10th General Skills Advocacy Workshop | Meeting with Lord Bingham of Cornhill | Survey by the Law Society of Singapore on Lawyers Leaving Practice | Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice

10th General Skills Advocacy Workshop

Participants during the General Session

Advocacy Workshop - trial in progress

The 10th General Skills Advocacy Workshop organised and conducted by the Advocacy Committee on the weekend of 17-19 August 2001 attracted a full turnout of 30 participants.

The aim of the Workshop was to provide young trial lawyers with the opportunity to build on their existing advocacy skills and techniques in a participatory way in areas such as interlocutory applications in chambers, interim injunctions, examination-in-chief, cross-examination and general court and presentation skills.

The advocacy teaching team included exceptionally experienced trial lawyers - such as Chelva Rajah, SC, as Chairman, and Sant Singh and Philip Jeyaretnam as moderators - all of whom have been involved in previous workshops held by the Advocacy Committee.

There was a good demand for the Workshop, and the 30 places available were filled quickly. It was encouraging to note that participants included lawyers, not only from law firms but also from government offices in Singapore, as well as attendees from Brunei.

Feedback for the Workshop was very positive. Participants felt that their expectations were more than met and found the course to be very practical and informative. The overall feedback was that expectations about the practical aspects of the Workshop were 'excellently met'.

Other benefits that participants thought they gained included effective presentation and communication skills and an increased awareness of the importance of mastering analysis of the facts and development of the case theory properly for presentation of arguments in court.

The Law Society and the Advocacy Committee would like to thank the members who gave up their valuable time to assist in the training at the Workshop. It was pleasing to note that the participants were all very impressed with the moderators and teachers who were 'so enthusiastic and willing to share their knowledge'.

The demand for the Workshop has been so encouraging that the Committee is now planning to run another General Skills Advocacy Workshop in late 2001.

Monique Ciochetto
Law Society of Singapore

Meeting with Lord Bingham of Cornhill

The Law Society was honoured with a visit by The Right Honourable Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Senior Law Lord and former Lord Chief Justice of England, and Lady Bingham, on Monday, 10 September 2001. Lord Bingham was in Singapore to deliver the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture 2001, but found time in his schedule to pay a visit to the Law Society before the lecture.

Lord and Lady Bingham were greeted by a delegation of representatives from the Law Society's Council and International Relations Committee. Among those greeting him was our very own Mr Chandra Mohan, Chairman of the International Relations Committee and newly Nominated Member of Parliament.

In the course of the informal meeting, Lord Bingham was briefed on a number of the Law Society's activities, ranging from our disciplinary procedures to our Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. He also inquired into the effect of the implementation of the Electronic Filing System ('EFS') on the conduct of litigation, with particular interest in the impact of this new technology on lawyers and judges alike, as well as the effect of the EFS on access to justice for members of the public.

Adeline Ang
Law Society of Singapore

Survey by the Law Society of Singapore on Lawyers Leaving Practice

Introduction
The annual statistics on lawyers in practice, compiled by the Membership Services Department of the Law Society in May 2001, revealed, amongst other things, that a total of 335 lawyers did not renew their practising certificates in the annual practising certificates renewal exercise in April 2001.

In order to understand why these lawyers left practice, the Law Society carried out a survey. The survey questionnaires were sent to 269 persons who have left legal practice and whose contact particulars were known to the Law Society.

Survey questionnaires were also sent to the managing partners and proprietors of the 720 law firms in Singapore.

All addressees were assured that their responses would be kept confidential, and were given one month to respond and were reminded by telephone to do so.

A total of 31 lawyers who have left practice and 89 partners and proprietors of firms responded to the survey.

Results of Survey

The following are the results, based on the answers given by the respondents to the survey.

Areas of practice of those who left practice:

Significant challenges which lawyers encountered during legal practice:

Responses from lawyers who left practice

About 71% of respondents who have left practice cited stress due to pace of work and workload as the most significant challenge they faced whilst they were in practice.

Several respondents complained of 'long hours', 'lack of social life' and 'difficulty in balancing work and family life'. There were complaints of unreasonable deadlines given by the courts for filing pleadings and documents, difficulties with bosses, colleagues and support staff in dealing with their workload and working hours, as well as lack of proper guidance.

The percentages for the other challenges were as follows:

• Difficulty in dealing with clients' expectations and demands - 55%.
• Doubts about future in the practice of law - 29%.
• Insufficient/declining income - 29%.
• Boredom or insufficiency of challenges to meet their capabilities and skills - 23%.
• Growing complexity in the general management and administration of the practice of law - 23%.
• Difficulty in dealing with changes in law and practice - 13%.

Perceptions of managing partners/proprietors

The perceptions of the managing partners/proprietors on this subject were as follows:

About 33% agreed that stress due to pace of work and workload is the main challenge. A number of respondents blamed the stress factor on the pace and deadlines imposed by the courts for filing pleadings and documents.

The percentages for the other factors were as follows:

• Insufficient/declining income - 26%.
  The respondents cited several reasons for this, including competition amongst lawyers for a limited market of work, decline in the level of taxed litigation fees, 'undercutting' by some firms, increasing overheads and costs (including costs of IT and EFS), the tendency of clients to haggle on lawyers' fees (which they do not do with doctors and other professionals) and fear of the freeing of conveyancing scale fees. Another common sentiment was that the remuneration did not commensurate with the work and sacrifices involved in legal practice.
• Doubts about future in the practice of law - 25%.
• Growing complexity in the general management and administration of the practice of law - 21%.
  However, about 31% agreed that this was a predominant challenge for 'senior' lawyers.
• Difficulty in dealing with changes in law and practice - 24%.
  However, it is also noteworthy that about 38% of the respondents agreed that this was a predominant challenge for 'senior' lawyers.
• Difficulty in dealing with clients' expectations and demands - 24%.
• Boredom or insufficiency of challenges to meet their capabilities and skills - 5%.

Many managing partners and proprietors also used this survey as an opportunity to vent their own frustrations about practice. Their comments were more colourful and contained more angst and passion than the comments of lawyers who have left practice. This is probably because they are still 'here' to experience the problems talked about, whereas the lawyers who have left practice for something else are probably going through a period of 'relief'. (This may also explain why there was a higher rate of responses to the survey questionnaires from managing partners and proprietors in practice than from lawyers who have left practice.)

The sentiments expressed in the miscellaneous comments were mostly about the tight deadlines imposed by the courts, the fall in income, the difficulties in keeping pace with changes in practice management and the effect on their lifestyles due to heavy workloads which did not correspond with the returns.

Reasons for leaving practice

• Stress due to pace of work/workload
  Again, quite consistently, about 48% of the respondents agreed that this was the main reason they left practice; while 64% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded considered this the main reason why lawyers left practice - the reasons being predominantly stress caused by 'unreasonable' deadlines set by the courts, more work, less income, less costs awarded and higher overheads.

One said: 'It is not worth the hassle! There are better things to do to earn a living! Everyone is entitled to a quality life!' A sentiment echoed by similar comments from other respondents. On the other hand, a few respondents blamed the problem on 'poor attitudes' on the part of those who left the kitchen, and as being unable to take the heat.

The respondents also gave substantial weight to the other reasons, such as:

• Insufficient/declining income, coupled with expectatiosn of higher remuneration in other professions
  32% of lawyers leaving practice and 66% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded agreed that this was a significant factor.
• Difficulty in dealing with clients' expectations and demands
  29% of lawyers leaving practice and 37% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded agreed that this was a significant factor.
• Doubts about the future in the practice of law
  23% of lawyers leaving practice and 39% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded agreed that this was a significant factor.
• Growing complexity in the general management and administration of the legal practice
  28% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded agreed that this was a significant factor. (Less than a handful of lawyers leaving practice cited this reason.)
• Difficulty in dealing with changes in law and practice
  36% of the managing partners and proprietors who responded agreed that this was a significant factor. (Similarly, for this category, less than a handful of lawyers leaving practice cited this reason.)

In addition to the above reasons, there were other miscellaneous reasons for lawyers leaving practice, such as 'looking after the baby', practice in other jurisdictions (for reasons of remuneration and to seek other challenges) or 'better future and greater fulfilment in other careers'. There were natural reasons too, like one who said that he was '78 years old and hard of hearing'.

Current employment status of lawyers who have recently left practice

About 74% of the survey respondents were currently employed in other vocations or businesses.

About 91% of this number (ie of those who are employed) were employed in occupations related to the law or legal matters, with about 65% of this number being legal officers, legal counsel or legal managers in commercial organisations.

Whether they intend to return to legal practice

About 45% of the survey respondents said that they intend to return to legal practice.

Several of the survey respondents were specific about the conditions under which they would consider returning to practice. Conditions cited include: 'Depends on whether the workload is decreased and whether the Judiciary takes a more reasonable approach', 'better remuneration, more respect given to members of the Bar' and similar reasons; whereas others cited practical reasons such as 'when the children start schooling' or 'if the right opportunity arises'.

If there is a demand for more lawyers in the profession, what can be done to encourage lawyers to remain in the profession or to attract good qualified lawyers back to legal practice?

Managing partners and proprietors were also asked this weighty question. As expected, there was a variety of answers, such as:

• easing the pace of litigation in the courts;
• changes in attitudes on the part of the Judiciary towards lawyers, ie to be more understanding about the workloads of lawyers and response times for dealing with pleadings and preparing for hearings; and
• guidelines for lawyers' fees, and ensuring there is sufficient income which commensurates with the work and overheads involved in the legal practice.

On the other hand, some respondents commented that special measures were 'not necessary, as economic forces will naturally attract them to return to the profession'.

The Council of the Society will be reviewing the feedback received and the measures that can be taken to address the concerns and the indications on the challenges facing the legal profession.

Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice

ABA 123rd Annual Meeting 2001

It was an Olympics of sorts: some 50 Bar Associations from across the globe met in Chicago on 2 August 2001 for the American Bar Association's ('ABA's') 123rd Annual Meeting. The sheer magnitude of the Conference would bowl anyone over.

Historic, yet contemporary, Chicago, which has housed the ABA Headquarters for the last 75 years, had something to show for every lawyer heeling into the Windy City. And it was as if the legal world revolved around Chicago, the 'Second City' of theatres, where temperatures soared to 90°F this summer. Buntings and banners heralded the Conference, with news in the local dailies of the Conference and speeches published in legal journals almost every day of that Conference week - truly access to justice in the knowledge sense.

More than 10,000 lawyers and judges from across the USA and their families, converged into the Conference City. Some 100 other legal luminaries from Bar Associations across Canada, Europe, South America, Australia, Africa and Asia were present for the week-long Legal Talk. Appeal Judges from the Appellate and Federal Courts, District Judges and magistrates and government representatives throughout the USA were there to partake in the discussions. Admittedly, Asia was poorly represented with delegates from only Hong Kong, China and Singapore; I represented the Law Society of Singapore.

The attendance by the American lawyers was tremendous, and one attraction captured them - Continuing Legal Education ('CLE') credit points to meet the requirements for a full year. CLE is compulsory in more than half the States in the USA, and already 28 States of over 40 States that mandate CLE accept all or some online credits. ABA has a strong CLE programme for its members, and the Annual Meeting finds the best of ABA's CLE in a central location.

The table (on the right) will show the profile of past Annual Meeting attendees.

The number of programmes for the Conference ran into some 2,500 meetings, hosted over 21 hotels and other venues, with buses departing every 15 minutes. Almost every topic imaginable was presented, quite often by a panel, and ended with a 'Q&A' session.

Equally dynamic was the ABA Expo where some 125 companies exhibited legal products and services - the best in technology, practice management, CLE, advocacy skills, employee and para-legal management, publishing and finance (and even a retirement programme for lawyers). A cyber connection was thrown in for all visitors, gratis, to check their e-mails or visit the Web.

Furthermore, the seminars and programme tracks covered professionalism, sole and small firms, mega practices and technology; included were ADRs - in both crime and civil litigation - globalisation, the independence of the judiciary and, of course, women in the legal profession. Name any topic in law, and it was there for the asking, providing countless options for the attendees; it was a real dilemma as to which seminar to attend.

For me, it was a confusing world of information, but I soon came to know the way; I attended the seminars which interested me most for the profession here - from multi-disciplinary practices, multi-jurisdictional practices, professionalism, practice management, ADRs, harmonisation and the need for standardisation of the law and technology: it was a breather and the discussions were so refreshing.

The Conference deliberated on ADRs. Several speakers said that parties and neutrals together can design pragmatic, creative ways to resolve even large, complex and seemingly intractable disputes; they felt that globalisation and ADRs would be joint players in the 21st century age.

The papers presented on multi-disciplinary practices by the Americans still showed a division of thoughts, but several felt that market forces would perhaps shape things to come.

Ethical rules were also in the forefront of the papers presented at the Conference. One of the major issues discussed was whether a lawyer for a company who learns that his client's product is likely to cause physical injury or death should warn the public even if, as is highly likely, his client objects. ABA adheres to this and the great majority of the State Courts, which have the final say in regulating the conduct of lawyers - they are the ones who do the striking off - go along with the ABA; but not several States.

One area which showed concern was multi-jurisdictional practices affecting American lawyers, but this can have an infection on the profession across national boundaries. A speaker said that if we handcuff our profession within territorial, state borders, we are doing a disservice to lawyers nationally; with the internet and worldwide commerce, there is so much that will happen in the future outside the borders that lawyers have to be able to be flexible and adaptable. Several speakers said that creating that plasticity will require changing the rules that govern the professional conduct of attorneys.

Even whilst the Conference was on, the not-for-profit ABA unveiled a centralised online location for one-stop shopping for people looking for legal information; topics include the family, finances, home, jobs, the consumer market place, criminal justice, the courts and 'Find A Lawyer'. It is a free site, unlike most of the 2.6 million Web pages for the 1 million attorneys in the USA.

When out-going President of the ABA, Ms Martha Barnett, met me at her President's Reception she hosted for the international delegates, it was a great feeling - for it was a down-to-earth meeting at the dinner function, tuxedo and all; down-to-earth as Martha and I had met across cyberspace when we addressed the International Pacific Bar Association's Annual Conference in Tokyo earlier this year, speaking from Chicago and Singapore respectively to an 800-member international audience, thanks to technological connections provided by our Supreme Court.

Martha was missing, however, from the Welcome Reception held on a 19th century vessel, anchored off the southern edges of Lake Michigan, where Chicago stands. But no less a visitor and guest on board and at the Conference Opening was Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Honourable Justice Stephen G Breyer, who opened the Conference and delivered the keynote address. Justice Stephen G Breyer was a classmate of our Ambassador-at-large, Professor Tommy Koh, at Harvard University. In his speech at the Opening Assembly, he covered broad legal areas, and pro bono work, without a written text.

The Guest Speaker at the ABA's 2001 Pro Bono Publico Awards Luncheon, Mr Bryan Stevenson, an Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, also spoke without a written text.

It was an equally energising experience meeting the CEOs of the various law associations and the Presidents and other representatives, discussing common issues through lunch and dinner. It was just law, the profession, the future, international crimes and all.

It was tiring touring the hotels to catch the seminars and meeting-points, but that did not stop me from taking a half-day cruise down the Chicago River to see downtown Chicago after the Conference; indeed Chicago boasts of the first skyscraper built after the City was engulfed in a great fire. And ABA, by the year 2004, will soon move to a 225,000 sq ft of space in a 35-storey building to serve its nearly 500,000 voluntary members.

And soon I was off to Toronto, Canada, for work. I left Toronto for New York on 11 August 2001 on a morning flight on an American Airlines 767. It was a historic flight as I see it, especially looking back after 11 September 2001.

Still ringing in my ears was the ABA's mission statement 'Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice'. I am glad in that I am still able to do just that - from a safe haven.

Palakrishnan, SC
President
Law Society of Singapore