -

(a) reconstitute the Council and vest it with adequate powers to intervene in a solicitor's practice when circumstances so warrant;

(b) secure tighter control over solicitors by quicker and more effective disciplinary procedure.

Clause 7 provides that the Minister may nominate not more than three advocates and solicitors to sit on the Council of the Law Society. Though this is new, it should not affect the independence of the profession or its self-regulatory character. The great majority of Council members will still be elected by those members of the profession who are in practice, but it is hoped that the Minister's nominees will spur the Council into action.

Clause 8 deals with elected members of the Council who will consist of -

(a) six practitioner members of not less than 12 years' standing;

(b) five practitioner members of under 12 years' but not less than seven years' standing; and

(c) four practitioner members of under seven years' standing.

Clause 9 makes it compulsory for an advocate and solicitor to vote for the election of members of the Council. If he fails to do so without good excuse, he must pay a penalty of $500, which will be credited to the Solicitors' Compensation Fund maintained by the Law Society, before he can apply for a practising certificate.

Clause 6 is designed as a preventive measure to safeguard the public from dealing with solicitors who are financially embarrassed. Accordingly, a solicitor will be disqualified from applying for a practising certificate if he is an undischarged bankrupt, or he has entered into a composition with his creditors, or he has one or more outstanding judgments against him amounting in the aggregate to $100,000 or more which he is unable to satisfy within six months from the date of the judgment.

Clause 12 read in conjunction with clause 22 will extend the powers of the Council of the Law Society so as to enable the Council to intervene effectively in a solicitor's practice in the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 1 of the new Schedule to be inserted in the Act.

At present an Inquiry Committee must inquire into any complaint against a solicitor and report the matter to the Council before the Council can apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee. This has led to considerable delays.

To expedite disciplinary proceedings, clause 15 makes it mandatory for the Council to apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee, without having to refer the matter first to the Inquiry Committee, in any case where a solicitor has been convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust or of any other offence involving fraud and dishonesty. Sir, there have been some recent cases where solicitors have been convicted in court, have gone to jail, have served their sentence and yet the Inquiry Committee has not completed its investigations and findings.

Moreover, where a case is referred to the Inquiry Committee, clause 16 requires the Inquiry Committee to commence inquiry and present its report within certain time limits so as to preclude the possibility of undue delay. On receipt of the report from the Inquiry Committee, the Council too will, under the amendment contained in clause 17, be obliged to act expeditiously within one month of the receipt of the report. It is hoped, Sir, that as a result of these changes the procedure of disciplinary control over solicitors will be streamlined, and be made more effective.

To sum up, Sir, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to give better protection to the public in their dealings with and reliance upon solicitors. This piece of legislation should be welcomed not only by members of the public but by those lawyers who would like to see the maintenance of the highest ethical standards in the profession.

After all said and done, Sir, not all lawyers are crooks even if they take to politics. Otherwise, Sir, the administration of justice in the Republic will collapse.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I note with regret that this Bill has to be introduced in this House. I am not a member of any profession and therefore it might well be a good idea for me to speak my mind on what the people of Singapore expect of those who have benefitted from society by the training they get to be professionals. Among these professionals we find many of them in high office, including membership of this House.

Sir, there are black sheep in every profession, be it the medical profession, engineering, architecture or accountancy. We have gone through a number of seasons. At one time it was the season of the doctors. We aimed the rifle at them, and then it subsided, and came on again, recently. We had an accountants season, and an engineers season. There was a very brief architects season. But none of those "shooting seasons" culminated in so grave a situation as to justify the introduction of a Bill in this House to strengthen the measures regulating the legal profession. In the absence of any statistics from the Minister on the black sheep in the other professions, I think it is singularly unfair to highlight one profession by the introduction of this Bill.

One factor which weighs unfavourably against the legal profession is the custody of a large amount of cash held by solicitors. I wonder if we are not overdoing things. It is agreed that the clients and members of the public who enlist the services of legal practitioners must be protected. We do not disagree with this fundamental right of protection of their clients. In the same way, Sir, a medical doctor can, by negligence, cause the death of a patient. An engineer can, by negligence, cause the collapse of public buildings or bridges. I cannot mention a particular case, as it may be sub judice - perhaps some lawyers would come forward to defend me free of charge after I have spoken on their behalf! There are architects who put up defective designs resulting in a loss of money - invisible to members of the public - and having to make good certain defects of a building.

I just wish to point out to Members of the House the peculiar system (I think it is a good system) in the legal profession. It is that the Law Society has the power to conduct a Committee of Inquiry and the law in this regard seeks to place a time limit for the submission of a report on the deliberations of the committee. The Law Society will have to inquire into the matter and establish a prima facie case. I stand corrected, Sir. There are so many members of this profession here in this House - the Law Society has first to establish a prima facie case before referring it to the High Court, and then the disciplinary hearing is in open court. Am I correct there, Mr Minister?

Mr Barker: Yes.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Therefore, the public media are fully informed of the proceedings of an action against a legal practitioner, quite unlike the other professions where they have closed-door sessions. I do not think there is any other profession which is bound by the procedure of disciplinary action being conducted at the High Court. If a bad engineer, a crooked accountant, or a negligent doctor is debarred for six months or a year, the case is not made known to the public. The respective Society just de-registers him; once in a while such a case might catch the attention of the public media and is reported in the press. But the integrity of every member of the legal profession suffers the singular disadvantage of being exposed in open court. Fair though, it may be, that the member can contest and is entitled to legal representation. But I want the House to be aware of this. It is not that there are more crooks in the legal profession. As I said, there is an equal number of black sheep in all the other professions. But why should the legal profession be singled out by the very system of inviting the attention of the media?

I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics of the number of black sheep in the various professions who have been disciplined. Unless he has statistics to justify the case that the legal profession is way above the other professions in producing, so to speak, dishonest members, I am afraid I have to vote against this Bill. I wonder if the Minister could also produce statistics from other countries, say, from the United Kingdom from which we derive most of our legislations, as to the number of black sheep in the legal profession and, for that matter, the other professions too. Perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten the House whether he also contemplates introducing legislation to regulate the professional behaviour of the other professions. To the legal profession which I have no vested interest, I feel that they deserve the same treatment accorded to the other professions. Just because it is entrenched in the rules and regulations of their profession that their cases are to be heard in High Court and with the publicity given to it, they should now suffer the end result of the introduction of this Bill.

On the question of voting, Sir, I have no quarrel. It is a good innovation to compel every member to exercise his vote to determine who should be the leaders of their profession. But, very unfortunately, some senior members of the profession had been found to have misbehaved.

The provision of a time limit for the Committee of Inquiry to submit its report may well seem reasonable. As the Minister has explained, some Committees of Inquiry take an unduly long time to inquire into a matter. But I should like to invite the Minister's attention to the possible counter-productivity in this matter because the time limit may well force members of the Committee of Inquiry to come to a decision one way or the other, in which case justice is not done. I do not know whether there is provision for flexibility.

On the question of bankruptcy, Sir, the Bill does not appear to contain any provision to consider cases of exceptional circumstances. Members of the legal profession are also very frequently involved in other business and, just because of mismanagement of his business, or that he has no business acumen (not everybody can be a businessman), or because of his wrong judgment in business opportunities, he suffers financial loss which might lead to bankruptcy. This does not mean that a person who is a bad judge in business should be automatically branded as unfit to practise his profession. It is the same with doctors, architects and engineers who are involved in business. There are instances where their business failed. This does not mean that the capability of the doctor, architect, engineer or accountant is that much less as a professional. There appears to be no provision to cater for this contingency. I think it is unduly wrong. It is unfair to bar a person from practising his profession just because he is not a good businessman or maybe he stands surety for another party who absconds and lets him down. So a blanket statement on bankruptcy which might lead to barring a legal practitioner from practising his profession is a point which the Minister must consider.

Sir, I have just been reminded that I have to withdraw my threat as I am not supposed to vote against the Bill. The Whip is not lifted in this case. After the conclusion of the Minister's reply, I shall not be present in this House as a gesture of protest.

Mr Barker: Sir, I did not know that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour was also an expert on the law. As for bankruptcy, if he thinks that the provision is unfair, let me remind him and other Members of this House that if they should go bankrupt, they will also lose their seats. So what is wrong with putting this provision on lawyers who deal with millions of dollars of their clients' money?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, on a point of clarification. We do not depend on our position as Members of Parliament for a living. But professionals do.

Mr Barker: Sir, maybe the hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary does not depend on his MP's allowances for a living, but some other Members do.

I am grateful to him for pointing out that when a solicitor gets into trouble, a disciplinary committee is appointed, and the hearing is public. If there is a case against him, he is prosecuted in court. One lawyer prosecutes and another lawyer defends and everything comes out in public, whereas in the case of a doctor, the Medical Council hears the case. What goes on inside we do not know. But the case can, on appeal, go up to the High Court and it is only there that it is heard and made public, but the original hearing is within closed doors.

[Mr Fong Sip Chee left the Chamber]

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 E W Barker].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, line 18, after "any", to insert "other".

Sir, this amendment is necessary for purposes of clarity.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.