Punching Our Weight

At our recent workplan presentation to members, I spoke about how the Society should punch its weight. My remarks arose out of a feeling that we have not done so in the past. Perhaps the profession has taken too modest a view of our collective role in society and in the economy. Perhaps we have simply underestimated our strength. Consequently, we have tended to behave like a flyweight when it comes to contributing to issues surrounding the profession and the legal system, even though we are probably medium weight at least. It would probably be hubris to claim for our profession heavyweight status, but we should not be afraid to step into the ring ready to punch our real weight.

Apart from modesty, another reason for our not achieving the heft that we ought has been a lack of resources and a lack of focus. We have not put enough emphasis on thinking through issues facing the profession in a systematic way, nor on coming up with policy proposals to address these issues. Part of this shortcoming has simply been lack of time. All on Council and on our various Committees are volunteers. Discussions of policy take time, as does writing up coherent and thorough reports and position papers. Brainstorming and scenario planning require a great deal of collective effort.

Towards the end of last year, Council, Committee Chairs and various resource persons took part in a retreat for this purpose. One of the conclusions reached was that we need to improve our processes for achieving leadership in the future directions of the profession. Too often we are reactive to changes suggested by others. And too often we are unable to achieve adequate consensus within the profession for a concerted response. Always our volunteers are hard-pressed in time and energy to come up with full and cogent answers.

In view of this conclusion, Council adopted as part of its Workplan for 2005 two particular strategies: one is to build stronger leadership in our Committees and on Council, the other is to rework the structure of the Secretariat so that it can provide stronger support for our representative role. The aim of this is to ensure that we are better able to formulate policy so that we can collectively have more say in where the profession moves (or is pushed). Of course, in taking a leadership role for the profession, we must never lose sight of the public interest, for it is for the public’s benefit that lawyers exist.

This means that we must make more effective use of volunteers’ limited time. The Secretariat should not play a merely secretarial role, but should take on a fuller executive function. The aim is to prompt, organise and facilitate discussion and exchange of ideas, with a view to first understanding what in our past is simply historical baggage and what represents enduring legacy, and then to articulating the opportunities for and the needs of the profession going forward.

This must be an inclusive process, and, in addition to holding dialogues on important initiatives and inviting views from members by mass mail, I have started to write to individuals for their input on specific questions. I have done this in relation to the proposed amendments to our professional conduct rules. It is only by mobilising the ‘silent majority’ into participating that we can truly begin to punch our weight.

Early next year, the Society will be holding a conference at the New Supreme Court Building on the future of the profession — not just for the litigation bar, but for all parts of the profession. This will provide an excellent opportunity for the profession to reflect and plan ahead, and to consider in a more sustained way how we can together make the most of things for the future. I look forward to this, and to many discussions between now and then, formal and informal, with members, with others in the legal community and with the public at large.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore