He said Senior Counsel clock less time in court than those overseas
By Khushwant Singh 19 January 2009
Elite lawyers here are none too happy with comparisons made between their work in court and their counterparts in other countries.
They argue that their effectiveness cannot be measured just by the number of days spent in court or appeal hearings, an issue that made headlines earlier this month.
‘Going to trial is the last resort and may not necessarily be in the best interest of the client,’ said Senior Counsel (SC) Molly Lim, 52, a civil litigation lawyer. It could be more time- and cost-effective to come to an out-of-court commercial settlement or even going for arbitration, she added.
SC Lim was one of 10 Senior Counsel approached by The Straits Times to respond to recent remarks from Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. He said that, on average, the elite band of lawyers spent less than a day last year before the Appeals Court and another 11 days arguing a trial in court. This was contrary to the experience of Senior Counsel elsewhere, he said at the opening of the legal year on Jan 3.
Last year, CJ Chan suggested that lawyers awarded the coveted title might have to meet certain ‘practice considerations’ to keep earning the right to use it. Senior Counsel here, he said then, seem to drift into corporate work and fewer of them were being seen in court, thus leaving a fundamental purpose of the scheme unfulfilled - which is arguing complex issues of law before judges.
The Senior Counsel scheme was started in 1997 to recognise the most skilful advocates in the profession, the same way top British lawyers become Queen’s Counsel. There are 59 Senior Counsel listed, with about 20 in the judiciary, Attorney-General’s Chambers and academia.
Of the 10 who spoke to The Straits Times, eight said they spent between 20 and 60 days attending court and chambers matters and arbitration sessions.
SC Lim did 61 days of trial work last year and argued two cases before the Court of Appeal.
SC Jimmy Yim, 48, said he had been in several hearings last year, including the 32-day Novena Church ‘exorcism’ trial.
On the other end of the scale, SC Joseph Grimberg, 75, admitted to zero court appearances as he does mainly arbitration and advisory work for clients.
‘Singapore has successfully promoted itself as a forum for arbitration and eventually more and more Senior Counsel will be employed in arbitration and consequently will appear less and less in court,’ he said.
SC K.S. Rajah, 78, pointed out the courts had moved away from oral advocacy to written submissions. He said he had spent more than 12 days on court work.
Hourly rates for Senior Counsel could range between $700 and $1,200, and it does not make sense for a Senior Counsel to read out in court what has already been submitted, others said.
Supreme Court spokesman Jenny Ang said that the attendance figures that CJ Chan cited in his speech earlier this month were calculated based on the 40-odd Senior Counsel in private practice arguing High Court cases.
Many said any comparison to other countries is unfair as the legal profession here was a fused one, with lawyers as advocates, who appear in court, and solicitors, who prepare cases. In Britain and Hong Kong, Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel are barristers, whose key function was to represent clients in court.
The Singapore Law Academy acknowledged the distinction, and the responsibilities of senior lawyers to mentor younger colleagues and allow them a chance to appear in court.
‘The key is in finding an optimal way to balance the demands,’ said an Academy spokesman.
The CJ’s words have had some effect. The Forum of Senior Counsel, an informal group made up of all the Senior Counsel, started a discussion group headed by SC Harry Elias soon after to study the issues raised.
Meanwhile, CJ Chan also said he was contemplating putting online the amount of time each Senior Counsel spent in court so that clients would know whether the one they wished to engage was ‘still active or have retired or are just tired’.
SC Thio Shen Yi, 41, thinks arbitration time should also be included. ‘We should do the best for our clients and not go to court just to score points.’
1 comment:
CJ’s Remarks Upset Lawyers
He said Senior Counsel clock less time in court than those overseas
By Khushwant Singh
19 January 2009
Elite lawyers here are none too happy with comparisons made between their work in court and their counterparts in other countries.
They argue that their effectiveness cannot be measured just by the number of days spent in court or appeal hearings, an issue that made headlines earlier this month.
‘Going to trial is the last resort and may not necessarily be in the best interest of the client,’ said Senior Counsel (SC) Molly Lim, 52, a civil litigation lawyer. It could be more time- and cost-effective to come to an out-of-court commercial settlement or even going for arbitration, she added.
SC Lim was one of 10 Senior Counsel approached by The Straits Times to respond to recent remarks from Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. He said that, on average, the elite band of lawyers spent less than a day last year before the Appeals Court and another 11 days arguing a trial in court. This was contrary to the experience of Senior Counsel elsewhere, he said at the opening of the legal year on Jan 3.
Last year, CJ Chan suggested that lawyers awarded the coveted title might have to meet certain ‘practice considerations’ to keep earning the right to use it. Senior Counsel here, he said then, seem to drift into corporate work and fewer of them were being seen in court, thus leaving a fundamental purpose of the scheme unfulfilled - which is arguing complex issues of law before judges.
The Senior Counsel scheme was started in 1997 to recognise the most skilful advocates in the profession, the same way top British lawyers become Queen’s Counsel. There are 59 Senior Counsel listed, with about 20 in the judiciary, Attorney-General’s Chambers and academia.
Of the 10 who spoke to The Straits Times, eight said they spent between 20 and 60 days attending court and chambers matters and arbitration sessions.
SC Lim did 61 days of trial work last year and argued two cases before the Court of Appeal.
SC Jimmy Yim, 48, said he had been in several hearings last year, including the 32-day Novena Church ‘exorcism’ trial.
On the other end of the scale, SC Joseph Grimberg, 75, admitted to zero court appearances as he does mainly arbitration and advisory work for clients.
‘Singapore has successfully promoted itself as a forum for arbitration and eventually more and more Senior Counsel will be employed in arbitration and consequently will appear less and less in court,’ he said.
SC K.S. Rajah, 78, pointed out the courts had moved away from oral advocacy to written submissions. He said he had spent more than 12 days on court work.
Hourly rates for Senior Counsel could range between $700 and $1,200, and it does not make sense for a Senior Counsel to read out in court what has already been submitted, others said.
Supreme Court spokesman Jenny Ang said that the attendance figures that CJ Chan cited in his speech earlier this month were calculated based on the 40-odd Senior Counsel in private practice arguing High Court cases.
Many said any comparison to other countries is unfair as the legal profession here was a fused one, with lawyers as advocates, who appear in court, and solicitors, who prepare cases. In Britain and Hong Kong, Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel are barristers, whose key function was to represent clients in court.
The Singapore Law Academy acknowledged the distinction, and the responsibilities of senior lawyers to mentor younger colleagues and allow them a chance to appear in court.
‘The key is in finding an optimal way to balance the demands,’ said an Academy spokesman.
The CJ’s words have had some effect. The Forum of Senior Counsel, an informal group made up of all the Senior Counsel, started a discussion group headed by SC Harry Elias soon after to study the issues raised.
Meanwhile, CJ Chan also said he was contemplating putting online the amount of time each Senior Counsel spent in court so that clients would know whether the one they wished to engage was ‘still active or have retired or are just tired’.
SC Thio Shen Yi, 41, thinks arbitration time should also be included. ‘We should do the best for our clients and not go to court just to score points.’
Post a Comment