Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. It seeks to introduce a raft of changes which are designed to introduce the new regulatory framework for the legal profession to bring the increasing number of foreign lawyers under the same umbrella and to enhance the measures relating to law firms to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. In so doing, we strengthen the profession and fortify Singapore's reputation as Asia's legal hub.

The new regulatory framework gives effect through recommendations of the Committee to review the regulatory framework of the Singapore's legal services sector. This includes the creation of the new office of Director of Legal Services (DLS) under MinLaw to administer the new regime, applicable to all lawyer practising here, as well as the different

Page: 87

legal vehicles which house them. Hence, the framework will cover not just Singapore lawyers practising Singapore law but also those Singapore lawyers practising foreign law. It will also cover foreign lawyers practising foreign law and foreign lawyers who practise Singapore law. It will even cover foreign lawyers who do not practise here but are partners or shareholders in Singapore law firms; and even regulated non-practitioners who cannot be partners or shareholders unless registered as regulated non-practitioners.

This is not to say that it will adopt a one-size-fits-all framework, rather, they are tailored requirements for each of these different categories. But all will be overseen and administered by the Director of Legal Services which should better ensure evenness of treatment across the different categories of lawyers.

Similarly, they are specifically tailored regimes for the different vehicles through which lawyers practise, ranging from sole proprietorships and traditional partnerships to limited liability partnerships and law corporations. Again, all will be overseen by the DLS in a consistent manner.

I do have certain questions arising from the proposed changes. There is a power to make all the partners in an LLP or all directors in an LLC or law corporation jointly liable for unbefitting conduct which cannot be attributed to one or more identified individuals. This is potentially wide liability for what appears to be a generally worded offence. And can I ask the Minister to clarify how this power will be exercised and what would constitute unbefitting conduct?

Further, as mentioned above, the Bill provides for the registration of this animal called "regulated non-practitioners". They can, if registered, be directors, partners or shareholders in a law practice. Could I ask which class of persons this provision is aimed at and what purpose it is trying to achieve? So, for instance, is it financial investors who can be registered as regulated non-practitioners or those who practise a different professional discipline, or perhaps a combination of the two?

I do recognise that the new framework itself is in recognition of the greatest sophistication of legal practice in the modern day where lawyers avail themselves of different business structures to suit their particular practice objectives. At the same time, it helps to fill a lacuna in the current regime where foreign lawyers, who are estimated to number over 1,000, are likely or hardly regulated here at all.

There will also be a specific regime for those foreign lawyers admitted to appear at the new Singapore International Commercial Court as this is the key element to make it an international court of choice. Local practitioners who are wary of this need only hark back to

Page: 88

the fears where the arbitration regulations were amended to allow foreign counsels to appear freely in arbitrations here. This liberalisation helps spark a boom in arbitration cases coming to Singapore and local lawyers got their fair share or more of these cases.

I turn now to the strengthening of measures to prevent money laundering and its associated evils. This is also a welcome step. Given Singapore's position as a financial centre, lawyers do need to recognise that monies remitted through their firms, ostensibly for commercial transactions, may have a more sinister provenance or more deadly objective.

Hence, our lawyers do need to support the effort to combat this modern-day evil with a range of provisions to prohibit receiving monies from anonymous sources to placing onus on lawyers to report suspicious transactions. While this does increase the compliance load on our law firms, they are necessary measures to make the world a safer place for all of us.

Singapore is known as the bastion for the rule of law which has been a pillar of our development as a leading international banking and services hub. The legal profession, I believe, is an essential element of that, and the move to strengthen the profession will help ensure that that pillar continues to stand strong. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Madam, I declare my interest as a Singapore lawyer holding a practising certificate. The Bill makes rather drastic changes in the way the legal profession is organised and regulated. While I am generally supportive of the Bill, I would like to seek clarifications on two areas.

First, I understand that the Law Society had, in April, expressed some concerns to MinLaw about the Bill. They observed that the Law Society's self-regulatory role was being further eroded. For instance, the Director of Legal Services takes on a big role to register firms, and non-practitioners will also be involved in issuing practice directions and sitting on the Professional Conduct Council that oversees the relevant rules governing professional conduct matters. The Law Society had also indicated in its letter in April that it had insufficient time to provide feedback to the Ministry of the changes. How did the Ministry engage the Law Society before this Bill was presented to Parliament and how did the Ministry take the Law Society's feedback into account?

My second concern is about the new section 36G under which non-lawyers can be approved to own shares in law firms. Reservations about this were expressed by the Committee chaired by Mr Sundaresh Menon to review the regulatory framework of the Singapore Legal Sector in his report in January 2014. The Committee noted that such

Page: 89

alternative business structures risked consumer protection. Lawyers might have competing duties to the Court and to shareholders. Non-lawyer owners might have conflicts of interest. There were also concerns about client confidentiality, as different professions have different standards of duty, core values and ethics.

The Law Society too, expressed grave concerns that there may be abuse should non-lawyers be permitted to participate in law practices as they "anticipate that such entities would inevitably be profit-driven which may result in higher legal costs for the public".

They expect that lawyers might be urged to maximise billing hours resulting in unnecessary and protracted proceedings. They were also worried that conflicts of interest might arise if non-lawyer owners had ties with large corporations such as banks and real estate corporations which are profit-driven.

Earlier, the Minister mentioned some safeguards to ensure that non-lawyer owners are subject to the same standards of the Legal Profession, for example, in ethics and confidentiality. I would like him to elaborate further on the safeguards, for example, are there any professions forbidden from being non-lawyer owners and in particular, whether there are any additional safeguards against excessive legal costs.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. I declare my interests as a legal practitioner. Our legal industry is undergoing a sea change. It is almost unrecognisable from the industry I joined 23 years ago.

The number of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms has grown significantly in the past decade. With the growth of the arbitration market in Singapore and the new Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) which will be set up early next year, there will continue to be interest in the Singapore market from foreign players. Additionally, we are about to liberalise the business structures of law firms to allow greater participation of non-lawyers. The Bill paves the way forward by updating our system of regulation and facilitating upcoming developments.

In this regard, I would like to raise several points.

The first concerns section 71, which among other things, empowers the Professional Conduct Council (PCC) to make rules governing every "regulated legal practitioner". This refers to Singapore lawyers and foreign lawyers who are registered to practise law in

Page: 90

Singapore or have interests in Singapore law practices.

Currently, the regulatory regime is bifurcated. Lawyers practising Singapore law are governed under section 71 while those practising foreign law come under the purview of the Attorney-General. There is also no formal institutional disciplinary process for lawyers practising foreign law. Given that approximately 20% of Singapore's total lawyer population now consists of foreign lawyers, this move towards consolidating our regulatory regime is a welcome one.

One issue that will arise in devising a unified regulatory approach has to do with the different standards of conduct and ethics that apply in different jurisdictions. These differences are manifested in all areas of practice, from case management to witness preparation to billing and fees. Conduct that is acceptable overseas may be regarded unacceptable here. Contingency fees are a case in point. For the non-lawyers in this House, these are fees charged for a lawyer's services that depend on the result – so you only get paid if there is a favourable outcome or settlement in your client's favour. While permitted in several countries, including the UK, contingency fees are prohibited in Singapore.

Fees are only one example. There are other important differences such as the rules against conflicts of interest: in what circumstances can a lawyer take on a case which involves a previous client or where in a matter which he has advised previously. My question is this: what rules will we adopt in regulating foreign lawyers or lawyers practising foreign law? Will they be held to the same standards as Singapore lawyers? If different, are we potentially making it more difficult for Singapore firms to compete with foreign ones? Just taking an example, in the SICC, will we, for example, permit a foreign firm to offer contingency fee arrangement while a local firm cannot? And how will that level the playing field between a foreign and a local law firm?

My second point concerns foreign representation in the SICC. Foreign lawyers who wish to act in SICC proceedings must first be registered under section 36P. They may be granted full registration or restricted registration in accordance with the qualifications and requirements prescribed by section 36P(3)-(4). The Bill, however, does not spell out the criteria that will inform this assessment. These matters will be left to subsidiary legislation.

I renew the comments I made on the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill on leaving too many matters to subsidiary legislation. But I hope the Minister will nonetheless shed some light on how this assessment will be carried out.

On a related note, foreign lawyers who represent parties in the SICC do not fall within the definition of a "regulated legal practitioner" in section 71. So, these lawyers will not be

Page: 91

regulated by the PCC. Instead, they will be registered under section 36P and complaints against them may be made under section 36S. So, it is a different regime. Section 36Y(2)(j) states that the Rules Committee may make rules "regulating the professional practice, etiquette and conduct of foreign lawyers registered under section 36P". Could the Minister clarify how these rules will compare to those governing Singapore and foreign lawyers? Furthermore, the Bill is silent as to whether a foreign lawyer who has had due cause shown against him may be debarred from applying to register in the future. Will this be covered in the Rules?

Third, I would like to raise some questions about section 2F, which gives the Director of Legal Services wide-ranging powers to require law practice entities to provide information. According to section 2F, the Director may require information from law practice entities or their directors or partners for (a) carrying out his functions under the Act; or (b) compiling statistics on law practice entities. A failure to comply with the Director's requirement is an offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both under section 2G. With regard to the first purpose, section 2A states that the Director is to administer Part IVA and IXA and to perform such other functions as the Minister may assign to him. So, essentially, the Director's functions are left open-ended.

It is worth noting that the Director's power to require documents or information to investigate a possible breach of law or rule is already provided for in sections 2B and 2C. So, the rationale for the Director's powers under section 2F cannot be to facilitate an investigation of possible misconduct. With regard to the second purpose, it suffices to say that the Director may ask for virtually any information under the guise of "compiling statistics". Section 2E then allows any information in the Director's possession to be furnished to the Attorney-General, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, the Council of the Law Society, the Law Society, a Ministry or department of the Government, an Organ of State or a Statutory Board and so on – so long as the information is required by and for the performance of any of their functions. The group of persons and agencies the information can be shared with is therefore very large.

Taken as a whole, these provisions raise serious privacy concerns. I would like to clarify what is the purpose of section 2F and why does it need to be drafted so widely? What are its limits? And I hope the Minister will give some clarity.

My fourth point has to do with allowing non-practitioners to own equity in, or share in the profits of, a law practice. I support this amendment in principle. Individuals in other areas of expertise – in financial management or accounting for example – can add considerable value to law firms, and should be allowed to take equity. This will allow law practices to retain and reward talent.

Page: 92

That said, under section 36G, a non-legal practitioner shall not be a director, partner or shareholder in, or share in the profits of, law practices unless he or she is first registered. To register, an individual must first satisfy "such requirements as may be prescribed". Again, we appear to have relegated important issues through subsidiary legislation. What will these requirements be and why can we not have some basic requirements spelt out in the Act? This is not a matter of procedure or implementation, but a fundamental shift in the way law practices will be organised and run.

This is happening in other jurisdictions. Australia and the UK have liberalised their systems to allow legal services to be conducted through what they call Alternative Business Structures (ABS) like the Multi-Disciplinary Practice (MDP) and the Incorporated Legal Practice (ILP). In fact, Australia made the news in 2007 when two of its law firms became the first in the world to list on the stock exchange.

Today, Singapore is taking a tentative step towards permitting ABS models. But to what extent? Will we eventually see lawyers and accountants in Singapore teaming up to give financial management advice? Or engineers, architects and lawyers banding together to provide real estate development services? Are we going to take the next step of allowing lay individuals to invest in law practices, and to what extent will that compromise professional and ethical standards because lay individuals would want a return for their investment? I would hope that Minister, with his breath of experience and knowledge, can perhaps give this House perspective of how he sees the legal landscape develop in the future.

Let me end on a positive note. I support the new reporting requirement for Singapore-qualified lawyers to disclose the number of hours they spend each year on pro bono work. My initial reaction was that pro bono is voluntary and should not be the subject of oversight or regulation. People like to run lawyers down, but many lawyers regularly give up time and income to help others, and without calling attention to what they do.

Nonetheless, we can and should do more, and this reporting requirement will facilitate that effort. It allows us to assess the gap between the supply of pro bono work and its demand, and what we can do to narrow that gap. It will also help lawyers take stock of what they have done and assess if they can do more. Yes, lawyers need to earn a living, but we should never forget that we also have a critical role to play to ensure access to justice for all. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. If I can take the points raised, Mr Yeo asked about the purpose of introducing "regulated non-practitioners", and the classes of persons who may apply to become one. The reference to a regulated non-practitioner is to implement the recommendation to allow law firms to structure as Legal Disciplinary Practices. I had set out the purpose earlier.

Mr Yeo also asked about the power to make all partners in an LLP, or directors in an LLC, jointly liable for "unbefitting conduct" which cannot be attributed to one or more identified individuals. That provision is actually not new. It is found in sections 81F(2) and 81U(2) of the Legal Profession Act.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that consumers of legal services are protected notwithstanding that the firm is structured as an LLP or LLC and to ensure parity with other forms of corporate structures, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, but I take Mr Yeo's points and since really we are talking about something that is quasi criminal, I think appropriate discretion ought to be exercised depending on the extent of liability and the extent of mens rea and culpability involved.

As to what constitutes "conduct unbefitting an honourable profession", I think even the Courts have struggled with that, but it would include any breach of ethical or professional responsibility standards set out in the Act or Professional Conduct Rules. I think it will also go beyond that.

Mr Kumar enquired about the approach taken to unify the professional conduct rules for Singapore and foreign lawyers practising in Singapore, given the varying professional conduct rules across different jurisdictions. The intent behind a unified disciplinary framework is to have a basic set of requirements applicable equally to both Singapore and foreign lawyers offering legal services in Singapore.

In proposing this reform, the Regulatory Committee which comprised both Singapore lawyers and foreign lawyer representatives, was mindful that lawyers in Singapore are now largely operating in the context of an international environment. As Mr Kumar has pointed out, there are some differences across jurisdictions with regard to specific rules.

As such, the Regulatory Committee proposed the following approach to devising the new Professional Conduct Rules (PCR). First, general and universally accepted principles of conduct will apply to all lawyers in Singapore; and second, specific rules that are more relevant to the practice of Singapore law will only apply to Singapore lawyers, and foreign lawyers practising Singapore law. For example, rules relating to court proceedings and rules peculiar to the practice of Singapore law. Third, new management rules will apply to local

Page: 94

and foreign lawyers involved in the management of a law practice.

The Regulatory Committee has tasked a Sub-Committee comprising practitioners from both the local and foreign Bar to work through the details and the rules will be put out for consultation as soon as a draft is ready.

Mr Kumar had some questions on foreign representation in the SICC. He has pointed out that the Bill does not spell out the qualifications and requirements for registration with the SICC. The approach taken for registration and administrative issues under the LPA is that, for example, under the current LPA, the qualifications and requirements for registration of foreign lawyers in local or foreign firms are left to subsidiary legislation. So, we have taken the same approach now, and really because most of it relates to administrative details that may change from time to time.

For registration to appear before the SICC, the intention is to set out a basic standard of qualifications and requirements in subsidiary legislation as well. I had previously explained the substantive aspect as to when you can register for actual appearance.

Mr Kumar also asked about the PCR which will apply to foreign lawyers registered with the SICC. Section 36Y(2)(j) provides that Rules may be made for regulating the professional practice, etiquette and conduct of foreign lawyers registered under section 36P. The Code of Ethics applicable to these foreign lawyers, therefore, will be set out in subsidiary legislation.

As for the query on whether a foreign lawyer who has had due cause shown against him may be debarred from applying to register in future, section 36U(5) states that a foreign lawyer shall be permanently prohibited from re-applying for registration where his registration has been cancelled, unless the Court otherwise orders. So, we give the discretion to the Courts.

The questions on Director of Legal Services: first, I think it is important to emphasise what is the role of the DLS. The DLS will head a new division within MinLaw, likely to be named the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, and he or she will oversee, first, the licensing and regulation of business criteria applicable to law practices, so it is administrative; and, second, the registration of foreign lawyers.

The DLS' regulatory focus is to ensure that there is adherence to some sort of logical business and licensing criteria, for example, the licensing of QFLPs or the naming of law practices and profit sharing and equity limit rules on Joint Law Ventures and Formal Law Alliance arrangements between a Singapore and foreign law practice. As part of this role,

Page: 95

section 2E allows for mutual co-operation between the DLS and other stakeholder agencies which are involved in various aspects of the regulatory regime of the legal profession. For information to be shared, it must be required for the discharge of the relevant agency's functions.

The DLS' powers, as Members can see, are scoped for the formulation of regulation and policy, and the administration of his functions under the Act. The DLS is legally required to exercise his powers reasonably and for a proper purpose. Section 2F allows the compilation and aggregation of more accurate and timely information relevant to the legal services industry as a whole. Currently, that information must be obtained through surveys under the Statistics Act. However, data which are current and of good quality are not always available and this can, in turn, affect the quality of policymaking and regulation.

As regards the points Mr Kumar made about allowing non-practitioners to own equity in or share in the profits of a law practice, the Bill seeks to set out some safeguards. If approved, the non-lawyer owners or managers will be subject to the same management and ethical rules as in the new PCR as lawyers. If found to be in breach of these rules, they will be subject to the same disciplinary framework as their lawyer counterparts.

As to the detailed requirements that a non-practitioner has to fulfil in order to become a director, partner or shareholder, or to share in the profits of a law practice, again, the intention is that this will be addressed by way of subsidiary legislation which will be drawn up in consultation with the Law Society as well as other industry stakeholders. The Regulatory Committee had recommended that a 25% cap on the total non-practitioner ownership be permitted, and there be a "suitability" or "fitness" test.

The concept of ABSes, of course, is new to Singapore as Mr Kumar has pointed out. We intend to adopt an incremental approach starting with LDPs. In relation to the possibility of allowing other types of ABSes, we will study this issue carefully in consultation with the industry.

As regards the points made by Ms Lim on Law Society's regulatory role, I think it is important to understand what the amendments are. We have been working closely with the Law Society on the implementation details. Let us be clear – there is individual regulation and there is entity regulation. For individual regulation, the lawyer himself, for professional conduct matters, the Law Society will continue in its current role as secretariat supporting the Inquiry Committee and the Review Committee for the disciplinary process. The key change will be that the disciplinary process will now also extend to foreign-qualified lawyers, ultimately, subject to the control of the Courts.

Page: 96

For entity regulation, the functions currently handled by the Law Society relate to fairly administrative issues like the naming of business, approvals to share premises, and so on and the licensing criteria of Singapore law practices, and these will be transferred to the LSRA. The broader regulations and the transfer to MinLaw is necessary, really, for us to adapt, anticipate and keep ahead of changes and have a certain logical framework for allowing structures to come through which would help our legal profession and the industry.

For example, the LDPs and in future, perhaps, the ABSes, how they should be dealt with, what sort of rules should we put in and what sort of equity caps should be allowed. Of course, we will consult the legal profession but these have wider economic implications as well and therefore they have to be dealt with by MinLaw as recommended by the Committee headed by the current Chief Justice. To emphasise, disciplinary matters will continue to be handled by the Law Society coming under the ultimate oversight of the Supreme Court.

As regards the regulation of LDPs, non-lawyers partners, directors, owners, they will be, as I have explained in answer to Mr Kumar's question, subject to the same obligations and duties as their lawyer counterparts. Issues of conflict of laws, issues of costs, and so on, will have to be dealt with as law practices are dealt with now. Clients, first of all, have a choice of finding out what the likely costs are going to be. Second, they can always file a complaint and, third, ultimate supervision by the Courts if it amounts to misconduct.

Who will be prevented? I think we have defined the broad criteria. In terms of the specific criteria, we will go into a little bit more details in subsidiary legislation because of the requirement for flexibility, but it is more looking at the individual rather than saying who will not be.

As regards to the question of whether the Law Society was consulted, I am a little curious because the Report was out in January; we consulted members of the Bar; we consulted the Law Society; it was engaged before and after the public consultation; and we continued to work with it on implementation and aspects of their feedback was incorporated. The PCC, we want to make sure there is a broad representation and representation from the profession.

Those are my responses, Mdm Speaker, to the questions and queries.

Thank you, Madam. Just three clarification points. I hear what the Minister says in relation to the framework of rules which will apply to both local lawyers and foreign lawyers. But could I get some clarity on that? I have raised a specific example. In the case of a matter before the SICC or where firms are bidding to represent the client in the SICC, will a foreign firm and a local firm be subject to the same professional rules, because they both can appear before the tribunal in the SICC? That is my first clarification.

The second is a comment in relation to a non-lawyer, non-legal practitioner. I hear what the Minister says that the non-legal practitioners who hold an equity stake or some other position in law practices will be subject to the same professional rules, but the penalties are quite different. Where a lawyer is found to have breached professional standards, the ultimate price he pays is really to lose his licence and be debarred from practice. That will be quite irrelevant to a non-legal practitioner, and so the consequences are not as grave for him. Is it envisaged that different types of penalties will apply to non-lawyers who breach professional rules?

And the final clarification is really my request for the Minister to give again a short overview of how he sees the legal landscape developing in the future.

On the first question: will foreign and local firms be subject to the same rules if they are bidding for work in the SICC? Of course, this is subject to the point that just because it is in SICC does not mean that a foreign firm can appear. There are those requirements of no substantial connection and/or representation on a specific aspect of foreign law. Those are not cast in stone. The rules will have to be structured but those are broadly the principles for foreign counsel.

The intention is to unify the rules for foreign and local lawyers, to make them subject to certain minimum standards and then impose on Singapore lawyers additional rules insofar as they pertain to Singapore law practices. For example, appearance before the High Court, not before the SICC. There will be specific rules which may not apply to, say, a foreign lawyer who does not appear in Courts. If he is practising German law as a solicitor, there will be some rules which do not apply to him which will apply to Mr Hri Kumar who appears before the Courts.

Logically, if there are lawyers who are practising and who appear before the Supreme Court, the intention as described in the report, foreign lawyers, even if it is on a matter of foreign law, the intention is that certain basic standards should apply. And to some extent we may have to look to their own jurisdictions on what would be required when they appear in court. But when they appear in the Singapore Court, we should impose on them fairly

Page: 98

similar standards and rules.

I am putting a slight caveat because if they are appearing purely on a matter of, say, German law and such terms are governed by German law and it has got nothing to do with Singapore, and there are certain things that are permitted under German law which are not permitted under Singapore law, I think that has to be taken into account. That is why I hesitate to say it will be exactly the same, but I understand the point Mr Kumar makes and I think the intention is to not disadvantage anyone. That is the answer to the first point.

On the second point, non-legal practitioners are subject to the same rules, but, of course, to disbar a person who does not have a right to practise in the first place may not appear to be much of a sanction. Those are the very reasons why because it is a little too premature to try and put it in the Act. Every possible person who may potentially become a member and then what are all the different types of sanctions? We need to find our way in this a little bit. That is why the Act is worded a little bit broadly and then we hope to put into the rules some further criteria.

My thinking is that we will have to refine it as we go along and we need to be cautious upfront. We need to take into account that the sanctions that are imposed on the non-lawyers must be effective. So, I accept that point and that is something that will be given as guidance, and the relevant rules committee would be very much aware of that point. There is no point saying that we have a sanction which has got no bite.

The third point is a much more difficult one: an overview of how the profession is developing. This is something that we are giving a lot of thought to. In fact, all these changes are meant to try and anticipate what is going to happen. Fundamentally, what is our intention? It is to create the circumstances which will make sure that there is a lot of work for the legal profession. It may not be created out of our own economy, in which case we create a new sector. That is what we did with arbitration and that is what we are hoping to do with the SICC.

By positioning Singapore as a legal hub, if we succeed in that, a lot of work will be attracted here. We intend to keep to the current framework where Singapore lawyers have rights of audience for Singapore cases and the foreign lawyers can come and practise foreign law. QFLPs have fairly limited rights in specific areas. That is the broad scope that we can see.

At the same time, because of our financial services industry, and the economy is so integrated with the rest of the world, what happens with the legal practices elsewhere, and where they are moving towards multi-disciplinary practices with ABSes and so on. We have looked at it a number of times, we have been cautious, we did not want to move in that

Page: 99

direction after consulting the industry. But you cannot say that you will forever preclude it. I cannot say I rule it in, but neither can I say I rule it out.

So, LDPs is a small step. I think bigger law firms will not have a problem, but small law firms – two-man law firms, three-man law firms, one-man law firms – they often need capital. If their capital is going to come from someone who is not a lawyer, then we should allow it as a way of encouraging them to upgrade, to do better.

This seeks to help the smaller and medium-size law firms. The Drew & Napiers of this world do not need LDPs. ABSs offer a very different challenge from the ethical and business perspectives. It is working in other countries; we are studying it carefully. We are also looking at the major economic challenges that are on the horizon and how we can position our legal sector. I think that is the best I can do at this point in time. We see a bright future for the legal profession if we get these rules through and if ASEAN integration comes through.

Thank you, Madam. I have one clarification for the Minister concerning the role of the Law Society after these amendments.

The Minister mentioned that the Law Society basically retains much of its role. But in relation to clause 27 of the Bill which introduces a new section 71 on the Professional Conduct Council (PCC), I believe that the Law Society had given feedback about its concern that the PCC would be given the power to issue rules, such as practice directions, guidance notes and so on which the Law Society is currently doing.

I would like to ask the Minister whether this is indeed a change, that is, the Law Society will no longer be empowered to issue those guidance notes and practice directions, but now it will be the PCC doing it.

PCC, of course, will issue those rules in the context of now regulating a much broader entity, including foreign lawyers. And the Law Society will have jurisdiction over the disciplinary processes over those lawyers. But in terms of issuing the rules – what sort of ethical rules, what sort of guidance – the PCC headed by the Chief Justice will do it. Thank you.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

Page: 100

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].*

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

Page: 101