I admit I’m surprised that TOC linked me for a post which was more of a personal reflective exercise. Now that so many people have read Part 1, I’m obliged to follow this through all the way. But it’s a taxing endeavour, so I’ll have to leave Part 2 to the weekend.

As an interlude, let me talk a little about legal costs, a topic I’ve been meaning to deal with for some time.

First up, some stuff from round the Net:

“These days, the weighing scales of Lady Justice have abandoned their metaphorical function. It is no longer the relative merits of divergent accounts that hang in her beam balance. It is money – and we are all poorer for it.”
(thegreatsze: “If Talk is Cheap, Why Do Lawyers Earn So Much?”)

*** *** ***

AG Chao urges law firms to support training of new breed of lawyers
Posted: 13 September 2007 2051 hrs

SINGAPORE : Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin has urged the legal profession “to dispel the myth” that its sole interest is to make money.

And one way to do this is to follow the footsteps of some law firms such as KhattarWong, Wong Partnership and Rodyk & Davidson LLP and individuals like Mr Joseph Grimberg and Mr Harry Elias in giving generously.

AG Chao said this is the way to nurture a new generation of young lawyers who are articulate and have a strong sense of commitment to society and the less fortunate.

… …

“I sincerely hope that more local law firms, as well as individual lawyers, will respond wholeheartedly to the call to uphold the philanthropic spirit. The move by the Law Society to provide more pro bono legal services in the HDB heartlands is a commendable step in the right direction.”

(Full article available here at Channelnewsasia.com).

*** *** ***

Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office opens
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 10 September 2007 2005 hrs

SINGAPORE : Singapore’s legal profession has not forgotten its social responsibility to the man-in-the street, especially the less fortunate.

This is demonstrated by the opening of the Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office at the Subordinate Courts.

Senior Minister of State for Law Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee said it is one of the concrete steps the Law Society has taken to encourage lawyers to each contribute 25 hours of pro bono work a year. Pro bono means doing work without asking for payment.

… … …

[Professor Ho said, ] “The inculcating of a spirit of voluntarism as lawyers chip in to serve on the many platforms created by the Law Society will help foster a stronger esprit-de-corp in the profession.

“As an honourable profession, we should continue to strive to instil a sense of pride and purpose in our lawyers, especially the younger ones. Helping them channel their expressions of responsibility through platforms like these Community Legal Clinics will go some way to bolster this sense of pride and purpose.”

(Full article available here at Channelnewsasia.com).

*** *** ***

The official line as regards the accessibility and affordability of justice is quite familiar. On the one hand, we should leave the determination of legal costs to market forces. On the other hand, lawyers should be ‘encouraged’ to embark on pro bono work.

I do think that the consumer market for legal services is pretty competitive. Last year, according to the Law Society, there were 711 small firms (1-5 partners), 78 mid-sized firms (6-30 partners) and 16 large-sized firms (31 partners and above) (as cited in Law Gazette (Jan 07)). So by no stretch of imagination is there any monopoly in the private sector. The public sector is a different matter; then again, complaints about exorbitant lawyers’ fees are invariably directed at the private sector.

But there are some indicators of possible market failure as well. For one, any profession entails informational asymmetry, meaning that the consumer of a professional service has no way to decide what exactly is fair remuneration for the work done, and what is excessive — simply because he does not really understand the work done!

Second, the supply of lawyers is restricted at the outset. The 2 local law schools, NUS and SMU, tacitly enforce a cap on their yearly intakes, at the Government’s behest. Moreover, as far as I know, law is the only profession which has an additional set of requirements that one must satisfy in order to enter into legal practice, viz a second-upper class honours from an ‘approved’ university (if you have an overseas law degree), a pass in the PLC, and the requirement of pupillage. A relatively small supply of lawyers will mean that law firms have to pay more in order to attract fresh talent.

Finally, we must note that market failure is remedied to some extent in the other professions. The medical profession has a substantial public sector component, in which salaries are regulated and patient subsidies are widely available. Engineers, architects and accountants, because of the nature of their work, tend to render their services to large corporations, rather than private individuals — how often does 1 person need to have a bridge built, a bungalow designed in a neo-colonial style, financial accounts audited? Large corporations have relatively stronger bargaining power, which keeps a lid on professional fees.

Of course, law firms do have plenty of commercial clients. But that’s not who we’re concerned with when we talk about the affordability of legal services. We’re concerned about the individual client, the man on the street who wants to safeguard his personal rights. While legal fees here may be low enough in the eyes of Fortune 500 companies, they may still be exorbitant to the average person. Should we leave the prevailing ‘market rates’ wholly dependent on the willingness of large corporations to bargain for lower lawyers’ fees?

Neither does the legal profession (unlike the medical profession) have a public sector which caters to the average citizen. A government corps of magistrates, judges, registrars, law clerks, public prosecutors, and government legal counsel do little by way of direct legal services to members of society, leaving aside grandiose notions of “upholding justice.” The Legal Aid Bureau makes very little impact, because it has a stringent ‘means test’ (your disposable capital must not exceed $10,000, and your annual disposable income must not exceed $10,000).

Given the foregoing discussion, it seems woefully inadequate if our only response is to ‘encourage’ lawyers to perform 25 hours of pro bono work per year. I cannot offer any brilliant solutions, but I do think the status quo is indefensible. Worse, all this patting ourselves on the back for showing a “spirit of voluntarism” is just self-congratulatory tosh. We must do much more to ensure that justice is not denied simply on the basis of one’s poverty.