Expectations of Justice

This was the speech delivered by the President at the Opening of Legal Year on 7 January 2006.

The New Supreme Court Building marks a major milestone for independent Singapore: a building conceived to meet the needs of judges, lawyers and other participants in the justice system, both today and through the 21st century. Immediate physical benefits are manifold – to name just a few: air-conditioned meeting rooms, corridors and public spaces (essential for taking instructions, agreeing points of procedure and negotiating settlements); secure environs; and proper meeting places for the profession as in this auditorium today.

On an occasion like this, reflection upon the role that this new building will play is inevitable. This exercise must start with consideration of the expectations of the public, for it is the public that the legal profession exists to serve. The public’s expectations have deepened and broadened, and the legal profession must respond to ensure that it keeps faith with the public. We have achieved much, but that ‘much’ can still be more.

I venture three expectations:

1   Access to Justice.

2   Communication of Justice.

3   Trust in Justice.

I will speak briefly about each of these three expectations.

Access to Justice comprises three aspects: timeliness of proceedings, simplicity of procedure, and availability and affordability of representation. I need not speak today about the first two aspects. The third, of available and affordable representation, has a mixed scorecard. The quality of lawyers is higher than ever, and comparable with any jurisdiction in the world. In civil and criminal cases, fees are, by any appropriate benchmark, reasonable. The Singapore lawyer is perhaps the epitome of value for money. Yet there are litigants, especially in family cases and small civil cases, who go unrepresented. In criminal cases, the reach of the Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme is limited. Thorough review is needed of how to deliver legal services to the less well-off, say households in the bottom 40 per cent. The Society intends to study this issue, and make proposals to government on how a public-private partnership might better meet the legal needs of the less well-off.

The Society would like to see legal representation permitted earlier in the criminal justice process, with access to an accused person during the investigation stage of police custody. We have also proposed other measures intended to improve the reliability and accuracy of statements taken from accused persons. The Society will continue to present its position on this issue.

For lawyers to ensure access to justice, the independence and competence of the Bar are essential. Competence requires dedication and interest in continued acquisition of knowledge and development of skills. The Law Society enters in 2006 the second year of its pilot project for Minimum Continuing Professional Development and will use the information obtained from this pilot project in order to design the scheme to ensure its practicality, relevance and utility to members.

Communication of Justice is no less important. General awareness of law – both rights and responsibilities – could be greater. In recent years, the Society’s law awareness work has focused on bringing together interested parties – social welfare organisations, schools and the police – in order to clarify problems specific to juvenile justice and persons of mental or physical disability. The Society believes that the lead is of course best taken by government, but stands ready to play its part in building law awareness both amongst members of the public and in persons employed by agencies and organisations that assist the public.

Trust in Justice is the touchstone of a justice system that fully meets the public’s expectations. People must go away from court – win or lose – believing that they have had their day in court, that they have been given a chance to speak and have been heard. When this happens, their trust in the system is affirmed, and they are not alienated. Two things promote this trust. The first is the litigant’s receipt of reasons for a decision, however brief. He knows then at least why he has lost, even if he still clings to the belief he should not have done so. The second is the atmosphere of the courtroom: civility in the courtroom reinforces in both participants and spectators the belief that justice has been dispensed objectively and effectively. It is civility that underpins the resolution of disputes in a way that affirms social and commercial ties, rather than undoes them. Determined advocacy is necessary and important, but witnesses must not be badgered nor their characters indiscriminately attacked. Exchanges between advocates must not break down into insults and jibes. Tempers may fray, and clients may want to win at all costs, but civility is the necessary lubricant that gives justice the chance to be done, and to be seen to be done. In attempting to meet this challenge of ensuring every litigant leaves court – win or lose – with their trust in the system affirmed, we offer the public ownership of and inclusion in our justice system.

Civil conduct is not merely the observance of professional rules. It is all too easy for professional rules to themselves become weapons in the conflict between advocates – with lawyers accusing each other of this or that breach of ethics. Rather, civility is an attitude, and an aspiration, and has to be encouraged rather than decreed.

The Society has played and will continue to play a key role in fostering civility. Through its various programmes, educational and social, it seeks to foster the collegiality conducive to civility. Through the work of the Ethics Committee it seeks to give clear ethical directions. With its panels of mediators, the Society can step in to defuse the feuds that occasionally open up between lawyers.

It is also the responsibility of senior advocates to induct younger advocates: not to seek to take advantage of their inexperience, but to demonstrate how counsel can oppose each other without rancour, win with magnanimity and lose with grace.

The court too has an important opportunity to set the tone. Long before disrespect is turned towards the court, there will have been lack of respect shown to witnesses or opposing counsel. At that early point of nascent incivility, the court has the opportunity to reinforce proper conduct. Moreover, in addition to requiring civility from the Bar, the Bench may lead by example. This too builds trust in justice. If the court descends into harsh remarks in the course of hearing, litigants may misinterpret them as pre-judgment of the merits.

It is not just in the courtroom that civility is important. It is just as important in areas of law where there is no referee. As with the game of golf, transactional lawyers must look to their conscience and honour in how they keep score. In this arena, the work of the Society and the example of senior lawyers are most critical.

I now on behalf of the Bar, renew our pledge to Your Honour, the Chief Justice, of full and unstinting support to the Judiciary in the administration of justice.

I wish you too, Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal and Judges of the Supreme Court, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, the Attorney-General, all members of the Law Society and of the broader legal community, in the legal and judicial service, at the Faculty and in foreign law firms, continuing good health to carry on the good work and shared purposes of all of us, devoted to the pursuit of law.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore