Locums At Last!

In her speech at Opening of Legal Year 2003, Mrs Arfat Selvam spoke of the potential pool of skills and experience represented by lawyers who have left the profession. One difficulty in tapping these resources was caused by the requirement that a lawyer applying for a practising certificate must be attached to a law firm or a law corporation. Unlike the medical profession, we had no tradition of locums — freelancers who can move from one place to another depending on where he or she is needed. Mrs Selvam proposed that we amend our rules to allow for locums. It was indeed a bold and positive proposal.

Two years later, after a lot of work presenting the proposal to government, working with insurers and crafting new rules, it will now be possible, from 1 April of this year, to hold a practising certificate as a locum.

The Society will provide from April a free service — law practices which need locums can register online with us and we hope this will help locums to contact interested law practices.

Our hope is that it will encourage people to return to practice, even if only for a few days a week or for a few weeks in the year. We also hope it will foster specialisation. It will now be easier for a specialist, in a field where there is not enough work within one firm, to offer his or her skills to several firms in the course of the year.

We are convinced that the scheme will be a boon to small firms. Small firm practitioners, especially sole proprietors, face debilitating stress when they must service clients while physically unable to do so, for example, because they are sick, away from the country or attending to other matters elsewhere.

The word ‘locum’ is an abbreviation of ‘locum tenens’ — one holding a place. It shows the resilience of Latin that, although abbreviated, it has not been substituted by an English word. Its French translation, Lieutenant, has also passed into English, with a twist in its pronunciation (Lef-tenant in England and Singapore; Loo-tenant in the US). Perhaps we should have striven harder for an indigenous coinage — Singaporeans are familiar with the packet of tissues used to hold a place at a hawker centre. But what we might gain in intelligibility, from, for example, a derivative of the word ‘chope’, we would lose in dignity.

This development — of allowing locum practices — reflects a key philosophy of the leadership of the Society: that we should be ready to question received wisdom and examine issues afresh based on first principles. It also reflects our aim of seeking to trim or remove rules and regulations which hinder honest, competitive business.

I would like to mention something else that we have achieved in another piece of legislation coming into force, the new Security of Payments Act. This will create a new regime of adjudication which will simplify and expedite claims for payment by contractors and subcontractors in the building industry. The original intention was to exclude lawyers (following one of the overseas models under consideration). Lawyers, some mistakenly believe, add cost and complication to dispute resolution. This folly was spotted early on by one of our senior council members, George Tan, and he quickly put together a representation for us to submit on this point. It was accepted. This vigilance on behalf of the profession occurred before anything was sent to us, and so we were able to change minds at source. The new Act will not, after all, exclude lawyers. Like George, I strongly believe that lawyers play a constructive role, helping to frame and clarify issues, present facts and find legal solutions. Without lawyers, litigants may not sift relevant from irrelevant, nor investigate and present the important points. A minor triumph, perhaps, but one worth celebrating.

The introduction of ‘locums’ is significant for another reason too: for it demonstrates once again the important role of the Society, working responsibly on behalf of the profession. It illustrates civic society in action — the profession reforming itself independently of government. This must be our direction in future — for on professional matters, who knows better than ourselves? So long as we always keep as our compass the public interest (for which ultimately lawyers exist), our perseverance will reap reward.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore