The methodology, the co-ordination
and its implementation: that was — in the main — the dialogue session on a
minimal programme on Continuing Legal Education for practising members of the
profession.
The dialogue session was attended by
some 50 lawyers in late July at the Grand Plaza Hotel.
Chaired by Exco and Council Member,
Mr N Sreenivasan, who chairs the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Committee, the
dialogue referred to the Law Society’s commitment to Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) made by the President, Mr Palakrishnan, in his speech at the
Opening of the Legal Year 2000.
In his opening remarks, Sreeni (as
he is popularly called) said that ‘Moving towards CPD in Singapore would bring
our legal profession in line with what is happening in USA, UK, Hong Kong and
Australia.’
‘Accountants already have some
form of minimum mandatory professional development courses in place. Doctors and
Architects are following suit,’ said Sreeni.
Sreeni referred to the Committee set
up by the Attorney-General, and chaired by Mr George Lim, the Immediate Past
President of the Law Society, comprising of members of The Singapore Academy of
Law, the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, and the Law Society.
The Committee had recently submitted a report to the Attorney-General.
Feedback was called for from the
members of the profession by the Council of the Law Society as it was critical
to understand, consider and address the concerns of the professon on the key CPD
issues. ‘Thus the dialogue session,’ said Council Member, Thio Shen Yi, who
co-chaired the session.
Key issues were tabled for
discussion at the dialogue.
Shen Yi, a Vice-Chairman of the CLE
Committee, briefly outlined nine general areas of concern in CPD, namely:
What are the standards to be met
and how much time would one need to spend on CPD ‘training hours’ per
annum?
What types of programmes should
be provided? (Substantive law, legal skills, ethics, other related skills
(such as ADR), and non-law subjects.)
Who should provide the
programmes? The Law Society, SAL, NUS, other content providers and other
professional bodies.
Should there be a separate
full-time body set up to run/ administer the CPD programmes? And if yes, who
should constitute this body?
Who should accredit/grade the programmes, and what should be the basis for accreditation? What subject matters should qualify for accreditation?
On-Line Courses — Should they
be considered?
When should CPD come into
effect?
Should the required CPD
‘training hours’ be reduced with seniority?
How much should it cost each
practitioner to meet the minimum requirements?
Whilst there was discussion from the
floor ranging from the objectives of CPD to content and form, discussion was
also levelled on what Shen Yi called ‘the
buffet spread’ of training events to merit the accreditation points —
from a well written (legal) article to overseas seminars, from large firms’
in-house workshops to the opening of the doors of these large firms to limited
numbers of ‘outside’ lawyers.
Leslie Chew, SC (Messrs Khattar Wong
and Partners) called for a setting up of a fund to help sole-practitioners. He
also called for a grant from the Skills Development Fund (SDF).
Susan De Silva (Messrs Alban Tay
Mahtani & De Silva) said consideration should be given to the establishment
of a private limited company with professional staff and full-time trainers to
run the CPD programme.
Michael Hwang, SC (Messrs Allen and
Gledhill) felt that CPD issues should supplement what is in the curriculum in
the Post-Graduate Law Course or, for that matter, in the LLB programmes: ‘The
general feeling is that it is the younger lawyers who will need more training at
the post-qualifying stage to fill in gaps left in their earlier training.’
‘Therefore, what is not taught
earlier becomes essential in CPD. That can be made compulsory for the young
lawyers; other subjects can be optional. For the compulsory subjects, the
implementer of the CPD scheme will have to consider how much time it will take
to complete, and from that, set out the minimum requirements,’ said Mr Hwang,
SC.
Ms Audrey Yap (Messrs Yu Sarn Audrey
and Partners) felt that senior practitioners who give presentations at both
local and overseas seminars should be credited with points.
Mr Yang Ing Loong (Messrs Allen
& Gledhill) felt that the idea of farming out to other institutions to
provide training events will help increase ‘the spread’ available to lawyers
— but there is a use and benefit of a separate independent body to provide the
core and compulsory courses for lawyers.
Mr Ho Meng Third (Messrs C W
Lee.Peng.Chia.Philip) queried whether conveyancers must be made to attend at
least one compulsory conveyencing seminar in a year.
Indeed, there was a wide array of
views and ideas.
The general consensus was that
mustering these points was not difficult if we can have meaningful, relevant and
imaginative ways of providing CPD. It was important to have the profession’s
support, to avoid CPD from becoming a point collecting exercise.
After some ready two hours of
dialogue, the Chair invited the President to give some closing comments.
In a passionate appeal, Mr
Palakrishnan showed the importance of the profession in keeping abreast of
changing developments. He made a tour of several state requirements in USA —
from Alabama to Wisconsin, and that since 1975, 40 states have adopted mandatory
continuing legal education, where on the average, a 12-to-15 hour per calendar
year programme has been implemented with minimum requirements on ethics and
professionalism, and substantive law, practice and procedure.
There are, the President said,
issues on costs for the lawyer, and productivity loss (where billable hours for
a lawyer can be affected by attendance at such CPD courses) but in the overview,
CPD is an acknowledgement that the law is a dynamic, ever-changing body of
principles and rules.
Concluding, Mr Palakrishnan said, ‘The public trusts us to maintain our proficiency and competence, and that can only be done through a constructive minimum continuing legal education programme, whether it is a breakfast course or a twilight seminar.
|
'CPD — Dialogue Continues
Members who could not attend the dialogue are encouraged to write in or
e-mail their views to the Law Society |
Would you consult with a doctor for yourself or a family member if the doctor had taken no course to update himself or herself on the latest diagnostic techniques?