The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Lawyers and Barristers|What's the matter about the dispute of "promoting immortality" among legal officers?

2021-08-19T10:02:58.671Z


The SAR government earlier submitted the "Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 2021" to the Legislative Council to allow legal officers who are not barristers to have the qualifications to be appointed as senior counsel (commonly known as "Senior Counsel"). The results cited


The SAR government earlier submitted the "Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 2021" to the Legislative Council to allow legal officers who are not barristers to have the qualifications to be appointed as Senior Counsel (commonly known as "Senior Counsel"), which caused controversy in the industry , Criticizing the amendments as not in the public interest, ignoring the social value of titles, dwarfing the status of Senior Counsel, and so on.

However, are these claims reasonable?


Legal officers have no distinction between the functions of lawyers and barristers

In fact, long before the Administration proposed to amend the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 2021, the industry had disagreements on the arrangements for legal officers to "promote".

In fact, legal personnel working in the SAR government, including all government lawyers, prosecutors, and legal professionals in other departments in the Department of Justice, do not have the functions of "lawyers" or "barristers"; However, according to section 31A of the current "Legal Practitioners Ordinance", only "barristers" who meet certain conditions, such as the Chief Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, have sufficient competence, prestige and legal knowledge, and usually have no less than 10 years of relevant experience. Experience is the only qualification for appointment as a "Senior Counsel."

In other words, legal officers who are not "barristers", even if they can perform the same defense work as legal officers who are admitted as barristers on weekdays, they do not have the qualifications to be appointed as "senior counsel".

Therefore, legal officers have long questioned the unfairness of the Ordinance and failed to allow non-barristers to obtain fair recognition.

At the end of March this year, there was a case of "sen rise" that received much attention.

The Deputy Commissioner for Criminal Prosecutions of the Department of Justice, Lin Yingqian, who was just qualified as a barrister last year, was appointed as Senior Counsel by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Zhang Ju-neng. This caused the industry to question that she may not be qualified for the relevant status if she has only one year of experience as a barrister.

However, Lin Yingqian responded that she has served as a government lawyer for many years, which means she meets the qualifications required by the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and the Legal Officers Ordinance.

Senior counsel, Lin Yingqian, has served as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice for more than 20 years and has extensive prosecution experience. However, she was transferred from a lawyer to a barrister last year and was "senior" one year later, which triggered subsequent legal officers. The controversy of "Sheng Xian".

(Photo by Ou Jiale)

This brought to the surface the issue of differential treatment of legal practitioners in the "Legal Practitioners Ordinance". The Secretary for Justice Zheng Ruohua then proposed to amend the "Legal Practitioners Ordinance" on June 21, and then submitted it to the Legislative Council on July 7. Submit the "Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill 2021" to allow "persons who are legal officers but not barristers" to be appointed as Senior Counsel, hoping to allow them to enjoy equal treatment; however, the "Draft" "It also stipulates that persons appointed as Senior Counsel under the new law can only be entitled to use and enjoy the title and status of "Senior Counsel" while serving as a legal officer.

In view of the different interests of different sectors, the "Draft" was supported by the Hong Kong Law Society, but it was opposed by the Hong Kong Bar Association.

For example, Senior Counsel Leung Ka-kit, who was the former chairman of the Bar Association, questioned that the authorities' move was to fill a large number of senior legal staff due to political issues.

The Bar Association also issued a statement on July 7 against the amendment, emphasizing that "Senior Counsel" represents unique social status and professional responsibilities, but "legal officers" are "internal positions" employed by the government. If they were rashly allowed to become "Senior Counsel", it would violate the honor's image of equality, independence and professionalism, and would not be in the public interest.

The Association also suggested that if the Department of Justice intends to commend outstanding legal personnel, it may consider adding "senior government advocates" and "senior legal advocates". I believe it would be more appropriate.

The Secretary of Justice Zheng Ruohua proposed to amend the "Legal Practitioners Ordinance" on June 21, which was opposed by the Hong Kong Bar Association and believed that the amendment was not in the public interest.

(Photo by Zheng Zifeng)

The amendments did not lower the approval standards of "Senior Counsel"

With the "blessing" of the Bar Association, the incident immediately attracted public attention, and public opinion also tended to criticize the authorities.

However, when Senior Counsel Tan Yunzhi, who also served as the chairman of the Bar Association, was interviewed by "Hong Kong 01", he refuted the statement.

She pointed out that the amendments did not lower the examination and approval standards of "Senior Counsel" because applicants who are not barristers still need to meet the requirements of item (2) (3) of 31A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance—that is, to obtain the final review The chief judge of the court determined that the barrister or legal officer has sufficient ability, reputation and knowledge to become a senior barrister, and has no less than 10 years of professional experience.

Tan Yunzhi emphasized that the appointment criteria are particularly important and still depend on the person’s legal control ability, personal advocacy ability, court practical experience and virtues, etc., and the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal will still consult extensively with judges from the high courts, district courts and various industries. In order to understand the performance of the opposing party's defense, the Association does not have the so-called "dwarfing Senior Counsel".

Tan Yunzhi, the former chairman of the Bar Association, believes that the so-called "dwarfing senior counsel" does not exist in the amendment.

(Photo by Huang Baoying)

As for the Bar Association’s concern, legal officers employed by the government may not be able to maintain the independence of senior counsel. This argument is also debatable, because all legal officers are inherently responsible for defending judicial independence and adhering to legal principles.

For example, Article 2 of the Lawyers' Practice Rules stipulates that no solicitor shall make any harm or may damage his independence in the course of his practice.

As a legal officer, the lawyer's vision and commitment also emphasize the promotion of judicial justice, adhere to its independent criminal prosecution function, free from any interference, and provide the government with independent and professional legal opinions and other principles of judicial independence.

It seems unfair to question the other party's failure to uphold the principle of independence and professional ethics simply because the legal officer is employed by the government.

Moreover, the Bar Association questioned that legal officers may not be able to maintain the peace and independence of senior counsel after being "rised" on the one hand, but on the other hand, it believes that legal officers who are "rised" under the current system can be qualified to serve as senior counsel ( That is, solicitors and legal personnel with advocacy experience can be transferred to barristers after completing the three-month internship, and they can enjoy the same qualifications and opportunities as other barristers, and they can apply for the title of "senior". This is not a contradiction. NS?

Why should legal officials who are also employed by the government be treated so differently?

Is the professional performance and independent nature of "barristers" necessarily superior to others?

Tan Yunzhi believes that allowing legal officers who are not barristers to apply for "Senior Counsel" should be conducive to boosting the "morale" of the Department of Justice; and the restriction of not being able to retain titles after resignation can also reduce the loss of legal officers.

(Profile picture)

No!

Tan Yunzhi said that the three-month internship period did not make the legal officer "suddenly change the second person," but the status and title changed.

However, even if some legal officers have better advocacy experience than many barristers, under the current procedures, it is still necessary to "artificially" go through this insignificant procedure and practice for three months.

Looking at this amendment, Tan Yunzhi believes that allowing legal officers who are not barristers to apply for "Senior Counsel" should be conducive to boosting the "morale" of the Department of Justice; and the restriction of not being able to retain titles after resignation can also reduce the law. The loss of politicians, it is believed that after working in the private market for a certain number of years and meeting the conditions, the people concerned can still apply for "cents promotion". She also asked: "Lin Yingqian, who used to "Shengxian", faces barristers and senior counsels in court every day, and most of the government cases (cases) have not hired foreign aid (barrister). If she is an experienced People, why can’t you be a (Senior Counsel)?”

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2021-08-19

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-26T04:54:57.642Z
News/Politics 2024-03-06T14:06:23.410Z
Life/Entertain 2024-02-14T18:49:30.619Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.