We often see the issue of professional conduct of lawyers being raised in the context of the Singapore legal system. For some years now, I have been meaning to generate a discussion about judicial conduct in Singapore. I had faced some resistance from the mainstream media when I sought to raise this issue in the past. Given this sensitivity, I also felt it was not appropriate to raise it in alternative media. I finally mooted this issue in a series of letters between me and the Chief Justice's office published in The Straits Times Singapore. In personal conversations, several lawyers expressed surprise that there was an avenue for clients to directly provide feedback on issues of judicial conduct. I hope more people will utilise this avenue to improve the Singapore judicial organ.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
LETTER PUBLISHED IN THE STRAITS TIMES ON 2 AUGUST 2015
I welcome the formation of the study committee by the Singapore Academy of Law, with the Law Society's participation, to look into the issue of lawyers' professional conduct ("Lawyers told to stop behaving badly in court"; July 19).
In a similar vein, this may also be an opportune time for the Singapore Academy of Law, where the Chief Justice is its current president, to seek feedback on the issue of judicial conduct from lawyers, the Law Society and other stakeholders of the legal profession.
I note that the Law Society president has relied on anecdotal feedback about lawyers from members of the State and High Courts. Anecdotal accounts of lawyers may well suggest that Singapore could do with a body to look into issues of judicial conduct.
Several world-class common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and England, now have an independent body of some sort that receives and considers feedback or complaints about judicial conduct.
Such a procedure does not, and cannot, provide a mechanism for disciplining a judge. However, it can offer a process by which complaints by a member of the public or a lawyer about judicial conduct can be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice and the judge concerned, and provide a platform for a complaint to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Such a body can be empowered to receive feedback about, among other things, racial or religious discrimination by judges, general rudeness of judges, misuse of judicial status for personal gain or advantage, failure to fulfil judicial obligations or duties, or failure by a judge hearing a matter to declare a potential conflict of interest.
In jurisdictions where such a body exists, it has been found that it has helped to enhance public confidence in and protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. Such a body is even more necessary, given the statutory codification and enhancement of Singapore's contempt of court framework by Parliament in recent years.
Indeed, the Singapore Academy of Law may be best positioned to propose such a body through the work of its current study committee. I also hope it will use this opportunity to provide a responsible and constructive platform for a frank and candid discussion about the professional conduct of both lawyers and judges.
Dharmendra Yadav
RESPONSE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE PUBLISHED IN THE STRAITS TIMES ON 9 AUGUST 2015
We agree with Mr Dharmendra Yadav that there are benefits in having in place a process to receive and consider complaints of judicial misconduct ("Set up body to look into judicial conduct issues"; last Sunday).
This will safeguard public confidence in and protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system.
The Singapore judiciary has put such procedures in place with a view to ensuring that any feedback and complaints concerning judicial conduct are brought to the attention of the relevant presiding judges and the Chief Justice, investigated and dealt with appropriately.
At the Supreme Court, the Office of Public Affairs (OPA), under the charge of the chief executive, now serves as a single point of contact between the Supreme Court and the public. The OPA is a channel to receive and process feedback and complaints from lawyers and other court users. Where any feedback pertains to judicial conduct, the chief executive and OPA provide the Chief Justice with the necessary fact-finding and administrative support.
The Family Justice Courts and State Courts also have frameworks in place for handling and investigating feedback and complaints against judges.
Substantiated complaints against judges will be brought by the presiding judges to the attention of the Chief Justice to determine whether and, if so, what further action may be required.
As head of the judiciary, the Chief Justice is ultimately responsible for judicial conduct and standards in Singapore.
Complaints against the conduct of our judges are rare. Most of the complaints received were from litigants seeking the intervention of the Chief Justice in relation to the unfavourable outcome of their court proceedings, for which the appropriate recourse is to lodge an appeal.
The system that we have established balances the demands of public accountability and judicial independence.
Juthika Ramanathan (Ms)
Chief Executive
Office of the Chief Justice
Supreme Court
RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE PUBLISHED IN THE STRAITS TIMES ON 24 AUGUST 2015
I welcome the appointment of the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) of the Supreme Court to serve as a single point of contact between the Supreme Court and the public on matters of judicial conduct, among other things ("System in place to handle feedback on judicial conduct" by the Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court; Aug 9).
Unfortunately, unlike the courts in other common law jurisdictions, hardly any information about such an initiative is available publicly.
I suggest the OPA take immediate steps to enhance the websites of the Supreme Court, Family Justice Courts and the State Courts, and include guidance sections on providing feedback to the Chief Justice about judicial conduct. Similarly, guidance material can be made available at the courts.
Such guidance can go some way towards reducing complaints from litigants on the unfavourable outcome of their court proceedings, for which I agree the appropriate recourse is the appellate process.
Perhaps, the role of the OPA can be expanded to receive feedback on similar matters in the Family Justice Courts and State Courts.
After all, it is the OPA that now administratively supports the Chief Justice in exercising his ultimate responsibility for judicial conduct and standards in Singapore.
This is better than the current modus operandi of leaving such critical matters to these lower courts to deal with, for which little information exists.
In time, I am hopeful that such guidance can help procure feedback on judicial conduct, and it will help enhance the public perception that the Chief Justice takes such feedback on judicial conduct seriously.
Dharmendra Yadav
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Friday, March 06, 2015
Rationale For Axing Law Schools Not Convincing
National University of Singapore (NUS) law dean Simon Chesterman has suggested that the eight law schools dropped from the approved list are among the lower-ranked law schools in Britain and their graduates often find it harder to get jobs ("Shorter list of approved UK law schools welcomed"; last Thursday).
He then urged parents and students as follows: "Instead of spending tens of thousands of pounds on a law education at a lower-ranked school, they could be better off pursuing other degrees locally."
I have had the benefit of studying at NUS Law School, the Singapore Management University (SMU) Law School and Leicester Law School. I gained far more from my experience in a year in Leicester than I have in a year in the other two law schools.
It is not accurate to imply that graduates of the University of Leicester find it harder to get jobs. Recent alumni of the law school include at least one justice's law clerk and a leading investment banker. Several of us started our careers in top Singapore law firms, and most of us are now in offshore law firms, multinational corporations or financial institutions.
By narrowing the list of approved schools to high-cost areas of England like Oxford and London, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education has made the pursuit of an English law degree more expensive and a preserve of the rich. My parents had to sell their HDB home to send me to law school.
If the decision was made purely on rankings, the University of Bristol, which was ranked lower than the University of Southampton in the 2014 Guardian League Table for law schools, should have been struck off.
Many students choose to study law overseas because they desire to study law but are not able to secure a place in the local law schools. To suggest that they do something else is a fundamental failure to understand a person's motivation for studying law. Not all who choose to study law do it to become lawyers. This is a traditional mindset we should shift away from.
Stakeholders of the legal profession could have been better consulted before the recommendations were made. The eight law schools could also have been given an avenue to respond to the recommendations, rather than wait five years for the next review to take place.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Make Parliament More Accessible
Parliament sat to debate the President's Address from 17 October 2011 to 21 October 2011. It has been [about] five days since the debates ended. It is clear that the mainstream media has failed to provide comprehensive coverage of the debates.
For example, Parliament provides a link on its website to a special page for Parliament on Channel NewsAsia. Yet, when one accesses that link, one finds many speeches or exchanges involving Members of Parliament over the week are not even there.
From alternative sources like the Facebook pages of relevant Members of Parliament, it is clear that a good number of Members of Parliament received almost little or no coverage.
Either the editors of these mainstream media outlets felt that such speeches were not newsworthy or it was just impractical to do so (more likely the latter).
As an aged lawyer and Saint, you must appreciate the value of providing Singaporeans unfettered access to developments in the highest law-making organ of this country.
Without meaning to disrespect your wisdom on this front, I only wish to add that the benefits of such access far outweigh the costs associated with it.
In this regard, while I note and appreciate that members of the public already have hassle-free access to the public galleries of Parliament, I have a number of suggestions that I hope you will consider:
a. Set up a channel on Starhub, Mio TV or the Internet to provide live streaming or coverage, when Parliament sits;
b. Make available uncensored recordings (preferably with subtitles) of Parliamentary proceedings on parliamentary website within a day of any Parliamentary sitting; and/or
c. Publish parliamentary reports on the Singapore Law Watch website as soon as these become available.
I hope your team and you can look into these possibilities, among others, of making parliamentary proceedings more accessible or connected to lay persons like me.
Notwithstanding that you were the current Prime Minister's second choice as Speaker of Parliament, I am hopeful that your legacy as Speaker will be a Parliament of many firsts.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Empower Law Society if Government open
While I accept the Minister means well, I approach his views with some measure of caution. If this is something the Minister is really serious about, he can do two things immediately in an area that comes under his direct purview.
First, section 48 (1) (c) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) allows the minister to appoint 3 advocates and solicitors to sit on the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. A former President of the Law Society has expressed concern about this power. The minister can return or delegate this power to the general membership of the Law Society or the Council.
Second, section 38(1)(c) of the LPA restricts the Law Society from "commenting on matters affecting legislation not submitted to it". The Law Society has sought an amendment of this provision in the past but it fell on deaf ears. The Minister can repeal this provision in order to better reach out to the private sector and to ensure diversity in perspective and ideas.
If the government has no monopoly on ideas, the minister can start by loosening his somewhat monolithic control of the legal profession.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Are lawyers excluded from Yellow Ribbon Project?
The Yellow Ribbon Project was started in 2004 to help ex-offenders re-integrate into society. Its annual flagship event, the Yellow Ribbon Prison Run, around the populated Changi Prison complex will begin in a few hours.
I participated in the run some years back. I also tried to volunteer for the initiative some years ago. I was very excited that such an initiative existed. My enthusiasm has, however, been short-lived.
For various reasons, over the years, I have come away with the impression that there is a conscious attempt to exclude lawyers from this wonderful initiative.
I would certainly like to hope my impression is inaccurate but the information publicly available presently indicates otherwise.
No law association – whether the Law Society of Singapore, Association of Criminal Lawyers or Singapore Academy of Law – is publicly involved in the organising of the event, or even in partnering it.
No legal professional sits on the various committees administering the Yellow Ribbon Fund.
The featured employers and volunteers of the Yellow Ribbon Project do not include any person from the legal sector.
I found all these circumstances rather odd since lawyers play an integral role in our criminal justice system. This responsibility certainly extends to the rehabilitation of such offenders and giving them second innings.
It has been over 5 years since this initiative started. It is time the Yellow Ribbon Project involves lawyers, especially those from the criminal bar, more prominently.
I still support the Yellow Ribbon Project.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
No need to abolish ISA
My own view has always been that the abolition of the Internal Security Act is not necessary.I would like in place, within the framework of the ISA, certain safeguards to ensure that it is not abused for political purposes.
Some have argued that this was the case with the so-called Marxist Conspiracy, when one Minister is reported to have resigned over the incident. A current Deputy Prime Minister has expressed reservations about these arrests in the past. (No surprise the home affairs portfolio, which has oversight of the ISA, is held by the other Deputy Prime Minister.)
To his credit, the old law minister Shunmugum Jayakumar, the man credited for enhancing sentences through Parliament in Singapore that would attract the ire of some human rights activists - from the use of the cane to the rope - took steps to improve the procedures of the ISA.
The ISA Advisory Board is now chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, with the President holding veto powers to cancel the detention order on the recommendation of the ISA Advisory Board.
This is where the problem currently lies.
The Board does not comprise a majority of judges, who I have no doubt are independent. Rogue ministers or power hungry political leaders could easily fill the majority of the ISA Advisory Board with their own lackeys and tilt the recommendation of the Board in their favour.
The Court of Appeal established over a decade ago that it was necessary for a court to review the executive’s decision to issue a detention order. Parliament then clipped the wings of the judiciary, post-Chng Suan Tze.
I would like the powers of the judiciary to review such decisions returned.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Insensitive advertising by law firm
NOTE SENT TO PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2011
"I wish to draw your attention to an advertisement on the Law Society website.
The advertisement states, "Roy & Partners are expanding and have vacancies for Chinese Junior and Senior Litigation Secretaries to handle motor claims and personal injury claims."
The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices provides unequivocally, "Race should not be a criterion for the selection of job candidates as multiracialism is a fundamental principle in Singapore. Selection based on race is unacceptable... If a job entails proficiency in a particular language, employers should justify the need for the requirement. This would reduce ambiguity and minimise incidence of misunderstanding between the job seekers and the recruiting party."
One would have expected that a website that represents a noble profession like ours to be more sensitive. The Law Society has a duty not to encourage such unacceptable employment practices. It can do better in working with the National Trades Union Congress to educate law firms about fair employment practices.
I hope corrective and preventive measures will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."
REPLY RECEIVED FROM LAW SOCIETY PRESIDENT ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2011
The reply accepted "that a person should be employed on the basis of his job qualifications and not on the basis of his race" and advertisements "will be screened for their contents to prevent a recurrence of such advertisements", in order to prevent it from being offensive for any reason.
UPDATE ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2011
The previously controversial sentence now reads, "Roy & Partners are expanding and have vacancies for Junior and Senior Litigation Secretaries to handle motor claims and personal injury claims."
Interestingly, a new requirement has been added - "bilingual in English and Chinese" - with no explanation as to what this requirement has to do with the role. Hundreds of legal professionals, including litigation secretaries, in this country "handle motor claims and personal injury claims" without being "bilingual in English and Chinese".
Law firms like these can be encouraged to adopt the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. The partners that run such firms should be persuaded to attend fair employment training programmes. Perhaps, the Law Society, as an employer, will lead by example and adopt these guidelines.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
"I wish to draw your attention to an advertisement on the Law Society website.
The advertisement states, "Roy & Partners are expanding and have vacancies for Chinese Junior and Senior Litigation Secretaries to handle motor claims and personal injury claims."
The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices provides unequivocally, "Race should not be a criterion for the selection of job candidates as multiracialism is a fundamental principle in Singapore. Selection based on race is unacceptable... If a job entails proficiency in a particular language, employers should justify the need for the requirement. This would reduce ambiguity and minimise incidence of misunderstanding between the job seekers and the recruiting party."
One would have expected that a website that represents a noble profession like ours to be more sensitive. The Law Society has a duty not to encourage such unacceptable employment practices. It can do better in working with the National Trades Union Congress to educate law firms about fair employment practices.
I hope corrective and preventive measures will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."
REPLY RECEIVED FROM LAW SOCIETY PRESIDENT ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2011
The reply accepted "that a person should be employed on the basis of his job qualifications and not on the basis of his race" and advertisements "will be screened for their contents to prevent a recurrence of such advertisements", in order to prevent it from being offensive for any reason.
UPDATE ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2011
The previously controversial sentence now reads, "Roy & Partners are expanding and have vacancies for Junior and Senior Litigation Secretaries to handle motor claims and personal injury claims."
Interestingly, a new requirement has been added - "bilingual in English and Chinese" - with no explanation as to what this requirement has to do with the role. Hundreds of legal professionals, including litigation secretaries, in this country "handle motor claims and personal injury claims" without being "bilingual in English and Chinese".
Law firms like these can be encouraged to adopt the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. The partners that run such firms should be persuaded to attend fair employment training programmes. Perhaps, the Law Society, as an employer, will lead by example and adopt these guidelines.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Law Ministry Should Share Blame
I did not wish to make any comments on this issue initially.
Many friends have made their views known to me. A foreign service government scholar even invited me to participate in a “Cook and Share a Pot of Curry” event this Sunday, which I accepted after some hesitation.
It heartened me that many of my non-Indian friends were the ones taking the lead in reacting to this issue, and that it underscores the efforts of the government in creating a united society irrespective of our inherent differences is paying off.
At least one of my friends has written extensively about this issue; both his views and the reply from the government have been made available here.
However, I felt I had to say some thing now that the Minister for Law has put the weight of his office behind this issue.
At the outset, I was surprised that it took the minister more than a week to respond to this issue, which he himself conceded had a xenophobic element, after some 40,000 people have begun preparations to eat curry.
An issue as sensitive as this would never have been allowed to fester for more than a week under the watch of his predecessor and mentor, Professor Shunmugam Jayakumar.
We know the minister has been busy dealing with issues raised by the looming presidential election but, surely, this was a matter that deserved greater priority, given that the minister himself acknowledged emotions were running high in certain forums.
We now also know that the report in the newspaper was riddled with inaccuracies.
If this incident happened more than five years ago, what has happened since? Has the mediation worked? Do the families now have a more constructive relationship with each other?
If the minister was going to take more than a week to respond to this issue, he could have come more prepared to provide a comprehensive account of the matter.
Unfortunately, the journalists present at the press conference failed to ask these tough questions of the minister. Then again, the government has always maintained the Singapore press is not an investigative one; it is not supposed to ask such questions. The pliant nature of its work leaves it with little choice to take at face value what is offered by the government. Later, if the information comes out wrong, it is the national duty of the press to shoulder it squarely.
Nevertheless, how did this report end up getting fed to the newspaper in the first place? The government is known to maintain a tight lid over information that reaches the press. We are told the mediator provided the information. Was the mediator not sufficiently prepared or briefed before the information was shared with the press?
The minister further gave some understanding of the mediation process. If his account is to be relied on, the mediator is absolved of all responsibility.
The reality, if you have ever been involved in a mediation, is that the mediator plays an important role in nudging parties to reach an amicable solution. Often, the process involves the mediator speaking separately to the parties before bringing them together. The mediator will then encourage parties to consider the dispute from different perspectives in an effort to get them to consider solutions that can work.
It is true, as the minister suggests, the solution is neither imposed, recommended nor enforced by the mediator. But the mediator is a key facilitator of the dispute and it is quite likely that, in the absence of a mediator, the parties would have failed to reach such a solution.
Given these circumstances, the agency of the ministry has to shoulder some, if not most, of the blame. My friend has sought an apology from the law ministry for this incident. I am not hopeful he will get one.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Singapore Bar Course Fees Crippling
LETTER SENT TO CHAIRMAN, SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND PRESIDENT, LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE
It has recently been brought to my attention that the course fees for the equivalent of the Postgraduate Practical Law Course now known as the Preparatory Course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, now conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, has rose from S$4,280 (in 2008) to S$6,420 for Singapore citizens.
The justification given for this is that the course content has been profoundly enhanced and that these fees are usually reimbursed by the law firms offering retention contracts to the relevant course participants.
It is not a given that all such firms will reimburse the course fees. The reality today also is that not all law firms will retain their practice trainees. Many are also not willing to accept the onus of reimbursing unretained practice trainees their course fees. An exception to this is my former firm, WongPartnership LLP, that reimbursed such fees, even though the person was eventually not retained. It is unfortunate the Law Society has not been very successful in encouraging others to adopt such exemplary practice, preferring - to the frustration of young lawyers - to leave it to “market conditions”.
I am not sure if the justification has taken into account that this represents a 50% increase in the course fees, based on 2008 figures.
In a jurisdiction like England & Wales, where I sat on my university’s fee-fixing committee, such an increase would be extreme and it will bring students to the streets. We had a clear policy in my university that any fee increase should be capped at 10%, and such increase would be subject to reviews by a committee of course convenors and students.
Thankfully, for SILE, we don’t live in such a demonstrative culture but we have a consultative culture. I do not recall SILE holding a consultation on such a matter. If it it did, I am ashamed that I did not express my reservations earlier.
I am not sure if the justification takes into account the circumstances of some students. I am the son of a cleaner. If I had to do the course today and taking into account that no financial institution would give my father a loan due to the high potentiality of default, I would find the figure crippling. When I did the course, I had to fund it out of a credit line, which carried an exorbitant interest rate of 24% [per annum]. I only had that facility due to my work in Singapore’s labour movement but I am not sure how many students have access to such facilities to do the same today.
In any case, the fact that most students have accepted this increase possibly reflects that they come from comfortable backgrounds. An equally plausible reason is that they don’t wish to ruffle the feathers of SILE, lest it attracts other consequences. I remember this was a real fear among my peers, who did the course (when it was under the oversight of the Board of Legal Education) with me and had concerns to raise about the course.
I accept that it will be an embarrassing situation for SILE to now revisit this increase, as much as I would like it to.
SILE and the Law Society should engage law firms, who employ practice trainees, to see if they can pay such fees upfront for practice trainees.
Alternatively, I hope that SILE and the Law Society can set up a fund to extend financial assistance to course participants, who are Singapore citizens and unable to secure retention contracts at law firms. I stand willing to pledge a donation to the fund.
Additionally, SILE and the Law Society should establish an independent committee to regularly review its course fees so that it remains affordable, taking into account the effect of inflation and other course enhancements.
As members of the legal fraternity, we have a duty towards these new potential members of our brethren. Access to our profession should be inclusive, not crippling to those who cannot afford it.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
It has recently been brought to my attention that the course fees for the equivalent of the Postgraduate Practical Law Course now known as the Preparatory Course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, now conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, has rose from S$4,280 (in 2008) to S$6,420 for Singapore citizens.
The justification given for this is that the course content has been profoundly enhanced and that these fees are usually reimbursed by the law firms offering retention contracts to the relevant course participants.
It is not a given that all such firms will reimburse the course fees. The reality today also is that not all law firms will retain their practice trainees. Many are also not willing to accept the onus of reimbursing unretained practice trainees their course fees. An exception to this is my former firm, WongPartnership LLP, that reimbursed such fees, even though the person was eventually not retained. It is unfortunate the Law Society has not been very successful in encouraging others to adopt such exemplary practice, preferring - to the frustration of young lawyers - to leave it to “market conditions”.
I am not sure if the justification has taken into account that this represents a 50% increase in the course fees, based on 2008 figures.
In a jurisdiction like England & Wales, where I sat on my university’s fee-fixing committee, such an increase would be extreme and it will bring students to the streets. We had a clear policy in my university that any fee increase should be capped at 10%, and such increase would be subject to reviews by a committee of course convenors and students.
Thankfully, for SILE, we don’t live in such a demonstrative culture but we have a consultative culture. I do not recall SILE holding a consultation on such a matter. If it it did, I am ashamed that I did not express my reservations earlier.
I am not sure if the justification takes into account the circumstances of some students. I am the son of a cleaner. If I had to do the course today and taking into account that no financial institution would give my father a loan due to the high potentiality of default, I would find the figure crippling. When I did the course, I had to fund it out of a credit line, which carried an exorbitant interest rate of 24% [per annum]. I only had that facility due to my work in Singapore’s labour movement but I am not sure how many students have access to such facilities to do the same today.
In any case, the fact that most students have accepted this increase possibly reflects that they come from comfortable backgrounds. An equally plausible reason is that they don’t wish to ruffle the feathers of SILE, lest it attracts other consequences. I remember this was a real fear among my peers, who did the course (when it was under the oversight of the Board of Legal Education) with me and had concerns to raise about the course.
I accept that it will be an embarrassing situation for SILE to now revisit this increase, as much as I would like it to.
SILE and the Law Society should engage law firms, who employ practice trainees, to see if they can pay such fees upfront for practice trainees.
Alternatively, I hope that SILE and the Law Society can set up a fund to extend financial assistance to course participants, who are Singapore citizens and unable to secure retention contracts at law firms. I stand willing to pledge a donation to the fund.
Additionally, SILE and the Law Society should establish an independent committee to regularly review its course fees so that it remains affordable, taking into account the effect of inflation and other course enhancements.
As members of the legal fraternity, we have a duty towards these new potential members of our brethren. Access to our profession should be inclusive, not crippling to those who cannot afford it.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
President has executive authority
The Minister for Law in Singapore recently issued a statement. He noted,
a. legislative (the power to make law);
b. executive (the power to administer law); and
c. judicial (the power to interpret law).
What this underscores is that, in our democratic tradition, the Minister does not have the final say on matters of legal interpretation.
As such, this frees to me register my disagreement with the Minister’s statement by relying on what the Judiciary has ruled.
I accept that the Minister has correctly set out what the President can or cannot do. However, I cannot agree with the Minister’s analysis that the powers of the President are not executive.
Article 23(1) of the Singapore Constitution clearly vests executive authority of Singapore in the President.
Article 21 clarifies the manner in which this executive authority is exercised, which the Chief Justice has summarised in the Yong Vui Kong case as follows:
In that decision, the former Chief Justice noted,
This discretion is subject, where applicable, to the mechanics laid out in the Constitution. Such discretion is not an exercise of legislative or judicial power; it is an exercise of executive power.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
"The Constitution clearly defines the role and scope of the President. He has custodial powers, not executive powers. In other words, he can veto or block Government actions in specified areas... The President’s veto powers over the Government are limited to specific areas:The doctrine of the separation of powers, which is embedded in our Constitution and which our Judiciary has emphasised time and time again (most recently in the Court of Appeal case of Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] SGCA 9), recognises three forms of powers:
(a) Protection of past reserves,i.e. reserves accumulated during previous terms of office of Government;
(b) Appointment of key personnel; and
(c) ISA detentions, CPIB investigations and any restraining order in connection with the maintenance of religious harmony."
a. legislative (the power to make law);
b. executive (the power to administer law); and
c. judicial (the power to interpret law).
What this underscores is that, in our democratic tradition, the Minister does not have the final say on matters of legal interpretation.
As such, this frees to me register my disagreement with the Minister’s statement by relying on what the Judiciary has ruled.
I accept that the Minister has correctly set out what the President can or cannot do. However, I cannot agree with the Minister’s analysis that the powers of the President are not executive.
Article 23(1) of the Singapore Constitution clearly vests executive authority of Singapore in the President.
Article 21 clarifies the manner in which this executive authority is exercised, which the Chief Justice has summarised in the Yong Vui Kong case as follows:
“In our legal order, no judge, in discharging his functions, is free to disregard fundamental principles of law. The principle that under the Singapore Constitution, the President must act on the advice of the Cabinet in all matters in the discharge of his functions, except where discretion is expressly conferred on him, is one such fundamental principle of constitutional law. This principle is set out in Art 21(1) read with Art 21(2) of the Singapore Constitution, and has been part of our constitutional order ever since Singapore attained internal self-government in 1959.”The Chief Justice’s remarks should be read in the context of observations made by his predecessor in Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 2 SLR 201.
In that decision, the former Chief Justice noted,
“The concept of an Elected Presidency was first proposed in the 1988 White Paper and subsequently refined in the 1990 White Paper. As evident from the titles of the White Papers, the Elected Presidency was designed primarily to meet two concerns of the Government, namely, how to ensure that no government, present or future, would squander the nation’s reserves and to ensure that the integrity of the public service would be preserved. The 1990 White Paper also identified three additional safeguard roles for the Elected President for which he would also be conferred discretionary powers. They were as follows:In light of these judicial pronouncements, it can be argued that the custodial or veto functions of the President represent an area of executive authority, where the President has been conferred discretion.
(a) to give or refuse his concurrence to any decision by the minister to continue to detain a person under the Internal Security Act (Cap 143) made against the recommendation of an Advisory Board;
(b) to cancel or vary a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A, 1991 Ed) where the minister acts contrary to the advice of the Presidential Council on Religious Harmony; and
(c) to concur with the decision of the Director of CPIB to proceed to investigate any minister for corrupt practices where the Prime Minister has refused his consent to such an inquiry or investigation.”
This discretion is subject, where applicable, to the mechanics laid out in the Constitution. Such discretion is not an exercise of legislative or judicial power; it is an exercise of executive power.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Unforgettable Night
In the past week, I have had at least two men facing separate allegations of outraging the modesty of women approaching me for guidance on appointing suitable legal advisers.
This is unsurprising. I am hearing of more such cases. Perhaps, we are opening up too fast as a society, or becoming trigger-happy in expressing our feelings. Alternatively, it may be due to an incapacity to control one’s rage or urge.
The men involved usually went to clubs to party. They met random women. A misunderstanding occurred. They were accused of molesting the women.
Those cases where one is charged and convicted form only a tip of the iceberg.
A lot of times, it is all a major miscommunication. The police are called in, but no investigation is initiated. Sometimes, an investigation by way of police questioning is triggered but no charges are pressed.
Then, there are those who are charged but a composition by way of settlement is mutually agreed to, and the cases are accordingly discharged. In one case many years ago, the woman expressly told the man to offer her a certain sum of money and she would, with the consent of the court, withdraw the case.
I am told such instances are not isolated, and women obviously know what their rights are in such situations.
However, this does not mean the man is free even though the court effectively acquits him. The record of the charge follows him for life.
It will come up in background checks. He will be deprived of certain jobs like joining the financial services sector or work in the protective services industry.
I am worried by this trend, that a man is black-marked for life for what is essentially a miscommunication or misunderstanding, or a lack of sensitivity in handling a member of the fairer sex.
My own sense is that we may have set the bar too low for a woman to claim she has been molested. If this is not the case, there may be a need to look at the process to enable some kind of “without prejudice” mediation or adjudication of the matter, particularly in cases where the circumstances do not justify a criminal record.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
This is unsurprising. I am hearing of more such cases. Perhaps, we are opening up too fast as a society, or becoming trigger-happy in expressing our feelings. Alternatively, it may be due to an incapacity to control one’s rage or urge.
The men involved usually went to clubs to party. They met random women. A misunderstanding occurred. They were accused of molesting the women.
Those cases where one is charged and convicted form only a tip of the iceberg.
A lot of times, it is all a major miscommunication. The police are called in, but no investigation is initiated. Sometimes, an investigation by way of police questioning is triggered but no charges are pressed.
Then, there are those who are charged but a composition by way of settlement is mutually agreed to, and the cases are accordingly discharged. In one case many years ago, the woman expressly told the man to offer her a certain sum of money and she would, with the consent of the court, withdraw the case.
I am told such instances are not isolated, and women obviously know what their rights are in such situations.
However, this does not mean the man is free even though the court effectively acquits him. The record of the charge follows him for life.
It will come up in background checks. He will be deprived of certain jobs like joining the financial services sector or work in the protective services industry.
I am worried by this trend, that a man is black-marked for life for what is essentially a miscommunication or misunderstanding, or a lack of sensitivity in handling a member of the fairer sex.
My own sense is that we may have set the bar too low for a woman to claim she has been molested. If this is not the case, there may be a need to look at the process to enable some kind of “without prejudice” mediation or adjudication of the matter, particularly in cases where the circumstances do not justify a criminal record.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Policing & Magistrate's Complaints
Some people have written to me to ask what they can do about the alleged breach of a law against campaigning over a particular period by one candidate during the recent general elections. Some people have lodged police reports against the candidate. Others are frustrated by how fast the police investigations are moving. For some background, read here (but note that I do not agree with the author's views on the rule of law).
If you lodged the police report, you are entitled to ask the investigator assigned the matter for an update.
If the police investigator does not give you a satisfactory reply, you can write to the police commissioner to lodge a complaint against the investigator.
If the police commissioner fails to act on the complaint, you can see your Member of Parliament. Persuade your Member of Parliament to raise the issue with the police. If the police investigator does not reply to the Member of Parliament, there is still the option to raise it in Parliament and to get the Executive to address the issue.
Alternatively, if you live in the affected constituency, you may wish to take legal advice and explore the option of filing a Magistrate’s Complaint.
Many criminal lawyers in Singapore take out such applications on a regular basis for their clients because the police fails to act in certain matters. For example, in 2009, about 4500 Magistrate’s Complaints were filed. If you need to find a suitable lawyer, contact the Law Society of Singapore.
Don’t just whine that the police force is sitting on your complaints. As a citizen of a democratic republic, you have certain rights. Use those rights.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
If you lodged the police report, you are entitled to ask the investigator assigned the matter for an update.
If the police investigator does not give you a satisfactory reply, you can write to the police commissioner to lodge a complaint against the investigator.
If the police commissioner fails to act on the complaint, you can see your Member of Parliament. Persuade your Member of Parliament to raise the issue with the police. If the police investigator does not reply to the Member of Parliament, there is still the option to raise it in Parliament and to get the Executive to address the issue.
Alternatively, if you live in the affected constituency, you may wish to take legal advice and explore the option of filing a Magistrate’s Complaint.
Many criminal lawyers in Singapore take out such applications on a regular basis for their clients because the police fails to act in certain matters. For example, in 2009, about 4500 Magistrate’s Complaints were filed. If you need to find a suitable lawyer, contact the Law Society of Singapore.
Don’t just whine that the police force is sitting on your complaints. As a citizen of a democratic republic, you have certain rights. Use those rights.
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Review Your Employment Contracts
In the past months, at least two friends have approached me about their employment contracts.
They told me, "I am not covered by the Employment Act. How?"
As they held management positions with their base pay exceeding S$2,500.00, they were right.
From the website of the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore:
"The Employment Act covers every employee (regardless of nationality) who is under a contract of service with an employer, except:
a) Any person employed in a managerial or executive * position
(However, managers and executives earning $2,500 basic monthly salary and below are covered for the purpose of salary protection. All other provisions do not apply to them);
b) Any seaman;
c) Any domestic worker; and
d) Any person employed by a Statutory Board or the Government.
Part IV of the Act, which provides for rest days, hours of work and other conditions of service, applies only to:
a) Workmen earning not more than $4,500 basic monthly salaries and
b) Employees earning not more than $2,000 basic monthly salaries."
This does not mean that people like my friends above have no rights. Their rights are usually determined by the employment contract executed between their respective employers and them.
This is why the employment contract is a serious document. I am surprised by the numbers of people who give scant attention to their employment document.
Perhaps, people rush into executing their employment contracts because it is very difficult for job offers to come by in a negative economic climate. But that's really a bad excuse for throwing the baby out with the water!
Before signing an employment contract:
1. Ask for a copy of it to be sent to you in advance.
2. Do some research on what the market practice is, in relation to the particular industry you have applied for.
3. Seek independent legal advice.
4. Propose amendments to the employment contract, if necessary.
5. Make sure you are protected. Secure a 'win-win' employment contract.
They told me, "I am not covered by the Employment Act. How?"
As they held management positions with their base pay exceeding S$2,500.00, they were right.
From the website of the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore:
"The Employment Act covers every employee (regardless of nationality) who is under a contract of service with an employer, except:
a) Any person employed in a managerial or executive * position
(However, managers and executives earning $2,500 basic monthly salary and below are covered for the purpose of salary protection. All other provisions do not apply to them);
b) Any seaman;
c) Any domestic worker; and
d) Any person employed by a Statutory Board or the Government.
Part IV of the Act, which provides for rest days, hours of work and other conditions of service, applies only to:
a) Workmen earning not more than $4,500 basic monthly salaries and
b) Employees earning not more than $2,000 basic monthly salaries."
This does not mean that people like my friends above have no rights. Their rights are usually determined by the employment contract executed between their respective employers and them.
This is why the employment contract is a serious document. I am surprised by the numbers of people who give scant attention to their employment document.
Perhaps, people rush into executing their employment contracts because it is very difficult for job offers to come by in a negative economic climate. But that's really a bad excuse for throwing the baby out with the water!
Before signing an employment contract:
1. Ask for a copy of it to be sent to you in advance.
2. Do some research on what the market practice is, in relation to the particular industry you have applied for.
3. Seek independent legal advice.
4. Propose amendments to the employment contract, if necessary.
5. Make sure you are protected. Secure a 'win-win' employment contract.
6. Review your employment contracts with your employer at the end of your probation period, if they decide to keep you.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Reply: Help with Full Subsidy of Compulsory Qualification Expenses
The reply below was received from the Law Society of Singapore regarding matters raised here.
On a related issue, other law firms have announced the following monthly salaries for their newly qualified lawyers or reviewed their earlier announcements:
1. Drew and Napier - $4,000
2. Shook Lin & Bok - $4,000 (reduced following review)
3. Allen & Gledhill - $4,000 (increased following review)
It confirms my earlier observations about how the legal sector in Singapore has reacted to the changes in the economy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
REPLY FROM SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COMMUNICATIONS & MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS) ON BEHALF PRESIDENT, THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE, ON 23 MARCH 2009
The fees you have stated (i.e. PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees) are usually governed by the letter of offer of pupilage, and therefore amount to legally enforceable arrangements or legal rights. The Law Society is not in an appropriate position to tell the law firms not to follow those rights or to disregard the letter of offer of pupilage.
On the other hand, the Society understands the predicament facing the pupils in the current economic crisis. The President will include a message in his next President’s message in the Singapore Law Gazette to encourage firms, who can afford and are not retaining the pupils, to reimburse the fees stated above.
On a related issue, other law firms have announced the following monthly salaries for their newly qualified lawyers or reviewed their earlier announcements:
1. Drew and Napier - $4,000
2. Shook Lin & Bok - $4,000 (reduced following review)
3. Allen & Gledhill - $4,000 (increased following review)
It confirms my earlier observations about how the legal sector in Singapore has reacted to the changes in the economy.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
REPLY FROM SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COMMUNICATIONS & MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS) ON BEHALF PRESIDENT, THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE, ON 23 MARCH 2009
The fees you have stated (i.e. PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees) are usually governed by the letter of offer of pupilage, and therefore amount to legally enforceable arrangements or legal rights. The Law Society is not in an appropriate position to tell the law firms not to follow those rights or to disregard the letter of offer of pupilage.
On the other hand, the Society understands the predicament facing the pupils in the current economic crisis. The President will include a message in his next President’s message in the Singapore Law Gazette to encourage firms, who can afford and are not retaining the pupils, to reimburse the fees stated above.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Help with Full Subsidy of Compulsory Qualification Expenses
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE ON 28 MARCH 2009
Last week, I wrote to you about the need for the Law Society to extend help to pupils, who have not been retained by various law firms. I am happy that the Law Society has acted quickly to look into this matter and is continuing to do so.
I want to highlight to you another disturbing practice that I think the Law Society should look into and help resolve in relation to unretained pupils: reimbursement of PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees.
At least one large law firm has a commendable practice. This large law firm fully subsidises PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees, provided pupillage is completed with them.
However, there are law firms, who do not observe this practice. Instead, what follows in the next paragraph has been a typical story so far.
Several of these pupils were made to work long hours, burn their weekends and holidays, and consciously take steps to distance themselves from their loved ones. These sacrifices were made with the promise and expectation of lucrative retention contracts. Now, as the end of their pupillage period draws near and the utility of the pupil to the law firm comes to an end, these pupils have been told that they will not be retained. In most cases, this is no fault of the unretained pupils but attributable largely to the ambitious recruitment planning of their respective law firms. These unretained pupils will now be penalised by the forfeiture of PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees.
As young lawyers enter practice, they are told legendary tales of the unity of our profession and about how we never fail to help one of our own in trouble. It is time to bring such legends home.
I hope the Law Society will enter into discussions with law firms, who have not retained pupils, to help the affected pupils get their PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees reimbursed.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Last week, I wrote to you about the need for the Law Society to extend help to pupils, who have not been retained by various law firms. I am happy that the Law Society has acted quickly to look into this matter and is continuing to do so.
I want to highlight to you another disturbing practice that I think the Law Society should look into and help resolve in relation to unretained pupils: reimbursement of PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees.
At least one large law firm has a commendable practice. This large law firm fully subsidises PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees, provided pupillage is completed with them.
However, there are law firms, who do not observe this practice. Instead, what follows in the next paragraph has been a typical story so far.
Several of these pupils were made to work long hours, burn their weekends and holidays, and consciously take steps to distance themselves from their loved ones. These sacrifices were made with the promise and expectation of lucrative retention contracts. Now, as the end of their pupillage period draws near and the utility of the pupil to the law firm comes to an end, these pupils have been told that they will not be retained. In most cases, this is no fault of the unretained pupils but attributable largely to the ambitious recruitment planning of their respective law firms. These unretained pupils will now be penalised by the forfeiture of PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees.
As young lawyers enter practice, they are told legendary tales of the unity of our profession and about how we never fail to help one of our own in trouble. It is time to bring such legends home.
I hope the Law Society will enter into discussions with law firms, who have not retained pupils, to help the affected pupils get their PLC, EFS, dining and other compulsory filing fees reimbursed.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Friday, March 27, 2009
2009 Salaries For Newly Qualifed Lawyers
Several newly qualified lawyers in Singapore have sought my views on salaries they are being offered by their employers.
Starting salaries at law firms are probably a good indication of how well the firm is doing in these times. It is also perhaps an indication of how much law firms value the talents they attract.
Over the past months, large law firms have announced the following monthly salaries for their newly qualified lawyers:
a. TSMP - $5,000
b. WongPartnership - $4,800
c. Shook Lin & Bok - $4,300
d. Rajah & Tann - $4,000
e. Allen & Gledhill - $3,800 (and no review till 2010)
f. Khattar Wong - $3,500
Many, whose corporate teams have been hit ominously by the economy, have announced lower salaries than in the past year.
Despite this, small and medium-sized firms, which rely primarily on litigation or other dispute resolution work, are not cutting back their salaries. Most are paying starting salaries of between $4,000 and $4,500, in addition to offering their young lawyers referral bonuses (ranging between 20% - 30%) for business brought into the firm. A few firms have been known to offer less than $3,500.
Young lawyers receiving offers of less than $4,000 should consider alternative careers in public service or other positions in the private sector. They will probably be paid similarly, and will also be in a better position to pursue their respective interests. They should also ask themselves if law is really what they want to do.
I know a few newly qualified lawyers are considering taking a break until the market picks up. Some are going travelling or looking at doing pro-bono legal work in international organisations.
Nevertheless, if you love the law or can see yourself in law till you enter your grave, the salary you receive should be of less concern. The experience you get should be the primary concern.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Starting salaries at law firms are probably a good indication of how well the firm is doing in these times. It is also perhaps an indication of how much law firms value the talents they attract.
Over the past months, large law firms have announced the following monthly salaries for their newly qualified lawyers:
a. TSMP - $5,000
b. WongPartnership - $4,800
c. Shook Lin & Bok - $4,300
d. Rajah & Tann - $4,000
e. Allen & Gledhill - $3,800 (and no review till 2010)
f. Khattar Wong - $3,500
Many, whose corporate teams have been hit ominously by the economy, have announced lower salaries than in the past year.
Despite this, small and medium-sized firms, which rely primarily on litigation or other dispute resolution work, are not cutting back their salaries. Most are paying starting salaries of between $4,000 and $4,500, in addition to offering their young lawyers referral bonuses (ranging between 20% - 30%) for business brought into the firm. A few firms have been known to offer less than $3,500.
Young lawyers receiving offers of less than $4,000 should consider alternative careers in public service or other positions in the private sector. They will probably be paid similarly, and will also be in a better position to pursue their respective interests. They should also ask themselves if law is really what they want to do.
I know a few newly qualified lawyers are considering taking a break until the market picks up. Some are going travelling or looking at doing pro-bono legal work in international organisations.
Nevertheless, if you love the law or can see yourself in law till you enter your grave, the salary you receive should be of less concern. The experience you get should be the primary concern.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Reply: Connect Young Lawyers To Employers
The following reply was received from the Law Society of Singapore regarding matters raised here.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
REPLY FROM SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COMMUNICATIONS & MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS) ON BEHALF PRESIDENT, THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE, ON 23 MARCH 2009
We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We agreed your concerns are valid and we will immediately step up publicity to increase our members’ and general public’s awareness of our website facility to match pupils to law practices. In this regard, we will also speak to both the Chairpersons of our Small Firms Committee and Young Lawyers Committee to assist us in our publicity efforts and explore ways to assist the pupils.
Our website facility has been underutilised in the past as you have rightly pointed out that majority of pupils has no problem securing employment. There was no necessity for any third party to intervene into the employment market of the legal fraternity.
Once again, the Society expresses its gratitude to you for taking time to bring this matter to our attention.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
REPLY FROM SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (COMMUNICATIONS & MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS) ON BEHALF PRESIDENT, THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE, ON 23 MARCH 2009
We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
We agreed your concerns are valid and we will immediately step up publicity to increase our members’ and general public’s awareness of our website facility to match pupils to law practices. In this regard, we will also speak to both the Chairpersons of our Small Firms Committee and Young Lawyers Committee to assist us in our publicity efforts and explore ways to assist the pupils.
Our website facility has been underutilised in the past as you have rightly pointed out that majority of pupils has no problem securing employment. There was no necessity for any third party to intervene into the employment market of the legal fraternity.
Once again, the Society expresses its gratitude to you for taking time to bring this matter to our attention.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Connect Young Lawyers To Employers
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE ON 22 MARCH 2009
Several law firms have announced that they will not be retaining all the pupils they had recruited. While announcements are pending from certain law firms, there are indications that they too may not be retaining all their present pupils. Most of these pupils affected were attached to corporate legal teams but there are some from litigation practices. This is a clear departure from past years where law firms announced 100% retention very early in the year.
There are several positive signs in this trend. It has prompted more applicants to look to small and medium law firms for possible pupillage and employment. It has encouraged more to consider advocacy work, which remains a growth area in these uncertain times. More have also tampered their expectations of pursuing lucrative retention contracts with large law firms, as the disdvantages and opportunity costs of doing so clearly outweigh the benefits.
The Law Society of Singapore can help in this regard by compiling a list of law firms willing and able to recruit newly qualified lawyers at this point. The Law Society can also serve as a resume bank for pupils and connect them to suitable opportunities in the market. I am aware the Law Society maintains a list here but I am not sure if it is updated.
Similarly, the Young Lawyers Committee of the Law Society, perhaps together with the Professional Affairs Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law, can take an active interest in this area by being more proactive in these times. There are many things it can do in this regard.
The Singapore Corporate Counsel Association has already agreed to render assistance to those pupils not retained and who are interested in doing legal work in in-house legal teams by compiling a list of employers still open to recruiting such persons in their respective legal teams.
Similarly, I understand the Workforce Development Agency is coming up with a scheme to help fresh graduates and apprentices by supplementing salaries with subsidies.
This information can be shared with the law firms who may be open to recruiting newly-qualified lawyers and current pupils or newly-qualified lawyers.
I hope you will consider these suggestions.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Several law firms have announced that they will not be retaining all the pupils they had recruited. While announcements are pending from certain law firms, there are indications that they too may not be retaining all their present pupils. Most of these pupils affected were attached to corporate legal teams but there are some from litigation practices. This is a clear departure from past years where law firms announced 100% retention very early in the year.
There are several positive signs in this trend. It has prompted more applicants to look to small and medium law firms for possible pupillage and employment. It has encouraged more to consider advocacy work, which remains a growth area in these uncertain times. More have also tampered their expectations of pursuing lucrative retention contracts with large law firms, as the disdvantages and opportunity costs of doing so clearly outweigh the benefits.
The Law Society of Singapore can help in this regard by compiling a list of law firms willing and able to recruit newly qualified lawyers at this point. The Law Society can also serve as a resume bank for pupils and connect them to suitable opportunities in the market. I am aware the Law Society maintains a list here but I am not sure if it is updated.
Similarly, the Young Lawyers Committee of the Law Society, perhaps together with the Professional Affairs Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law, can take an active interest in this area by being more proactive in these times. There are many things it can do in this regard.
The Singapore Corporate Counsel Association has already agreed to render assistance to those pupils not retained and who are interested in doing legal work in in-house legal teams by compiling a list of employers still open to recruiting such persons in their respective legal teams.
Similarly, I understand the Workforce Development Agency is coming up with a scheme to help fresh graduates and apprentices by supplementing salaries with subsidies.
This information can be shared with the law firms who may be open to recruiting newly-qualified lawyers and current pupils or newly-qualified lawyers.
I hope you will consider these suggestions.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Service For Persons Seeking Legal Representation
LETTER SENT TO LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE AND SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ON 19 OCTOBER 2008
There have been a number of instances, where a person needs legal advice and is unable to find a suitable lawyer to represent him or her. This does not paint a helpful picture of the legal profession.
I would like to suggest that either the Law Society of Singapore or Singapore Academy of Law consider setting up a section on its website for persons requiring legal representation. The information about such persons should be retained on that section so long as the person requires legal representation and is unable to secure such representation.
Lawyers can be frequently encouraged to visit this section of the website or to receive by e-mail information updates on the website. Using information available on the website, they can contact persons, whose cases they may be interested to take up.
For this service, the relevant operator can charge a nominal fee of $1 - $10. The amount collected from such fees can be used to offset the cost of running this service.
I hope the Law Society of Singapore or Singapore Academy of Law can consider providing this service.
It is in the interest of the legal fraternity to facilitate access to justice in Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
There have been a number of instances, where a person needs legal advice and is unable to find a suitable lawyer to represent him or her. This does not paint a helpful picture of the legal profession.
I would like to suggest that either the Law Society of Singapore or Singapore Academy of Law consider setting up a section on its website for persons requiring legal representation. The information about such persons should be retained on that section so long as the person requires legal representation and is unable to secure such representation.
Lawyers can be frequently encouraged to visit this section of the website or to receive by e-mail information updates on the website. Using information available on the website, they can contact persons, whose cases they may be interested to take up.
For this service, the relevant operator can charge a nominal fee of $1 - $10. The amount collected from such fees can be used to offset the cost of running this service.
I hope the Law Society of Singapore or Singapore Academy of Law can consider providing this service.
It is in the interest of the legal fraternity to facilitate access to justice in Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Singapore Wonder
.jpg)
Seen on the outer walls of the current Supreme Court of Singapore building.
Art or anatomy?
Tasteful or downright vulgar?
No wonder the honourable Former Speaker of Parliament Tan Soo Khoon had no qualms referring to this Supreme Court building as one of the "Seven Wonders of Singapore".
One wonders indeed.
Thank you for permitting me to use this photograph, Puja V.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)