11 January 2000

 

 

 

More News on Electronic Filing

Mr Palakrishnan, Mrs Arfat Selvam, Mr Goh Phai Cheng SC and Mr Lim Seng Siew, the Chairperson of the EFS Committee, will meet with the Honourable Chief Justice to discuss the issues of cost, funding and training in relation to the Electronic Filing System.

 

New Committees for the year 2000

The Law Society’s Committees for the year 2000 were in the process of being formed. Committee members will be invited to a workplan meeting to discuss each Committee’s plans for the year 2000.

A Conversation with the Conveyancers

Mr Derrick Wong informed the Council of the Conveyancing Practice Committee’s plans to hold a dialogue session with members to obtain their feedback and suggestions for the Committee’s future direction and projects.

A Mandate for Continuing Legal Education?

Mr George Lim has been requested to chair the Committee on mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE). Mr Sreenivasan briefed the Council on the CLE Committee’s plans to set requirements and standards for MCLE and to implement a tracking system on the number of hours and courses that legal practitioners ‘chalk up’ for continuing legal education. The CLE Committee will study and produce a report on MCLE, which they will discuss with Mr VK Rajah SC.

First Council Meeting for Director, Public Relations

Mr Palakrishnan bade a warm welcome to Ms Adeline Ang, Director of Public Relations, who joined the Law Society on 3 January 2000, and who attended her first Council Meeting on 11 January 2000.

Friendly Games with the Malaysians

The Council agreed that the Annual Bench & Bar Games between Singapore and Malaysia should be held from 28 to 30 April 2000, rather than from 21 to 23 April 2000. Mr Naresh Mahtani, CEO, will liaise with the Malaysian Bar Council.

Arbitration — A New Panel ?

Mr Naresh Mahtani, CEO, and Mr George Lim met with Mr Warren Khoo, Chairman of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to discuss possible co-operation between the Law Society and the SIAC on var i ous proposals.

It is proposed that the SIAC appoint another panel of arbitrators for expeditious arbitrations for claims of up to $300,000. Other proposals include new rules for expeditious arbitrations and ‘gateways’ from litigation to arbitration.

The Council appointed an ad hoc Arbi trati on Sub-Committee, consisting of Mr Goh Phai Cheng SC, Mr Sivakumar Murugaiyan and Mr Thio Shen Yi, who will examine the feasibility of these proposals and report to the Council one month later.

The Council also nominated Mr Goh Phai Cheng SC as the Law Society’s representative for consultation on the draft Arbitration Bill 2000 and the International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2000.

Electronic Filing: Practising Certificates included!

The Council discussed the electronic filing of practising certificates (PCs), which the Honourable Chief Justice Yong Pung How had announced in his speech at the Opening of the Legal Year on 10 January 2000.

Some Secretariat members met with some Judicial Officers of the Supreme Court on 13 January 2000 to finalise the details of the electronic filing of PCs.

Lawyers who file their PCs electronically will now use cash cards for the payment of stamp fees, instead of cheques or cash. With the introduction of e-filing, amendments will have to be made to the subsidiary legislation on the filing of PCs.

The court will provide two training sessions for lawyers to file their PCs electronically. The Law Society will be arranging for facilities for members to file their PCs electronically at the Law Society’s premises.lti-doo

Courthouse — ‘Law on the Web for the Layman’

Ms Malathi Das told the Council of the Subordinate Courts’ proposal to set up a notional webpage to link the Subordinate Courts’ webpage with the Law Society’s webpage which would provide legal information on the web for lay people. The Law Society will share the costs of this project with the Subordinate Courts.

The Website revisited!

Mr Naresh Mahtani informed the Council that improvements were being made to the Society’s website. The Secretariat will oversee the maintenance and updating of the website on a fortnightly basis. Steps will also be taken to improve the design of the website.

Council Kit 2000

The Law Society’s Council Members, and the Directors and Assistant Directors of the Law Society’s Secretariat were presented with a special ‘Council Kit’ by Mr Palakrishnan at the first Council Meeting in the year 2000. The Council also adopted the new protocol guidelines proposed for Council meetings.

Practice Directions and Rulings of the Council

Naming of Management Firms/Companies for Group Law Practices

A private limited company or firm acting as manager of a Group Law Practice cannot include in its name the expression ‘Group Law Practice’. For example, a service company or manager cannot be called ‘First Group Law Practice Pte Ltd’ or ‘First Group Law Practice Management Services’.

The Council has made this ruling as a ‘Group Law Practice’ is not a legal entity under the Group Practice Rules and is of the view that the term ‘Group Law Practice’ should not be used in describing activities other than the practice of law.

The Registrar of Companies & Businesses has been advised of the Council’s ruling.

Rulings of the Law Society

Members are reminded that under section 59(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) the Council has the power to answer questions affecting the practice and etiquette of the profession and the conduct of members thereof.

Members are also reminded of the notice that was published in the Law Society’s Circular Number 7 of 1991 at page 3 reproduced below:

It is not proper conduct for a solicitor to challenge another solicitor who acts in accordance with a ruling made by the Law Society simply because the challenging solicitor does not agree with that ruling. The appropriate course would be for the challenging solicitor to take up the disputed ruling with the Law Society if he can.

A solicitor who seeks a ruling from the Law Society can always write to the Law Society in the proper manner for a ruling without the consent of the other solicitor involved.

The refusal of the other solicitor to agree to refer a matter to the Law Society for a ruling is in itself not improper conduct. However, the solicitor who refuses to agree to request the ruling is only preventing himself from putting forward his content ions to the Law Society and has to take the consequences.

Yasho Dhoraisingam
Director, Professional Standards
The Law Society of Singapore