Speech on the Occasion of the Second Reading of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill

In my parliamentary speech during the 2nd reading of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, I shared some of my thoughts on the importance in revamping the training of young lawyers to ensure, not only that they will be properly equipped to deal with the intellectual challenges of their careers, but also to imbue them with the right values to serve the ends of justice and our country. My speech is set out below.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sir, to properly understand the reasons for the proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act (“LPA”) that we are considering today, it is important to appreciate the genesis of this process:

a. It began with the key idea of a reminder to all of us who live under the rule of law — that law is a profession, not an occupation in that lawyers must strive to serve the public interest.

b. In 2016, the Honourable the Chief Justice established the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (“CPTL”) headed by the Honourable Justice Quentin Loh to “conduct a root-and-branch review of the professional training regime for trainee lawyers”.

i. Some of the drivers for this review were:

1. The fast-changing legal environment which required lawyers to work collaboratively over borders.

2. The advent of Artificial Intelligence that have the potential to redefine the role of lawyers and the provision of legal services to clients; and

3. The increasing savviness of clients; particularly corporate clients.

c. The CPTL comprised 15 eminent representatives from the Judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Ministry of Law, the Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”), the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and Singapore law practices.

d. The focus was to identify “measures to strengthen the entire professional training regime such that the quality of training remains robust”.

i. What is key is that training is not to be understood as merely the development of professional skills.

The CPTL emphasised the need to teach trainees the deeper purpose associated with acquiring the skills.

If law is a profession, and if lawyers have a duty to serve the public, then trainees must be imbued with important values such as compassion, courage and commitment to serve justice and integrity.

The Hon the Chief Justice put this point across pithily in his speech in 2016 when he announced the set up of CPTL.

He stated as follows:

“Law is not the only choice for those who have managed to secure a “fistful of “A’s”, as one interview put it to us…If it is the lure of financial rewards that draws you, you should look at other options or be prepared for disappointment.”

I wish to pick up one point that was left unsaid but, nonetheless, clear to everyone who is familiar with the developments then.

The quality of our lawyers determines the quality of our judiciary.

Hence, ensuring the quality of our young lawyers, not just in terms of skills and knowledge but values, will have an impact, over time, on the quality of our judiciary which, we all recognise, is an important and co-equal pillar in our Westminster-modelled Government.

Maintaining the quality of the judiciary is a national imperative.

I need only quote the hon Minister for Law who, in 2018, said in this House:

“When the quality of the Judiciary suffers, the rule of law suffers. When the rule of law suffers, the country suffers”.

It was in that context, that the CPTL made 3 key structural recommendations in 2018 which the Government subsequently accepted. They are:

a. Lengthening the practice training period from 6 months to 1 year;

b. Raising the standard and stringency of the bar exams known as “Part B examinations”; and

c. Uncoupling the admission to the Bar from the completion of practice training contracts;

I support these recommendations. I have a few queries on the recommendations which I will deal with in turn.

On the lengthening of the practice training period, the CPTL, in its report, identified 2 main reasons to recommend the doubling of the training period:

a. In the new regime, each trainee will be required to rotate to contrasting practice areas to gain more exposure. In fact, they may even be seconded to a company as internal counsel for up to 3 months.

b. Also, it was felt that a 6-month period was too short for a trainee to develop an aptitude to deal with the pressures of practice once he is called to the bar.

i. This was in fact a point that was raised by junior lawyers in a focus group discussion that CPTL conducted!

The CPTL further noted that, from a comparative study, that the training period in Singapore is much shorter than that of barristers and solicitors in UK, Hong Kong, Australia and several other countries.

Quite clearly though, the key outcome we are looking at is not the length of the training per se, but the quality of the lawyer who emerges from it. And this outcome depends largely on the supervising solicitors. This was a point that was specifically highlighted by the CPTL.

a. I am aware that, already, there is a checklist that trainees would have to tick off against to ensure that they get the requisite exposure.

b. I also note that the CPTL has made recommendations such as “training the trainer” courses, designating a “training partner” in firms with 6 or more lawyers and so on.

c. Furthermore, supervising solicitors’ responsibilities are also spelt out under the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.

May I ask what redress can we provide to trainees who are not getting the exposure, training and mentorship that they are supposed to get from their supervising solicitors?

a. Anecdotally there are cases of trainees not getting the requisite exposure from their supervising solicitors. At the same time, they are naturally concerned about possible impact on their own career should they raise issue about such matters to their firm.

b. I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s response to this matter.

8. Next, Sir, practice trainees who are subscribed to longer training periods will naturally be concerned about their remuneration for this extended period.

a. Instead of getting lawyers’ salaries, they will continue to get allowances for an extended period.

b. At the same time, law practices currently are not allowed to charge clients for the work done by their practice trainees under the supervision of their supervising solicitors.

i. This will mean that law practices will have to incur higher costs should they increase the allowances to be paid to practice trainees.

c. The CPTL encouraged a review of this position so that law practices will be able to defray the costs associated with a longer practice training period.

i. May I ask if the Government supports the CPTL’s position and, if so, when will the requisite amendments to the subsidiary legislation to allow law practice to charge for their trainees’ work will be in place?

ii. This is not a matter of making profits for firms, but really a point of fairness — if the trainees are doing work that add value to the client, the client should be willing to pay for it, and the firm should be allowed to charge.

iii. The key is to create such a market with full transparency.

Next, on CPTL’s recommendation that the standard and stringency of the Part B examinations be raised, I understand that this is an issue that is receiving the attention of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education which is a statutory board set up under the LPA.

a. In its report, the CPTL highlighted that the pass rate for the Singapore bar exams between 2010–2016, which stands at 99%, compares very favourably to the pass rates in for the bar exam in England (which is about 70%) and New York bar (which is about 70% too).

b. I accept that the standards of the Bar exam must be sufficiently high to ensure that persons who pass have an adequate standard of academic quality.

i. On the other hand, we must guard against the tendency to make the Bar exam harder than necessary.

ii. Otherwise, our young talents will miss the chance of being developed into lawyers and, ultimately, Singapore will be the loser.

c. I have also noted some disquiet expressed particularly in the social media amongst persons sitting for the Part B exam who noted that the breadth of subjects being introduced for Part B course are very wide and include specialist law areas.

i. In addition, there is a concern that bell curve grading will be introduced for Part B exams.

d. I seek the hon Minister’s views on how it is proposed that a proper balance be struck in these circumstances.

e. Here, we must be clear about the specific outcome that we want to achieve — it is not whether the 99% pass rate, on its own, is too high, or that 70% is too low. It is whether law graduates who pass the Part B examinations will be lawyers who can stand shoulder to shoulder with lawyers across the world and possess the competence to discharge their responsibilities well.

On CTPL’s 3rd structural recommendation of uncoupling the admission to bar from completion of practice training contracts, I have an observation to make.

a. I note that it is proposed that a non-practicising lawyer, in addition to be being admitted to the Roll of Lawyers, be also members of the Law Society.

b. Notwithstanding that they can be members of the Law Society, only practitioner members may be elected to the Council of the Law Society.

c. I am aware that there are other professional bodies which allow non-practicising members to be elected into their respective councils.

d. In my respectful view, given the unique duties of the Law Society as set out under the LPA, it is correct to continue to rely on practitioner members with the requisite knowledge and experience to be responsible for managing the affairs of the Law Society and ensuring that the Society discharges its statutory functions under the LPA properly.

e. Nonetheless, given that it is now to be statutorily provided that non-practicising lawyers may be Law Society members, there will be a need for the Law Society to cater to their interests too.

f. In addition, there is an opportunity for the Law Society to harness the energies and abilities of these new members in discharging its responsibilities.

g. I express my hope that the Law Society members from all categories will be able to work together for the collective good of the legal community and, of course, our country.

I now deal with the miscellaneous amendments proposed in the Bill on the process issues.

I first turn to the proposal to issue practice trainees with provisional practising certificates authorising him or her to practice provisionally after they have served 6 months of traineeship.

a. I support the proposal.

b. I note that the intention is to allow the practice trainee to do anything that an Advocate & Solicitor can do provided that they are under the supervision of a supervising solicitor.

c. The period of coverage is not just during the practice training period but also after the training period but before he or she is admitted as an advocate and solicitor.

i. A significant difference between the proposal and the current regime involving part-called lawyers is that the period during which practice trainees can practice with provisional practising certificates is proposed to be doubled.

d. Currently, Advocates and Solicitors, before they can apply for a practising certificate, will have to take out insurance under the Legal Profession (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Rules.

e. May I ask if there are similar requirements for practice trainees applying for provisional practising certificates?

i. If not, what steps will be put in place to ensure that there is an indemnity insurance in place covering civil liability arising from acts or omissions of practice trainees with provisional practicing certificates?

ii. Would law practices be required to pay extra premiums to get such coverage?

Next, and finally, I turn to professional training of Judicial Service or Legal Service Officers.

a. Currently, different training periods apply to law graduates who seek admission to the Bar by working as an officer in judicial service, legal service or the Public Defender’s Office.

i. For them, 6 months of working as a judicial service officer (“JSO”) or legal service officer (“LSO”) is equivalent to 1 month of supervised training by a practice trainee.

ii. In other words, it typically takes 3 years for a JSO or LSO to complete the equivalent of 6 months’ traineeship by a practice trainee before he or she may be called to the bar.

b. If memory serves me correctly, I believe this requirement was first imposed in the early 1990s as part of a talent retention programme.

c. I note from the CPTL report that it is proposed that the practice training period for law graduates who are serving as officers be equalised with practice trainees who serve their practice training period in Singapore law practices.

i. May I please ask what is the Government’s position on this matter?

ii. If the Government accepts the CPTL’s recommendation in this regard, may I ask how it proposes to deal with the original objective that led to the implementation of the different training periods for these officers in the 1st place?

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments under the LPA help underline the important principle that lawyers must not only know the law, but why they are lawyers. How we train lawyers cannot be a mere technical process of mastering the practice of law but must be a careful and continuous appreciation of the solemn obligation placed on all lawyers, as officers of the court, to uphold the rule of law and conduct themselves as members of an honourable profession.

I support the Bill.