LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the main objectives of this Bill are four-fold:

Firstly, to empower the Law Society to take actions against solicitors who render inadequate professional services;

Secondly, to introduce new provisions relating to the issue of practising certificates;

Thirdly, to prohibit any newly admitted solicitor from practising as a sole proprietor or in partnership unless he satisfies certain requirements; and

Fourthly, to amend the requirements for the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases.

Sir, these amendments have been finalised after consultations with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Law Society.

Actions against solicitors who provide inadequate services

Let me take the first category of amendments. Sir, over the years, members of the public have complained about inadequate professional services provided by some solicitors. The problem is that unless such inadequacy amounts to professional misconduct, no action can be taken against such a solicitor. The dissatisfied clients are left therefore without adequate remedies.

To rectify this unsatisfactory situation, new section 75B in clause 13 and new Second Schedule (clause 16) will enable the Law Society to take certain actions against such a solicitor. These include limiting the costs that he can recover from his client, and directing him to rectify the deficiency in his work and to compensate his client. This provision is modelled on a similar provision in the United Kingdom Solicitors Act and I believe it will ensure better services to Singaporeans.

This new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society sets up the necessary administrative machinery.

Issuance of practising certificates

Sir, as the law now stands, the Registrar of the Supreme Court has no discretion but to issue practising certificates even to solicitors who are convicted of criminal offences or are found guilty of professional misconduct, pending their appeal against the convictions or findings. In recent years, some of these solicitors went on to commit further offences (such as criminal breach of trust and cheating) or misconducted themselves during this period. Also, solicitors who have been discharged from bankruptcy or have completed their periods of suspension for professional misconduct can still practise without restriction or supervision. This situation is clearly not in the public interest.

Last year, the Law Society and the Registrar of the Supreme Court set up a Committee to consider the need to provide in the Act for the suspension of a solicitor's practising certificate and the imposition of conditions in certain specified circumstances, such as after his discharge from bankruptcy and after the expiry of his suspension from practice. They concluded that such a need existed so as to protect the public interest. The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General agree with this view. The proposed measures would, to a large extent, pre-empt any wrongdoing by such solicitors.

Clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill therefore seek to insert new sections 25A, 25B, 27A and 27B to implement the recommendations of this working committee. If I may quickly take the House through these new sections.

New section 25A empowers the Attorney-General and the Council of the Law Society to request the Registrar of the Supreme Court not to issue a practising certificate to a solicitor or to issue a practising certificate subject to conditions. The conditions include asking the solicitor concerned to produce an Accountant's Report two or three times a year to the Law Society or to disallow him to practise on his own account.

New section 25B is to safeguard the interest of that solicitor by providing for an appeal by him to a judge against such a decision of the Registrar.

New section 27A similarly empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge to order the imposition of conditions on the current or existing practising certificate of a solicitor if any of the same circumstances specified in the new section 25A are satisfied. The section also provides that a solicitor may apply to a judge to reconsider such an imposition when fresh circumstances arise.

New section 27B empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge, and a judge on the hearing of an application made under this section, to make a request to the Law Society to refer the solicitor to a Disciplinary Committee and to order that his current practising certificate be suspended. Let me explain that this will be for urgent cases and cases of sufficient gravity where action must be taken promptly. In other words, it is not appropriate to wait for the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures set out in the other provisions of the Act such as waiting for the Inquiry Committee to have its deliberations, the report and a Disciplinary Committee may have to be formed, and so on.

Sir, these new provisions are similar to the provisions in the UK Solicitors Act. The Law Society or the Attorney-General would exercise these powers judiciously and invoke them when they have information to establish that a solicitor's continuation in practice free of conditions or at all would not be in the interest of the public or the profession.

The exercise of these powers is quite different and separate from the institution of formal disciplinary proceedings under the Act. It is essentially an administrative function to exercise control, not to punish. The Registrar, in issuing practising certificates, needs to be satisfied that they are issued to fit and proper persons. The imposition of conditions, instead of refusing to issue a practising certificate at all, will also safeguard the public interest in cases where the solicitor's conduct is such that some checks are needed but it is not necessary or fair to deprive the solicitor altogether the right to practise.

Let me turn to the third category of amendments. Prohibition of newly-admitted solicitors to practise as sole proprietor or in partnership

In October 1993, I had raised with the Law Society my concern about the large number of law firms which were sole proprietorships. Some 47% of all law firms were then sole-proprietors with one-lawyer firms, operating independently without employing even legal assistants. My concern, amongst other things, was that the situation, if left unchecked, would impede the process of raising the quality of legal services to meet the challenges of regionalisation and globalisation of Singapore's economy. I then proposed that new entrants to the legal profession should not be allowed to practise as sole-proprietors for the first three to five years of their careers.

The Law Society subsequently set up a committee to study the matter and later agreed with my proposal to restrict newly admitted solicitors from practising as sole proprietors or in partnerships. The Law Society has therefore recommended that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course and have a number of years of practical experience before he can practise as a sole proprietor. The Government has accepted these recommendations.

Accordingly, new section 75C (clause 13) provides that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course prescribed by the Law Society and have been in practice for a period of three continuous years or three years out of five years in the aggregate to be entitled to practise as a sole proprietor. However, he may set up partnership with another solicitor of such standing. The Law Society may, with the approval of the Minister, waive the requirements if the solicitor concerned has gained substantial experience in law in Singapore or elsewhere. Such restriction on newly admitted solicitors is not new and comparable provisions can be found in the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong.

Sir, this new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society is ready to run the said management course and will only apply to solicitors admitted on or after the date it is brought into force. In other words, it will have prospective effect. Let me also clarify that this new provision will not affect the right of law lecturers in the National University of Singapore to give opinions and act in an advisory capacity under section 34(h) of the Legal Profession Act.

Admission of QCs in criminal cases

Let me turn to the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. Sir, the provision relating to the admission of Queen's Counsels was last amended in 1991 to add an additional condition for allowing them to appear in our courts. That condition is that the court must be satisfied that the case is of "sufficient difficulty and complexity" to warrant a QC to be admitted. At that time in this House I had made it clear that the Government's policy was that QCs should only be admitted for complex and difficult cases where the necessary knowledge or experience was not available from or could not be provided by local counsel. I also stressed then that the intention was to favour the admission of QCs particularly in banking and commercial cases.

The general policy of allowing QCs to appear in our courts remains unchanged. However, there should be less need for QCs in criminal cases with the growth of the Criminal Bar in the last five years, not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of advocacy skills, experience and expertise. Since 1991, only

10 QCs have been admitted to appear in criminal cases in Singapore and I am told that out of the nine cases dealt with by QCs, only two cases were successful. Presently, there are 89 criminal lawyers who are designated as senior counsel and 125 criminal lawyers who are designated as junior counsel for the purposes of the Assignment List of the High Court for capital cases. There is no shortage therefore of criminal lawyers in the local Bar who have the confidence to undertake all criminal cases without having to rely on Queen's Counsels.

I should add that it is also important to note that our criminal process and criminal law are, except for basic principles, quite different from English criminal law and procedure. Our Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act are all based on Indian law and not on English criminal law and procedure and evidence. Many of our criminal statutes were enacted to meet local circumstances. Queen's counsels, in general, are not familiar with our criminal justice system. Indeed, Sir, I should also say that as a result, we have even experienced some cases of our criminal justice system being distorted in the foreign media.

Eventually, we should do away with representation by Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. But this should be looked at again when we have an adequate number of Senior Counsel practising at the Criminal Bar. I am using the term "Senior Counsel" as spelt out in the Legal Profession Act which provides for the status of Senior Counsel. The Senate of the Academy of Law, in fact, is now about to appoint such Senior Counsel. In 1989, when the Legal Profession Act was amended to provide for Senior Counsel I said, and I quote:

" ... only those lawyers who by virtue of their ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience of the law who deserve the distinction and the title of Senior Counsel will be appointed. Our Senior Counsel will, in effect, be the local equivalent of Queen's Counsel in England and it is hoped that these leaders at the Bar will provide the inspiration for the younger members of the profession to strive for excellence in their profession.".

The present amendments will restrict the admission of QCs unless the applicant can show that there is any special reason for the need for a QC. It will be for the court to determine what a special reason is for this purpose. This amendment is provided for in the new section 21(1A) (clause 3). I should add that the amendment does not affect the existing provision for admission of QCs in civil cases.

Prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant"

If I may go on to other amendments. One concerns the prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant". This arises from a request from the Law Society. In recent years, a common practice has emerged for solicitors to use the title "consultant". It is felt that a consultant should be someone with the necessary expertise backed by sufficient experience. A new section 75D is therefore provided to preclude solicitors from using the term "consultant" unless they have been, for 10 years, a solicitor in practice, a legal officer, or a full-time member of the Faculty of Law or a combination of these positions. Apart from these, I wish to take the House through some other amendments which I should highlight.

Clause 2, Sir, amends section 14 to enable a former Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court or a former Attorney-General to be a pupil master upon ceasing to hold such office. The reason for this amendment is clear in that such office holders are eminently qualified to be pupil masters. I think their experience and knowledge would greatly benefit the pupils who are under their wings.

Clause 4 amends section 25 to require a solicitor to obtain a certificate of non-indebtedness from the Singapore Academy of Law for his statutory payments as well as a certificate from the Law Society that he has paid any disciplinary penalty imposed on him before he can be issued with a practising certificate. This amendment was proposed by the Chief Justice and Law Society. Why? It is to deter solicitors from defaulting in their statutory payments. Members may be surprised to be told that as at the end of last month there were 435 solicitors who have not paid up their annual subscriptions to the Academy. The Law Society has informed me that there are two solicitors who have still not paid up their statutory penalties for professional misconduct. This is a sad state of affairs and would bring the legal profession into disrepute if not remedied.

Clause 6 amends section 26 to enable a Judicial Commissioner who has held the office for three or more years to appear and plead in Court after he has left the office. This amendment will remove a disincentive to solicitors who wish to serve on the High Court bench for short periods of time as Judicial Commissioners.

Clause 9 amends section 30 to provide for the appointment of Senior Counsel by a Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Judges of Appeal instead of the Senate of the Academy of Law. This is a technical amendment. It is not appropriate for practising lawyers in the Senate of the Academy to be involved in the selection process because of potential conflict of interests.

Finally, Sir, there are two other amendments which were proposed by the Law Society. This is clause 10 which re-enacts section 56 to enable the Law Society to appoint a Treasurer and an additional Vice-President. These additional offices would improve the administration of the Law Society.

Clause 11 amends section 59 to enable the Law Society to form a company for the purpose of carrying out its functions. This amendment is for the better management of its affairs.

To sum up, Sir, these amendments are the result of periodic reviews of the Act. Their main thrust is to further safeguard the public interest and raise the quality of the legal services and the standard of professional conduct of our solicitors.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, as outlined by the Minister for Law, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill finetunes the issuance of a practising certificate to a solicitor who wishes to practise in Singapore. Amongst other measures, it spells out the conditions which can be imposed on a solicitor when he is issued a practising certificate and circumstances under which an existing certificate can be suspended. In the past, it was an all or nothing approach, either issue or do not issue. This modulated approach is to be welcomed as it would help to prevent wrongdoing by solicitors. The Bill also gives the Law Society new powers to act against solicitors who provide inadequate services. In addition, the Bill sets a new requirement that a solicitor has to be employed for not less than three continuous years after being admitted as a solicitor before he can be a sole proprietor or a partner of a law firm.

I welcome these amendments which are aimed at upgrading the quality and maintaining the integrity of advocates and solicitors. I am sure that they will help to improve the overall standard of legal service in Singapore. Thus, the public interest will be advanced.

The Bill also introduces an amendment to section 21 of the principal Act under clause 3 in respect of a Queen's Counsel which states, and I quote:

"The court shall not admit a person under this section in any criminal case unless the court is satisfied that there is a special reason to do so." To a layman, it is not clear to whom the word "person" refers to in the above quotation - whether he is an internationally renowned criminal lawyer or a Queen's Counsel. The term "a special reason" is also too general and not adequately specific. In a criminal case, it is not clear under what circumstances a defendant is entitled to engage a QC for his defence. It may be desirable to spell out clearly the conditions under which a QC can be admitted to a court in Singapore to argue a criminal case.

By restricting Queen's Counsels to handle criminal cases only, clause 3 implies that QCs are allowed to be admitted in civil cases. This indicates that our criminal lawyers can adequately handle most criminal cases which involve factual evidence, where civil cases can be much more complicated. However, criminal proceedings can lead to serious consequences such as capital punishment. In such cases, the possible loss of a human life is involved. We should therefore ensure that we have adequate good criminal lawyers to defend defendants who may be innocent.

In the legal history in Singapore, the late Mr David Marshall was an outstanding criminal lawyer. We should have more capable criminal lawyers like him before we totally depend on local lawyers in handling criminal cases. Hence, the term "a special reason" in the above quotation should be defined widely and clearly so that defendants can still benefit from the services of a QC.

Singapore has been outstanding in the world in maintaining law and order. What distinguishes Singapore from many other countries is that the law here is transparent and fair and the enforcement of the law is effective. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill will no doubt further upgrade the quality of the legal profession and certainly deserves our support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, let me at the outset declare my interest as an advocate and solicitor and a member of the Faculty of Law.

The amendments that the Minister proposed are all very good amendments and I think they will make the legal profession much stronger and better. But I would like to concentrate, if I may, on two provisions - new section 75C and section 75D and to relate that to a class of legally trained people whose interests have not actually been addressed in these amendments. I refer to people who after graduation do not go into practice or join the legal service but choose to do something else. Many of these people go out and join companies, for example, or they may go abroad and do other things. One of my classmates became a missionary. This kind of amendments, although the aim is clear and good, forgets the people who do not enter practice and legal service, because such people will not qualify either to be partners or to be sole proprietors, except by consent of the Law Society. For example, if you get someone graduating from the Law Faculty in 1997, he goes out, he joins a listed company, he rises through the ranks, he becomes chief legal officer of a large multi-national company, and he spends maybe 10, 15, 20 years there. When he comes out, he has not had a single year of practice and therefore has no right to be a partner or sole proprietor, unless he joins an established firm which he might not want to do or unless the Law Society and the Minister give him approval. May I suggest that is anomalous and that some provision should be made for people who have acquired this kind of experience to have, as a matter of right, the ability to set up practice on their own without the say-so of the Law Society, if I may it put that way.

The other little problem, if I may point out, relates more specifically to the Law Faculty. As the Minister knows, we have had a tradition in the Law Faculty of some of our academics appearing in court - Prof. Tommy Koh, for example, in the 1970s and more recently, Assoc. Prof. Jeffrey Pinsler and myself. Under section 34(h) of the Legal Profession Act, full-time members of the Faculty may give advice. So there is no problem there. But to appear in court, one has to take out a practising certificate. Under the provisions, as presently drafted, before the amendments, we either take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor or we take out a practising certificate as a consultant to an existing firm. The amendments do not affect anyone in the Law Faculty presently but they will affect the new recruits that we take in after the amendments become law. For these new recruits, it will not be possible for them to take out a practising certificate as a nominal sole proprietor, because of that three-year bar. And even if they have been with the Faculty for 10 years, they are still not allowed to take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor. The reason why they have to take out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor is because there is no other provision in the Act catering for academics to appear in court. So we do it that way.

The alternative to taking out a practising certificate as a sole proprietor is to take it out as a consultant. The reason why this is done is to make it clear that the affiliation is not an employment affiliation as such, that we take it as a consultant to a law firm on instructions of the instructing solicitor. For example, my colleague, Prof. Jeffrey Pinsler, did it that way when he appeared as amicus curiae in a recent case. With new section 75D, you cannot take out a practising certificate as a consultant unless you have 10 years' practice and that means that our young law lecturers are neither here nor there. They cannot take out a practising certificate in their own name because of section 75C. They cannot take it out as a consultant because of section 75D. They can only take out a practising certificate as an employee of an existing firm or as a partner of an existing firm. And may I suggest to the Minister that that is not desirable. The Faculty is not in the business of joining up with any specific firms. The reason why law academics take out a practising certificate is to appear in the occasional case where there is an interesting and important point of law to be argued as, for example, in the constitutional reference in which I was involved last year.

The point is not to allow law academics to run a practice on the side. From the Faculty and University's point of view, this is certainly not desirable. The only reason why it is necessary for us to take out a practising certificate is so that we can allow our academics the occasional appearance in court to hone their skills as law teachers. It is doubly important when we are talking about young lecturers. Because, as the Minister well knows, we are constantly trying to retain our good people against the lure of private practice and now the lure of the Legal Service. And allowing them this right of audience in court gives us a little bit of an edge to keep these bright young people. The bright young people that we want to keep are in great demand outside as well. What we are doing now with this amendment is inadvertently closing that door. The young graduate who comes out of our law school, he does very well academically, he does not feel that he is a proper lawyer until he has won his spurs on the field of battle, as it were, by appearing in court and actually arguing a case. And here we have closed the door to him. We are saying to him, "You can't do this. You can't take out your practising certificate. You have to join a firm as an employee." May I suggest to the Minister that some thought be given to this particular problem, that some amendments, when the Act is next amended, be put in to cater for these two classes of people - the ones who do not go straight into practice and the ones who remain in the Law Faculty.

May I also ask the Minister perhaps to think about an amendment to section 34(h). The problem with the practising certificate route for academics is that it is very hard to police. Once the fellow has a practising certificate, legally you cannot stop him doing things like conveyancing, for example, all of which are not part of what the Faculty should be doing. If we could amend section 34(h) to give a limited right of audience to members of the Law Faculty, that would be, I think, the solution. Why Law Faculty? It is just like the Medical Faculty. We are training professionals and therefore we have to have this practical experience ourselves. I am not asking it for this kind of things for the existing members of the Law Faculty because these amendments do not affect the existing members of the Faculty. I am asking this for the future members of the Faculty so that we can keep our bright young graduates, the ones that everyone else wants. We want to be able to keep these people in academia to train our future lawyers in order to raise the standard of profession. And without this access to right of audience in court, I think we lose a very big dimension of that. You would not think that a surgery lecturer would be any good if he never actually cuts somebody. It is the same thing with law lecturers that you have to give them this occasional right to appear in court to hone their skills and basically to provide another dimension which would improve the quality of their teaching so that the graduates' quality also improves.

With these two very small suggestions, may I say that I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the Bill. First, let me declare my interest as a pupil in a law firm.

Let me say that I support the Bill and what I would like to do is to seek some clarifications as a result of concerns on the part of some new solicitors. This has to do with section 75C under clause 13 of the Bill. As the Minister has stated, section 75C states that a solicitor must complete successfully a legal practice management course and must have at least three years' practice in a legal firm in Singapore before he can be a sole proprietor or in partnership. What I would like to ask the Minister is to clarify if he is aware of the contents of the course and what the legal practice management syllabus is going to be. But more important, whether it is going to be an examinable subject or it is one which requires the new solicitor to attend and complete the course successfully. And also whether or not this course will be conducted during the three-year period or after he has completed the three-year period in practice. Because if it is after the three-year practice, it means prolonging the period for such new solicitors who want to be sole proprietors.

The second clarification has to do with new section 75C(3) which is in a way an exemption of section 75C(1) because section 75C(3) states that a solicitor who does not have three years' practice can be a partner in a firm with a solicitor who has three years or more of practice. And it does not say that a solicitor with more than three years' practice needs to go through the legal practice management course. So, in fact, you can have a situation where a new solicitor who has three years' practice can have one person who has not got three years' practice to be a partner, both of whom have of course not gone through the legal practice management course. I do not know whether or not that is desirable.

The third clarification, Sir, is a general one. As the Minister has stated in October 1993, he expressed the Government's concern with regard to the large number of one-lawyer law firms. And it is arising from his concern that some of these new amendments are now being enacted, embodying solutions to some of these problems. My question is: by having these amendments now, whether the Minister and the Government are satisfied that these amendments would have addressed his concern and, if so, whether the Minister can give an assurance that no further amendments, measures or curbs will be contemplated in the future to control the sole proprietorship of small firms?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support and comments. If I may take the points in the order in which they were made. First, the Chairman of the GPC for Law, Dr Ker Sin Tze. His main question was about the definition of "special reason". There are two ways in which we could have handled this. One is for Parliament itself to have spelt out in the provisions in an exhaustive way all the possible special reasons. But our preference was to draft it in such a way that we would leave it to the courts to decide what the special reasons would be. I think that is the better approach just as the existing provision in respect of QCs leaves the discretion to the court when it says, as a general criterion, "if the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty or complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case." That is the general criterion.

From the general criterion, when we come to the specific matter of criminal cases, there will now be a further criterion for criminal cases that the court is satisfied that there is a special reason to do so. Between the two approaches, I think it is better to take this approach and leave it to the court. If he were to press me to indicate an example of a criminal case which I think would constitute a special reason, there could be a criminal case where an important constitutional law issue arises as to whether some constitutional rights have been or have not been breached, or whether the regulations or the Act under which the person is being charged raises the question of conformity with some provisions of the Constitution. So it then becomes not just a criminal case on the particular set of facts, but broader and more fundamental questions may be raised, and one can argue that this could be a "special reason". I give this as an indicative example. But I think it is better to leave it to the courts. The courts have had experience in handling such applications and I am sure we can leave it to their wisdom to decide what are the special reasons.

What is important is that the legislative intent is what I have said in my speech. And if I may very quickly sum it up, it is that Queen's Counsel, as a feature in our legal landscape, is an exception to the norm. In fact, we are one of the few countries in the world which permits Queen's Counsels. As I said in 1991 and as I have briefly alluded to in my speech, it was never meant to be a permanent feature of our scheme. We had it way back in our statutes for good reason when our own legal profession was in its infancy. But we have developed our legal profession a long way since the early days of our Legal Profession Act. We have not completely abolished QCs. But the legislative intent is that we will progressively reduce our dependence on it, commensurate with the development of our own legal profession, our own Bar, bearing in mind three factors.

Firstly, the differences in our legal system and the systems in which the Queen's Counsels operate; secondly, for the foreseeable future, we may still need Queen's Counsels in the civil cases, particularly, commercial and banking cases; and, thirdly, the development and appointment of Senior Counsel in our local scene. Therefore, Dr Ker will note that, while we are making these amendments, we are not in a rush to completely stop Queen's Counsels even for criminal cases. So they are not barred from representing accused defendants in criminal cases. What we are doing is that, for criminal cases, for the reasons I have set out in my speech, there is a justification for adding the special additional criterion.

He asked a specific question as to what is meant by "a person" in the amendment, ie, the court shall not admit a person. To understand that, one has to look at the totality of the entire provision of section 21 which deals with Queen's Counsel and if he reads it, he will note that it says, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty ... admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor ..." Then it spells out who this person is, and it is defined as "one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel, does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia ... and has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case." So by "person", we are referring to one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel. So that answers his question.

I agree with him that it is important to develop sufficient numbers of people at our criminal Bar who have the competence, expertise and the ability who can stand out to Queen's Counsel and I have confidence that our local Bar will be able to produce such people as we develop.

Prof. Walter Woon has raised a special kind of problem. It is two-fold in nature. One refers to the position of full-time members of the Faculty of Law who, as he explained, in order to have audience in court, may have either to be employed with a law firm or may have to take up practising certificate as a sole proprietor in order to enable him to appear in court. Let me say, first, that having previously been Dean of the Faculty and having myself strongly advocated that Law Faculty lecturers must have some interaction with the real world of practice, I am sympathetic to the underlying thrust of his remarks. I will discuss this further with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. But there are some implications which we really have to consider.

My first reaction to what he said is that I do not think we can treat the special category of Law Faculty lecturers on exactly the same footing as the sole proprietors which would be the case for most of the situations of the Legal Profession Act. Because the sole proprietors in a normal case have to comply with the whole gamut of obligations and safeguards under the Act, including the compensation fund and various other safeguards, subject to disciplinary proceedings, and so on. In other words, the problem that he has identified is how to cater for a very small group of lawyers in the Law Faculty to enable them to continue doing what they have been doing and how do we ensure that these amendments which impinge on them can be taken care of. I will look into that. I also need to say that we have to examine whether any proposed new provisions should deal only with the Law Faculty in the NUS because I also had similar approaches been made to me by other academics who teach law in other institutions of higher learning and who may not be producing qualified persons for the legal profession but, nevertheless, they are teaching law. So it has quite a lot of ramifications.

The other point he made was to give an example of people who may be qualified persons not practising law but might have had considerable experience in a non-practitioner related role. For example, he might have been an in-house lawyer or a CEO of a big company. So the question he posed was: if a lawyer who has worked as a CEO in a big company were to resign and join the legal practice, ought he be subject to such a restriction on sole proprietorship? I think an argument can be made both ways. I can imagine lawyers arguing that he may have been a CEO or, for that matter, even as a Minister for Law for many years, but that does not necessarily entitle him to be a sole proprietor immediately upon taking up legal practice. It does not follow that what one previously did in a non-practitioner role automatically confers on him all the accoutrements and qualifications needed for sole proprietorship. The arguments have to be weighed carefully and this is another matter which I will discuss with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. I will also look into the third point which he mentioned about section 34(h).

Finally, Dr Lau Teik Soon has commented on the legal practice management course. His first question was: will the course be after the 3-year period or before? My understanding is that the legal practice management course can be taken by a lawyer only after he has completed the requirement of 3-year practice. However, he will be allowed to register one month before the completion of the 3-year period and complete the course within 12 months of the commencement of his practice as sole proprietor. I do not think that is too much of an imposition. I do not have all the details of the course, but he might wish to know that the course will be conducted for a period of five days and cover four subjects - professional management, professional responsibility, financial management and legal profession and practice. So it is a 5-day course.

The Council will determine successful completion of the course by reference to the solicitor's attendance, record and, I am afraid to say, testing based on return of assignments set in performance and tutorials but these are questions of detail which will have to be spelt out in regulation by the Law Society. Here it is a question really as to whether there is an inconsistency on the one hand of not allowing a freshly admitted lawyer from setting up sole proprietorship and, on the other hand, allowing him to set up partnership with another lawyer who has had three years' experience. While we could have been stricter and disallowed it, I think there is no inconsistency in allowing a lawyer with less than three years' practice to enter into a partnership with another lawyer with more than three years' experience because the more experienced lawyer, in fact, can be a mentor to advise and guide the less experienced lawyer. It will also benefit the clients of the firm in that the senior lawyer could serve as a check against any possible misconduct or malpractice. The presence of a senior partner will also provide an avenue for consultation and advice in cases where doubts arise over the appropriate course of action that the new lawyer wants to take. Yes, there is no requirement for a lawyer of three years' standing to have also taken the practical course. To do so, I would have had to make a provision which has retrospective effect and we have decided that it is best that the provisions have only prospective effect.

Finally, he wants an assurance that we will not move any more amendments. Let me assure him that when we move amendments to the Legal Profession Act, as with most other legislation, they are for good reasons. I cannot say that because we have moved these amendments, there will be no further restrictions or no further amendments. All these must be subject to reviewing the legislation and the implementation of these regulations and provisions over a period of time. Of course, we do not want to make unnecessary amendments, but we will always keep this under review and only, if necessary, we will move the amendments.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar.]

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