EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 100

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Column: 101

LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposed amendment to the Legal Profession Act (LPA) is timely and is an added benefit to the Singapore legal profession and to the Singapore public seeking legal advice. The introduction of locum solicitor into the Legal Profession Act widens the pool of available legal talent in Singapore. Many of the legally trained law graduates, who have been admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and who are not in full-time legal practice currently for various reasons, can now practise, so to speak, on a part-time or on an ad hoc basis as a locum solicitor once this Bill becomes law. This amendment would, hopefully, encourage some lawyers who have retired and do not wish to practise on a full-time basis to come back to legal practice as locum solicitors. This would minimise the waste of legal talent, especially amongst bright lady lawyers who become housewives in order to take care of their young children.

A locum solicitor is an advocate and solicitor engaged in employ on a temporary or freelance basis by one or more law firms, law corporations or solicitors practising on their own account. He or she is an employee. In introducing locum solicitor, the legal profession must ensure, through the rules to be introduced under the Legal Profession Act and especially under section 25 of the LPA, (a) the protection of the public as far as clients' money is concerned and the need for insurance coverage for negligence by the locum solicitor. This presumably will be covered by the employer law firm; (b) the need for the locum solicitor to keep up with the law and keep pace with continuing legal education to give proper

Column: 102

legal opinion and legal advice to clients; (c) prevention of conflict of interest when a locum solicitor is allowed to be engaged by more than one law firm; and (d) disciplinary matters for professional offences under the LPA and the general law.

Sir, clause 4 relating to the new section 26(1A) seems rather stringent in that a person would not qualify to be a locum solicitor unless he or she is a Singapore citizen or permanent resident of Singapore and, in the period of five years immediately preceding the application, has been a solicitor in practice or a legal officer for a period of not less than three years, or has completed such training within such time as prescribed by the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. May I suggest, Sir, that it would be fairer if the period of five years is deleted or the duration be extended from five to, say, 10 years so that more lawyers can practise law on a locum or part-time basis.

Whilst we are encouraging locum solicitors, may I also take this opportunity to ask that, in order to give greater opportunities and to increase the legal pool of practitioners, we consider amending the relevant sections of the Legal Profession Act and the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. Many of our law graduates from recognised foreign universities with Second Class (Lower) and Third Class Honours, and with Third Class Honours from the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore cannot be admitted to the bar. This has deprived these young Singapore citizens of the chance to practise law in Singapore as private practitioners. Their dignity, pride and self-esteem must have been affected adversely for having done not so well either abroad or locally in NUS. Their parents, spouses and siblings must have been saddened by this deprivation. Please re-look at these restrictions, Sir. Give

Column: 103

these graduates a chance to practise law. After all, there are many law graduates who fall into these categories but who were older law graduates and were not caught by these rules which were introduced in the 1990s, and who are successful practitioners and had even been appointed judges. A good degree holder may not turn out to be a good legal practitioner, and a bad degree holder may turn out to be a good legal practitioner.

Section 35 of the LPA is being widened to allow foreign lawyers to do any arbitration work in Singapore without doing so jointly with a Singapore advocate and solicitor. We in Singapore are opening up the legal profession to foreign lawyers to do arbitration work in Singapore, except having any right of audience in any Singapore court. This is in line with the requirement of the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade and Services for the various professions to open their doors for non-Singaporeans to compete.

In line with this, Sir, our Government should do its level best to ensure that there is a level playing field amongst other World Trade Organisation member nations. It would be encouraging if foreign countries like Malaysia and other ASEAN countries, who are WTO members, England and the United States of America, Australia and Canada could do likewise and open their doors for our Singapore lawyers to practise in their countries. I believe that some of these countries do allow but there may be stumbling blocks by way of immigration and work permit or employment pass restrictions. Our Government should play an active role in minimising these obstacles so that more of our younger lawyers can practise in different jurisdictions and become better and more versatile lawyers.

Column: 104

Overall, Sir, the proposed amendments are to be welcomed and I support the same.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan for their comments and support of the Bill. If I may turn to some of the specific points raised by them. First of all, I am sure I speak for all Members in wishing Mr Chiam many happy years of lucrative locum practice!

First, he commented on the three out of five years' requirement. And, here, there seems to be a difference of views between Mr Chandra Mohan and himself. Mr Chiam felt that the three out of five years' restriction seems not to be in tandem with one of the Law Society's objectives of locums being possibly a means of tapping specialists. In three out of five years, one may not be able to say he is a specialist. On the other hand, Mr Chandra Mohan thought that was a bit too rigorous. So, there you are, you can have many different approaches.

But I believe the answer to Mr Chiam's question is that this locum practitioner is not being proposed only for one objective. There are several objectives. Of course, it could lead to a specialist who is a locum and whose knowledge can be tapped. But it also serves several other objectives, like people who have to leave the profession on a temporary basis but yet their services are not entirely lost to the profession. While we are on this point, in answer to Mr Chandra Mohan, let me say that three out of five years is a balance because it is intended to signify that the person has not been completely out of touch with practising or with the law. I think if it is three out of 10 years, one could say that it is a risk that he has been completely out of touch with the law. So we can have a debate on that, but I think three out of five years is not an unreasonable requirement.

Column: 105

Both Mr Chiam and Mr Chandra Mohan talked about the need to ensure that there is avoidance of conflict of interest. Mr Chandra Mohan also said that we must ensure that public interests must be safeguarded. I completely agree, including areas of handling of clients' money, continuing legal education, and so on. I referred to these points in my speech and I believe the Law Society is mindful of these considerations and they will be taken care of in the rules. And I would add that the Ministry of Law will pass on the suggestions to the Law Society. So as we monitor this new system and see how it operates in practice, I am sure that they will have to make modifications and adjustments to the rules as we go along.

Mr Chiam also mentioned some suggestions as to the length of the tenure of the practising certificate, whether it can be half a year, reduced fees, and so on. Let me say that my purpose here in coming to Parliament is to make an amendment which will enable the introduction of the locum practice. The details of the administering of the scheme, I must, of course, leave it to the Law Society, and trust that they will have sufficient oversight of the actual operation of the new system

and ensure that, while it meets the objectives, at the same time, public interest is protected and the requirements are not so burdensome that it puts off the very people that we want to bring back into association with legal practice.

Mr Chandra Mohan raised two other points. The first point is not very germane to this Bill. But he asked whether I can have a look again at the requirement for graduates who want to practise law to possess a Second Class (Upper) Honours degree or a Second Class (Lower) Honours degree depending on whether he graduated abroad or from here. I believe Members will recall that I have mentioned in Parliament several

Column: 106

times on the reasons why we introduced this requirement sometime ago, as a result of the Committee on the Legal Profession, chaired by the Attorney-General. It was a two-fold objective to relate to the number of graduates as well as to maintain certain standards. In other words, when a student intends to embark on law studies, he knows at the very outset that, if he intends to practise law, then this is the standard that he ought to obtain when he graduates, ie, Second Upper or Second Lower, as the case may be. In the many years in which the system has been in operation, I believe it has worked well. Both students and parents have a clear indication, before they start the law studies, that this is the benchmark if they want to practise law. During these years when we revamped the system, we have also increased the number of overseas institutions which are recognised for this purpose.

The question he has posed is: because there may be a certain number who did not reach this benchmark it is unfair to them to be deprived of an opportunity to practise law. But if we were to easily change the system and to enable those who did not obtain the required benchmark or the standard to practise, then you will have a system made inoperable and the system will not be meaningful. He asked me to relook at it and my approach is we are always prepared to relook at any issue, or any institution, or any process that we have. But I do not want to raise false hopes because we have a system that is working and to allow those who do not have it to nevertheless practise, it means that the system will be rendered quite meaningless.

He has asked about the amendment concerning arbitration. If his point is that the Government, when it makes any provision for foreign lawyer, as a general principle, should seek reciprocity, it is

Column: 107

very difficult to disagree with him, and we always try to ensure that our firms and our lawyers get maximum access elsewhere. This particular amendment that I am proposing for arbitration to do away with the restriction, in fact, we have imposed restrictions that many other countries do not have it. So we are in fact bringing ourselves in line with many of the other leading jurisdictions.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I seek a clarification from the Minister?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I wonder whether by allowing the locums to work for several law firms at the same time could be a conflict of interest. For instance, law firm A might act for the plaintiff of the case and law firm B may act for the defendant of the same case. And these locums who are working for these two firms will come across information or files which are related to the case. So will a situation where a locum has information on both sides compromise on professional practice?

Prof. Jayakumar: I do not want to appear to prejudge the details of whatever rules are going to be drawn up by the Law Society. I must leave it to the Law Society. They already have rules in the legal profession applicable to practitioners, generally speaking, on conflict of interest. All those rules will apply to locum practitioners. But there may be situations peculiar to locum practitioners where the Law Society will have to devise additional rules. The example that he gave where, in one case, one firm is representing the plaintiff and another firm representing the defendant and the locum - because I have said that a locum can be a locum for more than one firm - I should think, subject to being corrected later, if he is working for the

Column: 108

two law firms in the same subject matter , then obviously a question of potential conflict or real conflict of interest will arise. I am sure the Law Society's rules will take care of that. But it does not mean that a locum cannot work in the two firms on other matters. So I believe that the Law Society will have the good sense and judgement to take care of these issues.

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.