When the possibility of having (legal) casinos in Singapore was first mooted, I recall the frisson of mock delight that animated criminal lawyers – more gambling, more crime, more work. Whatever one’s stand on gambling – and one does not need to be religious to consider it a bad thing – there can be no doubt that the integrated resorts, as they have come to be known, are stimulating investment. Their construction and operations will have a significant positive impact on the economy. The profession stands to benefit, not just in the new fields of gaming and entertainment law, but also in traditional ones like real estate and construction.

As a person who has many vices, but whose gambling experience does not extend beyond the office pool for the world cup, and one who is reasonably certain never to be bitten by the gambling bug, I can look upon the prospect of two dens of temptation with equanimity. But gambling can be a big problem for lawyers, precisely because lawyers’ earnings rarely match the glamorous expectations of lifestyle that hooked many into studying law. As the Lawyers’ Assistance Program of British Columbia notes: ‘Lawyers are at an increased risk of problem and pathological gambling because of access to trust funds and client monies. Many lawyers set unrealistic and unreasonable goals for themselves – expectations to be financially successful and other related pressures can lead to addictive behaviours.’ This is a danger we must recognise and take steps ahead of time to strengthen counselling and other programmes as well as ensure that clients’ monies are as safe as they realistically can be.

In the middle of this month, I will be in Chicago for the IBA Annual Conference under my law firm’s banner. Apart from the usual networking for my own practice, I will be busy with IBA officers in planning for next year’s conference in Singapore. The importance of that event for our legal community cannot be overstated. Apart from the IBA Conference itself, which attracts in excess of 3,000 delegates, there are also the numerous satellite events that take place before, during and after. It is a chance to put Singapore firmly on the legal map, and showcase our strengths and abilities as a profession. I would strongly urge lawyers and law firms to start planning for this event now.

There is a big difference between gambling and investing. Investments seek returns based on skill and effort, while gambling depends on beating the odds, for a time at least. The profession needs to do more investing, in terms of building capabilities and infrastructure, and the same applies to the Society. The Building Fund will lapse with this practice year, and Council has decided that we cannot afford a bigger building. Consequently, the $300-per-practitioner contributions to the Fund will come to an end. However, the Society has been running on empty for many years – essentially brought into balance only by donations of money or time, or both. Cost-cutting is repeatedly undertaken, sometimes to the detriment of effectiveness. Subscriptions have not changed since 1991. It is time to raise subscriptions, and Council will be seeking the approval of members for a $100 increase at the Annual General Meeting, applicable across the board. So, with the lapsing of the Building Fund contributions, the net reduction in contribution for members will be $200.

The increase in subscriptions will strengthen the Society, and put it on a better basis going forward over the next five years. It is important that my successor should inherit a financially sound Society. At the same time, I am seeking new arrangements with the Academy, and the Academy is willing in principle to allocate some of its funds to the practising profession via projects undertaken by the Society on a case-by-case basis. This too, will help the Society to carry out its mission in the years to come.

I am confident that members will appreciate the need for this and will give their support to it when the time comes.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore