Extract of Parliament Report – 12^th and 13th February, 2009

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY DEBATE

MINISTRY OF LAW

Affordable Legal Services

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang GRC):  … Sir, as reported in the Straits Times on 5th April 2008, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong remarked, and I quote, “Singapore’s lower courts may have been placed high in international rankings, but what matters is the quality of justice people here receive." CJ has called for greater access to justice, and emphasised that justice must be accessible to everyone. This is indeed a timely call for the legal profession to make justice accessible to all at affordable cost.

At present, the majority of practising lawyers are involved in corporate services work, thus resulting in a shortage of lawyers in litigation work especially for criminal cases. This problem is compounded by the high attrition rate of practising lawyers.  Consequently, there is now left a smaller pool of lawyers available to provide affordable legal services to the community, especially the middle and lower income groups.

Sir, I have come across a number of cases in which people cannot afford to pay lawyers to seek representation in courts. Although the Law Ministry and the Law Society have been providing pro-bono legal services, there are persons who do not meet the eligibility criteria, and also cannot afford to engage a lawyer. Thus, there is a service gap in providing justice for all.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister of Law the following questions:

     (1) What measures are in place to ensure that “justice for all” is accessible to all Singaporeans?

     (2) Are there plans to further expand the pro-bono legal services to lower income Singaporeans?

     (3) Are there plans to increase the pool of litigation lawyers in Singapore?

     (4) Can the Minister give an update with regard to the review of lawyers’ handling of clients’ monies?

     (5) How can we support smaller law firms to provide affordable legal services to the community?

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): … Dr Teo specifically asked whether we have plans to increase the pool of litigation lawyers in Singapore.  Dr Teo's question about litigation lawyers is relevant to this issue.  As supply increases, the supply of litigation lawyers may well increase.  The current economic situation has also seen the growth in demand for litigation and dispute resolution work.  Firms have reported that some of their younger corporate lawyers are venturing into litigation work.  But we cannot dictate their choice of careers.  These are general issues best left to the market.

… Next, let me deal with lawyers holding clients' monies.  Dr Teo reminds us about his favourite topic -  rogue lawyers who have disappeared together with large sums of their clients’ money.

Let me recap what has been happening.  In 2008, the Chief Justice appointed a Review Committee to look into making changes to the conveyancing system to prevent further misappropriation of clients’ monies by errant lawyers.  That Committee recommended that lawyers be prohibited from receiving conveyancing monies.

The Government agrees with that in-principle.  There is a strong public interest to protect clients’ monies in conveyancing transactions.  A home is quite often the most substantial asset that anyone would purchase in his lifetime.  We should not allow public confidence in the legal profession to be eroded by a few rogue lawyers.

I have appointed an Implementation Committee, which includes relevant stakeholders.  Working in consultation with the key players in the conveyancing community, that Committee will be considering the viability of various options to develop and implement a workable solution.  Further announcements will be made once the details have been worked out.

I would say this, at this juncture.  The Review Committee’s recommendation has been greeted with dismay by some lawyers.  On the other side, there are other lawyers, who have expressed relief.  Many lawyers have borne the burden of stakeholding only because lawyers have traditionally been expected to hold monies as stakeholders as an ancillary service to their clients.  They will now be freed to concentrate on their core work of providing legal services.  This change is long overdue.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): … Two initiatives introduced in 2007 have helped to ensure that quality legal aid and advice remains accessible to Singaporeans, especially the financially less well-off.  First, we raised the Legal Aid means test to cover the lower-middle income group.  A family of four, ie, a working father with three dependants, now qualifies for legal aid if the household income is about $2,600 a month, compared to $1,900 before the amendment.  This way, the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) helped 960 more people in the first 10 months of this financial year, making up about 13% of the total who qualified for legal aid.  Overall, 93% of the 8,200 cases registered this year qualified under the means test.  Indeed, for family law matters which make up a high proportion of the cases LAB deals with, Tanjong Pagar FSC has a pro-bono legal assistance scheme to help those who marginally fail the means test.

Another initiative was when MinLaw worked with the Law Society of Singapore and two CDCs to set up Community Legal Clinics or CLCs in September 2007.  In their first year, these clinics provided legal advice to some 2,400 persons.  About 380 lawyers from 21 law firms, including six senior counsels, volunteered their time at these clinics which are run on average four nights a week.  Nearly all who sought help received legal advice from the clinics within one to two weeks from the date they registered with the Law Society's Pro Bono Office.