 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
Letters to Young Lawyers (III)
2006-08-19 Dear Young Colleague Early in my limited practice, I was once instructed by a fatherly solicitor to defend a possession of DD for the purpose of trafficking case. Before we went into the courtroom, I asked him his views about the defendant giving evidence. He gave me a kindly smile, and said, ‘Counsel, we trust you to decide.’ At that moment, I suddenly understood. He was there to instruct. I was there to take responsibility. It was not a matter of age or experience. We just had different roles. That kindly smile stayed with me long after the face had faded away. In the event, of course, the case was just one of those routine matters. The ‘trafficking’ bit was put in for the sake of plea bargaining. Giving evidence did not come into it at all, as my instructing solicitor well knew. He was just doing my pupil master a favour by instructing me. But, perhaps because this was how I started, I have always viewed the two branches of the profession as co-operative rather than competitive. The ‘split’ was a division of labour, sometimes unnecessarily rigid, but basically made sense. Since elected to LegCo by the legal functional constituency, I have been ever mindful that I represent both branches, and must do so with an even hand. This is most relevant in the old question of higher rights of audience for solicitors. There were fierce solicitors’ voices demanding extension, and just as fierce voices of opposition from the Bar. There were times when the argument degenerated into mutual denigration which strengthened the public’s view that it was all a turf war. I was anxious that we should avoid the traumatic experience in England over the same issue. There, the internal squabble caused much bad blood and a huge dent in the public’s confidence in the whole profession. So I took trouble to bring the two sides closer, to allay the concerns of the Bar (particularly the young end) on the one hand, and explain the needs of the solicitors on the other. The conflict of interest was in reality smaller than it first appeared. It helped that some very knowledgeable seniors were willing to meet the young Bar to share their experience and views of what was likely to happen. Ultimately, the public interest was the guide. I also appealed to the Chief Justice to intervene, since the right of audience was in the first place a privilege granted by the Court. One Christmas Eve, I wrote him a long letter. In 2004, the Chief Justice appointed a working party on higher rights of audience to which representatives of the Law Society, the Bar and the Department of Justice were appointed. The working party believed that the public interest demands a high standard of advocacy, and the pool of good advocates should be enlarged. This can be achieved by opening up higher rights of audience to solicitors without putting at risk a strong independent Bar. Their recommendations have now been accepted on all sides. I fully expect the legislation implementing higher rights of audience for solicitors to be passed early in the new term. At the same time, the Law Society will draft the code of conduct for solicitor-advocates. With greater flexibility built into practice, young or even not-so-young lawyers will be able to enjoy better career development. Yours sincerely Margaret Ng Note : Lawyers who claim to be "not so young" have asked me, why are they included? To keep an eye on me, of course; and to join in with their views and advice. Remarks: If you have any views on my campaign, or if you have heard any suggestions or comments from friends of yours, please by all means let me know by replying to this email. In order to keep you posted, we should be grateful if you could leave us your personal email addresses and contact numbers. The information gathered will only be used for the sole purpose of the coming election. |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
