Limit of 18 Days for Leave of Absence during Practice Training Period for Trainee Lawyers

Regarding the issue of absence from practice training, under the previous admissions framework, trainees had to make up any absent days within eight months of the start of their practice training period (PTP).

Under the current admissions framework, the Working Group for the Implementation of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers’ Recommendations (CPTL WG) decided, based on industry norms, that it would be reasonable to introduce up to 18 non-training days to better support trainees through a longer PTP. This duration was based on considerations, including (a) long absences during PTP would undermine its educational purpose and rigour as this would be disruptive and detrimental to the training; and (b) as the new training framework has more structured requirements that trainees must fulfill, they require sufficient time to complete all the requirements.

Trainees who require more than 18 non-training days can take additional time off, provided they make up the shortfall within 16 months from the start of their PTP.

I will now address the issue of trainee honoraria and benefits. The Ministry of Law has mentioned on previous occasions that honoraria would be determined between trainees and law firms as (a) mandating a minimum honorarium quantum would be “prescriptive, [introduce] rigidity and would need to be constantly reviewed to account for prevailing conditions”, and (b) this could also inadvertently reduce the number of available training places if smaller law firms cannot afford the mandated amount or benefits. [Please refer to "Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill", Official Report, 7 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 116, Second Reading Bills section.]

We will continue to monitor industry trends in partnership with the Law Society of Singapore and will work with the Law Society to encourage law firms to give fair and reasonable financial recognition to the contributions of trainees.

The Law Society has issued guidance on trainee honoraria. Their Guidance Note 3.9.1, which is echoed in the CPTL’s Report, states that “a law practice should at a minimum, take into account the practice trainee’s direct and basic expenses reasonably incurred in the course of carrying out his/her day-to-day duties under the practice training contract, such as transport and meals”.

Finally, on the issue of whether trainees are considered employees, at its core, the relationship between supervising solicitors and trainees remains that of an apprenticeship. For those of us who remember the good old days, practice training used to be called “pupillage”, the supervising solicitor was called a “pupil-master”, and trainees were called “pupils”.

Trainees are not employees because the purpose of practice training is professionalisation and education. PTP adds to trainees’ academic legal learning by enabling them to pick up practical legal skills in a live environment under the safety of supervision from a senior practitioner.

Without the mentorship and experience gained from attachment to a supervising solicitor, the trainee would not be equipped to operate independently as a lawyer who is entrusted to provide legal advice.

Law firms invest resources and time into the supervision and mentorship of trainees. This is a labour-intensive undertaking which, historically, is not revenue generating and comes with the risk that the trainee may not continue with the firm after PTP. However, firms continue to invest in this to ensure a pipeline of fresh and well-trained legal talent in Singapore.

PTP provides trainees with their first taste of legal practice and its accompanying realities and rigours. The onus to ensure that their time and work are fairly recognised falls squarely within the law firms’ responsibility. It is incumbent upon law firms and supervising solicitors to support trainees through these new challenges with understanding, patience and fairness.

Law firms can choose to recognise trainees’ contributions by charging out for trainees’ work. This could also help defray some costs of a longer PTP. However, this risks altering the nature of the trainee’s relationship with the firm from that of an apprenticeship. This is something that should be discussed between trainees and their supervising solicitors before commencing PTP.

This is reiterated in the same Law Society Guidance Note 3.9.1, which highlights that if law firms choose to enter into an employer/employee relationship with trainees, this would attract consequential CPF and employment tax obligations owed to employees.