Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Law.

12.39 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill contains amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966 to lift the overall standards of the professional training regime for lawyers, following the work of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (the Committee) and to make other miscellaneous and technical amendments.

The Committee was set up by the honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon in August 2016 to conduct a root-and-branch review of the professional training regime for lawyers. This review was aimed at raising the quality and consistency of training standards across the industry.

The Committee was chaired by Justice Quentin Loh and comprised 14 other members including representatives from the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), the Law Society of Singapore, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and various Singapore law practices.

A working group comprising representatives from MinLaw, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), the Supreme Court and the Law Society of Singapore was subsequently set up to implement and operationalise the Committee's recommendations, which my Ministry had accepted in-principle.

A separate working group was established by the SILE to implement the Committee's recommendations on Part B and practice training. This working group comprises representatives from the SILE's Board, Singapore law practices, the three local law schools, the Law Society, the Singapore Academy of Law, the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association, the Attorney-General's Chambers and MinLaw.

In 2019, MinLaw conducted a public consultation on the working group's proposals for implementing the Committee's recommendations. The respondents comprised a good mix of practitioners, in-house counsel, law students, young lawyers and members of the public. The majority supported the working group's proposals.

This Bill contains amendments to implement these recommendations by the Committee: (a) decouple admission to the Singapore Bar from the completion of practice training contracts; (b) lengthen the practice training period from six months to one year; (c) confer on practice trainees limited rights to practise after six months of training; (d) permit up to three months of the practice training period to be completed at approved in-house legal departments of approved corporations; and (e) introduce a moratorium for practice training contract applications.

I will now cover each of the key amendments in turn. The rest of the Committee's recommendations will be implemented progressively via guidance notes and industry announcements, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders from the working group.

I will start with the amendment in relation to decoupling admission to the Singapore Bar from the completion of practice training contracts.

The existing framework for admission to the Singapore Bar as an Advocate and Solicitor (A&S) requires law graduates to, amongst other requirements, pass Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations (the Part B examinations) and complete a prescribed practice training period.

During the practice training period, the law graduate receives supervised training in relation to the practice of Singapore law under a formal training arrangement. This formal training arrangement between a law graduate and a Singapore law practice is known as a "practice training contract".

Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new category of individuals. Law graduates who pass the Part B examinations can now be admitted to the Singapore Bar as a lawyer (non-practitioner), or lawyer (NP), without needing to complete the prescribed practice training period.

A lawyer (NP) does not have the right to practise in law firms and similar entities; instead a lawyer (NP) can adopt alternative pathways such as becoming in-house counsel or in academia.

The prescribed practice training period remains compulsory for a lawyer (NP) who wishes to practise law in a law firm or similar entity. Such a lawyer (NP) may be admitted as an A&S and will have the rights and obligations of one after the completion of the prescribed practice training period.

This enhancement to the admission framework recognises that a legal education can lead to different legal career pathways.

MinLaw remains focused on developing a strong core of practising lawyers to serve Singapore's society and to provide high quality legal services to enhance our business environment. However, our reality is one of a fast-changing operating environment and we need legal talent to support all aspects of our economy and society.

Law graduates can join in-house counsel teams, legal tech companies or enter academia. They can contribute to the legal services sector and in other sectors which may benefit from legal expertise in a variety of roles and functions.

For those who do not intend to practise, this change allows them to be admitted to the Singapore Bar earlier, since they do not need to complete practice training. This also frees up more practice training contracts for those who intend to practise law.

As highlighted in the Forward SG report, one of our shared visions is to embrace a wider variety of career pathways. We are committed to recognising that there are diverse pathways that are available for our lawyers to develop their full potential. Hence, this change will allow law graduates who do not wish to practise to embark on their chosen career pathways sooner.

A lawyer (NP)’s rights and obligations will be similar to a non-practising A&S who does not have in force a Practising Certificate (PC). For example, lawyers (NP) may work as in-house counsel and may provide pro bono or free legal advice. They will also be members of the Singapore Academy of Law and be members of the Law Society of Singapore. Lawyers (NP) will also be officers of the court, like A&Ses today, and subject to the disciplinary oversight of the Courts.

Furthermore, under Clause 16 of the Bill, a lawyer (NP) who is employed by a law practice, but is not a practice trainee and who does not have a provisional PC, may be registered as a regulated non-practitioner under section 36G of the Act. Such registration will be subject to the prevailing framework for regulated non-practitioners, including being entitled to be a director, partner or shareholder of a law firm or similar entity.

I will elaborate on provisional PCs later on.

Similarly, the Bill will also permit non-practising A&Ses to be registered as regulated non-practitioners, subject to the prevailing requirements. This acknowledges that an individual who is admitted to the Singapore Bar, can contribute to a law practice even if he or she does not practise.

Moving on, I also wish to highlight that the Committee also recommended lengthening the practice training period, which is currently a minimum of six months, to one year. While this change will be given effect to via upcoming amendments to the subsidiary legislation, I would like to mention this briefly, so that Members have an overall picture of the changes.

This change is only one example of consistent efforts to holistically lift the standards of the legal industry. My Ministry is also involved in ongoing reviews in other aspects covering areas such as legal education, and ethics and professional standards of lawyers.

These reviews aim to enhance the quality of the legal workforce and complement the Committee’s recommendations.

In an increasingly complex and competitive operating environment, there is a greater demand for legal professionals that provide high-quality advice and solutions to clients with multi-faceted problems.

One key objective is to produce law graduates who will be equipped with the necessary skill sets and be better prepared to enter into the legal workforce.

In conjunction with these efforts, the lengthened practice training period will: give practice trainees a longer period of direct mentorship to develop a strong foundation for a sustainable and fulfilling career in legal practice; better equip practice trainees for entry into private practice through greater exposure to a range of practice areas; and allow law practices to make a more holistic assessment of trainees’ performance.

In other jurisdictions like France, Germany and Hong Kong, there is also emphasis on the practice training to complement formal education where solicitors are required to undergo two years of training.

The SILE has published a detailed Notice on New Admission Regime on their website. The Notice captures the proposals from the multi-stakeholder working groups. It outlines the new training requirements and options available to law graduates seeking to complete their practice training period.

MinLaw is aware of industry concerns surrounding the lengthened practice training period, including the additional strain this may place on both future practice trainees and law practices seeking to offer practice training contracts.

MinLaw is working closely with the SILE and the Law Society on these concerns. Areas that we are looking into include arrangements for leave days and medical leave, and renumeration for practice trainees commensurate with their contributions during their training period.

Another amendment relates to providing trainees the option to practise provisionally under supervision. Clause 12 introduces a framework for “Provisional Practising Certificates”, or provisional PC. A lawyer (NP) who is a practice trainee may apply for a provisional PC after completing at least six months of practice training.

This will replace the existing “part-call” regime, which only permits practice trainees to have restricted rights of audience to appear and plead before the Courts. The provisional PC provides exposure to a broader variety of experiences that more closely reflect the realities and rigours of private practice.

A practice trainee who has a provisional PC will be able to undertake work that a practising A&S may do – for example, appear and plead in Court, and render legal advice to clients – provided this is done under the supervision of his or her supervising solicitor.

This will contribute to building a stronger foundation for young lawyers who are starting their legal careers and can provide a smoother transition to independent practice.

Clause 12 also sets out the power of the Attorney-General, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and the Council of the Law Society of Singapore in respect of the issue of provisional PCs and the imposition of any further conditions thereof. It also sets out when an application for a provisional PC may be refused, and when a provisional PC may be suspended or cancelled.

Provision is also made for appeals against the Registrar’s decisions in provisional PC applications, and to introduce measures concerning a lawyer (NP)’s fitness to practise provisionally and when a lawyer (NP) is disqualified from applying for a provisional PC. These are substantively similar to the corresponding provisions in the LPA concerning PCs and A&Ses.

The next amendment in the Bill provides flexibility for practice trainees to complete up to three months of their practice training at approved in-house legal departments of approved non-law practice entities. This expands the training options for practice trainees and can add to their breadth of practical and commercial experience, so that they are better able to meet the needs of the businesses.

To ensure that these practice trainees receive proper supervision and training within the in-house legal department, an approved non-law practice entity must be of a minimum size and handle a reasonable amount of Singapore law-related work. The SILE, in consultation with the working group, is working through the applicable criteria. These criteria will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.

A further amendment relates to the moratorium for practice training contract applications. At present, the search for practice training contracts is highly competitive. MinLaw has received feedback that law students feel pressured to start competing with their peers for practice training contracts from as early as their first year in law school.

The Committee recommended a moratorium period, before which law students cannot apply for practice training contracts and law practices cannot offer them. This would alleviate the law students’ anxieties in the practice training contract application process. Further details on the moratorium’s implementation will be announced in due course. This includes when the moratorium will be introduced, its duration, the relevant criteria for compliance, and the consequences of any breach. The Bill amends the Act to provide flexibility to implement these details in the future.

The next set of amendments relate to interim disciplinary provisions. Clauses 25 provides that lawyers (NP) are officers of the Supreme Court. Just like A&Ses, lawyers (NP) will be subject to the disciplinary proceedings framework in Part 7 of the Act.

In this regard, MinLaw is currently conducting a broader review of the Act’s disciplinary proceedings framework as a whole, with a view towards further legislative amendments in the future. This review takes into account recent developments in the case law, as well as feedback from various stakeholders on the Act’s existing provisions. In doing so, MinLaw aims to ensure that the law is clear, that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are conducted expeditiously and fairly, and that the Act continues to engender public trust in the legal profession.

This review is complex. Members who are lawyers will appreciate how the Act’s various discipline-related provisions are inter-connected. MinLaw will require more time to complete the review, including consulting relevant stakeholders.

In the meantime, clauses 26 to 31 of the Bill insert interim provisions for the discipline of lawyers (NP). These interim provisions are based on today’s existing provisions for the discipline of non-practising A&Ses, practice trainees and “part-called” individuals, with adjustments where appropriate. The substance of these interim provisions are subject to change, pending the completion of the review.

The amendment at clause 48 of the Bill contains transitional arrangements to implement the changes. As announced by my Ministry earlier in February this year, the new admission framework will take effect from the 2024 session of the Part B Bar Examinations onwards.

Individuals who became qualified persons before 1 November 2023 may apply for admission to the Singapore Bar under the current admission framework, if they meet the current requirements and apply for admission as an A&S before the 2024 session of the Part B Examinations.

We recognise, however, that some individuals may become qualified persons between 1 November 2023 and 31 January 2024, and are able to complete six months of practice training before the new admission framework is implemented in 2024. They will be able to apply for admission as an A&S under the current admission framework if they pass the Part B examinations by a date prescribed in subsidiary legislation. This prescribed date will be in the second half of 2025.

This Bill also makes miscellaneous and technical amendments to the Act and clarifies certain provisions based on stakeholders’ feedback. I will highlight two such amendments.

The first clarifies the Court’s powers in an application to be admitted to the Singapore Bar, after the recent incidents of individuals cheating during the Part B examinations. The Court may, considering the applicant’s conduct, character and other relevant circumstances: (a) adjourn the application for a specified period; (b) allow it to be withdrawn; or (c) make any other appropriate order.

The second clarifies that a Court of 3 Supreme Court Judges constituted under the Act may conduct or hear a matter through electronic means, unless otherwise prescribed. Similar amendments pertaining to the Supreme Court, State Courts, and Family Justice Courts were made via the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021. This amendment is clarificatory in nature and does not introduce new powers.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the amendments that I have mentioned are part of our efforts to lift the overall standards of the professional training regime for lawyers to develop a future-ready legal workforce.

Our operating environment has become more complex and competitive. It remains a top priority to empower our law graduates to build themselves a sustainable and fulfilling career, by offering a breadth of opportunities to them in the legal services sector.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

12.56 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, to properly understand the reasons for the proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966, or LPA, that we are considering today, it is important to appreciate the genesis of the process.

It began with the key idea of a reminder to all of us who live under the rule of law – that law is a profession, not an occupation, in that lawyers must strive to serve the public interest.

As was mentioned by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now, in 2016, the honourable Chief Justice, established the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) headed by the honourable Justice Quentin Loh to “conduct a root-and-branch review of the professional training regime for trainee lawyers”.

Some of the drivers for this review were: one, the fast-changing legal environment which required lawyers to work collaboratively over borders; two, the advent of Artificial Intelligence that have the potential to redefine the role of lawyers and the provision of legal services to clients; and three, the increasing savviness of clients; particularly corporate clients.

The focus was to identify, and I quote, "measures to strengthen the entire professional training regime such that the quality of training remains robust”.

What is key is that training is not to be understood as merely the development of professional skills. The CPTL emphasised the need to teach trainees the deeper purpose associated with acquiring the skills.

If law is a profession and if lawyers have a duty to serve the public, then trainees must be imbued with important values such as compassion, courage and commitment to serve justice and integrity.

The honourable the Chief Justice put this point across poignantly in his speech in 2016 when he announced the set-up of CPTL. His Honour stated as follows, and I quote: “Law is not the only choice for those who have managed to secure a "fistful of "As", as one interview put it to us…If it is the lure of financial rewards that draws you, you should look at other options or be prepared for disappointment."

I wish to pick up one point that was left unsaid but, nonetheless, clear to everyone who is familiar with the developments then. The quality of our lawyers determines the quality of our Judiciary. Hence, ensuring the quality of our young lawyers, not just in terms of skills and knowledge but values, will have an impact, over time, on the quality of our Judiciary which, we all recognise, is an important and co-equal pillar in our Westminster-styled Government.

Maintaining the quality of the Judiciary is a national imperative. And I need only quote the hon Minister for Law who, in 2018, said in this House: "When the quality of the Judiciary suffers, the rule of law suffers. When the rule of law suffers, the country suffers".

It was in that context, that the CPTL made three key structural recommendations in 2018 which the Government subsequently accepted. They are: (a) lengthening the practice training period from six months to a year; (b) raising the standard and stringency of the bar exams known as "Part B examinations"; and (c) uncoupling the admission to the Bar from the completion of practice training contracts.

I support these recommendations but have a few queries on the recommendations which I will deal with in turn.

On the lengthening of the practice training period, the CPTL, in its report, identified two main reasons to recommend the doubling of the training period. In the new regime, each trainee would be required to rotate to contrasting practice areas to gain more exposure. In fact, they may even be seconded to a company as internal counsel for up to three months.

Also, it was felt that a six-month period was too short for a trainee to develop an aptitude to deal with the pressures of practice once he/she is called to the bar. This was, in fact, a point that was raised by junior lawyers in a focus group discussion that CPTL conducted.

The CPTL further noted that, from a comparative study, that the training period in Singapore is much shorter than that of barristers and solicitors in the United Kingdom (UK), Hong Kong, Australia and several other countries. Quite clearly though, the key outcome we are looking at is not just the length of the training, but the quality of the lawyer who emerges from it.

And this outcome depends largely on the supervising solicitors. This was a point that was specifically highlighted by the CPTL. I am aware that, already, there is a checklist that the trainees would have to tick off against, to ensure that they get the requisite exposure. I also note that the CPTL has made recommendations, such as "training the trainer" courses, designating a "training partner" in firms with six or more lawyers and so on. Furthermore, supervising solicitors' responsibilities are also spelt out under the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.

May I please ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary: what redress can we provide to trainees who are not getting the exposure, training and mentorship that they are supposed to get from their supervising solicitors?

Anecdotally, there are cases of trainees not getting the requisite exposure from their supervising solicitors. At the same time, they are naturally concerned about the possible impact on their own career should they raise issue about such matters to their firm. I would be grateful for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's response to this matter.

Next, Sir, the practice trainees who are subscribed to longer training periods, will naturally be concerned about their remuneration for this extended period. Instead of getting lawyers' salaries, they will continue to get allowances for an extended period. At the same time, law practices currently are not allowed to charge clients for the work done by their practice trainees, under the supervision of their supervising solicitors.

This will mean that law practices will have to incur higher costs, should they increase the allowances to be paid to practice trainees.

The CPTL encouraged a review of this position, so that law practices will be able to defray the costs associated with a longer practice training period. May I ask if the Government supports the CPTL's position in this regard, and if so, when will the requisite amendments to the subsidiary legislation to allow law practices to charge for their trainees' work, be in place?

This is not a matter of making profits for the firms, but really a point of fairness – if the trainees are doing work that add value to the client, the client should be willing to pay for it and the firm should be allowed to charge. The key is to create such a market with full transparency.

Next, on CPTL's recommendation that the standard and stringency of the Part B examinations be raised, I understand that this is an issue that is receiving the attention of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, which is a Statutory Board set up under the LPA.

In its report, the CPTL highlighted that the pass rate for the Singapore bar exams between 2010 to 2016, which stands at 99%, compares very favourably with the pass rates in the Bar exam in England, which is about 70%, and the New York Bar, which is about 70% too.

I accept that the standards of the Bar exam must be sufficiently high to ensure that persons who pass, have an adequate standard of academic quality. On the other hand, we must guard against the tendency to make the Bar exam harder than necessary. Otherwise, our young talents will miss the chance of being developed into lawyers and, ultimately, Singapore will be the loser.

I have also noted some disquiet, expressed particularly in the social media amongst persons sitting for the Part B exam, who noted that the breadth of subjects being introduced for the Part B course are very wide and include specialist law areas. In addition, there is a concern that bell curve grading will be introduced for Part B exams.

I seek the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on how it is proposed that a proper balance be struck in these circumstances. Here, we must be clear about the specific outcome that we want to achieve – it is not whether the 99% pass rate, on its own, is too high, or that 70% is too low. It is whether law graduates who pass the Part B examinations will be lawyers who can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with lawyers across the world and possess the competence to discharge their responsibilities well.

On CPTL's third structural recommendation of uncoupling the admission to bar from completion of practice training contracts, I have an observation to make. I note that it is proposed that a non-practicing lawyer, in addition to be being admitted to the Roll of Lawyers, be also members of the Law Society. Notwithstanding that they can be members of the Law Society, only practitioner members may be elected to the Council of the Law Society.

I am aware that there are other professional bodies which allow non-practising members to be elected into their respective councils. In my respectful view, given the unique duties of the Law Society as set out under the LPA, it is correct to continue to rely on practitioner members, with the requisite knowledge and experience, to be responsible for managing the affairs of the Law Society and ensuring that the Society discharges its statutory functions under the LPA properly.

Nonetheless, given that it is now to be statutorily provided that non-practicing lawyers may be Law Society members, there will be a need for the Law Society to cater to their interests too. In addition, there is an opportunity for the Law Society to harness the energies and abilities of these new members in discharging its responsibilities. I express the hope that the Law Society members from all categories will be able to work together for the collective good of the legal community and, of course, our country.

I now deal with the miscellaneous amendments proposed in the Bill on the process issues. First, I turn to the proposal to issue practice trainees with provisional practicing certificates, authorising him or her to practise provisionally after they have served six months of traineeship.

I support the proposal. I note that the intention is to allow the practice trainee to do anything that an advocate and solicitor can do, provided that they are under the supervision of a supervising solicitor. The period of coverage is not just during the practice training period, but also after the training period, but before he or she is admitted as an advocate and solicitor.

A significant difference between the proposal and the current regime involving part-called lawyers is that the period during which practice trainees can practise, with provisional practising certificates is proposed to be doubled. Currently, advocates and solicitors, before they can apply for a practising certificate, will have to take out a malpractice insurance under the Legal Profession (Professional Indemnity Insurance) Rules.

May I ask if there are similar requirements for practice trainees applying for provisional practising certificates to take out insurance? If not, what steps will be put in place to ensure that there is an indemnity insurance in place, covering civil liability arising from the acts or omissions of practice trainees with provisional practicing certificates? Also, would law practices be required to pay extra premiums as a result of this arrangement?

Next, and finally, I turn to professional training of Judicial Service or Legal Service Officers. Currently, different training periods apply to law graduates who seek admission to the Bar by working as an officer in judicial service, legal service or the Public Defender's Office.

For them, six months of working as a judicial service officer (JSO) or legal service officer (LSO) is equivalent to one month of supervised training by a practice trainee in private practice. In other words, it typically takes three years for a JSO or LSO to complete the equivalent of six months' traineeship by a practice trainee, before he or she may be called to the Bar.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe this requirement was first imposed in the early 1990s as part of a talent retention programme. I note from the CPTL report that it is proposed that the practice training period for law graduates who are serving as officers be equalised with practice trainees who serve their practice training period in Singapore law practices.

As a matter of principle, I support the parity, but may I please ask what is the Government's position on this matter, and if the Government accepts the CPTL's recommendation, may I ask how it proposes to deal with the original objective that led to the implementation of the different training periods for these officers in the first place?

Sir, the proposed amendments under the LPA help underline the important principle that lawyers must not only know the law, but "why" they are lawyers. How we train lawyers cannot be a mere technicality or a mere process of mastering the practice of law, but must be a careful and continuous appreciation of the solemn obligations placed on all lawyers, as officers of the Court, to uphold the rule of law and conduct themselves as members of an honourable profession. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

1.11 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. The proposed amendments have the effect not only of changing certain aspects of new lawyers' training regime, but also restructures the legal profession by introducing a new category "lawyer (non-practitioner)", or lawyer (NP). I would like to seek a few clarifications on the amendments.

First, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify what exactly a lawyer (NP), who is not pursuing a practice training, is qualified to do. For example, would the lawyer (NP) designation be the required minimum, in order for a person to be an in-house legal counsel in Singapore?

The lawyer (NP) designation may also confuse members of the public as to whether these persons are able to provide legal advice or to act legally for them, which remains the preserve of advocates and solicitors holding a practicing certificate. In this regard, I urge the Ministry to take steps to ensure public communications to equip members of the public to be able to tell the difference.

Second, I note that the Ministry intends to now allow, via subsidiary legislation, up to three months of a practice training contract to be completed at approved in-house legal departments of approved corporations. I support the spirit of this move, as it would give aspiring advocates and solicitors good exposure to the work in corporations that would contribute to a more well-rounded training experience.

However, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide some clarity on the approval process for these corporations and in-house legal departments? Furthermore, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary also clarify how lawyers (NP), and the law firms they are training with, would have access to these three-month attachments?

Would the approved corporations have the ability to choose which trainees to accept? And I hope that the system will ensure fair access to trainees from all firms: small, medium and large. We should avoid a system where trainees at larger firms have a higher chance of being involved in these attachments, just by virtue of being at these firms, and those from smaller firms are being prejudiced.

Third, I would like to ask if the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary could provide some clarity on how the moratorium for practice training contract applications, also to be given effect by subsidiary legislation, would operate.

Sir, I am concerned about the impact that these changes may have on smaller law firms of 30 and less practitioners. The longer training period means that law firms that take on trainees will not be likely to charge for their trainees' work for a longer duration. Clients of smaller firms, with generally tighter budgets, may not be amendable to paying for trainees' time, costs or for their work, although their new designation of lawyer (NP) may be persuasive to some extent. So, could the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary give some clarity as to whether the time and cost of trainees could be charged to clients?

Furthermore, with a longer training period, trainees may expect higher allowances, because their higher full-time fee earner salaries will be pushed back now by six months. This may be difficult for smaller law firms to swallow. As I mentioned earlier, the three-month attachments, as part of a training practice contract, could also end up being prejudicial to smaller law firms, if the corporations can and do pick primarily brand name law firms from which to accept trainees.

Based on a SingStat report in 2018, 97% of law practices in Singapore have 30 and less practitioners. Their value-added contribution, however, was only 38%, while the 3% of larger firms, contributed to 62% of value add.

This House has made several changes, including those before the House today, to the legal profession over the past few years, in order to position the industry for the future. These changes must not only benefit the 3% of large firms, but also help to unlock the latent value in the other 97% which would significantly increase the overall value add of the legal industry to the Singapore economy.

In this regard, I trust that the Ministry will continue to ensure that the benefits of the changes to the profession are equally accessible by lawyers in smaller firms as well as in large firms. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

1.16 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Sir, I understand that this Bill introduces amendments which were based on the recommendations of the CPTL. I too have a few queries on the amendment Bill for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

First is the length of time to qualify to be a practising lawyer. According to MinLaw's announcement made when the amendment Bill was read for the first time, the Legal Profession Act regulations would be amended to lengthen the practice training period from six months to one year.

This means that in future, any aspiring lawyer would now have to undergo four years of academic study to obtain a law degree, spend six months preparing for the Part B examination and then spend one year on a practice training period – a total of five-and-a-half years.

Sir, I urge the Government to consider that not every law student comes from a wealthy background. For an aspiring lawyer who comes from a poor family, the additional six months on a practice training contract would impose additional financial constraint on the family. It may also deter those who have the right attitude, skillset or talent from taking up law as a career because of the length of time required.

For some students, a delay in six months may mean nothing. But for a law student from a poorer background, that delay of six months would mean an inability to contribute to the household expenses of the family. It will cause more hardship for the family. And if the student has to repay study loans, this would also mean a delay in the repayment of the study loan.

Thus, an additional six months' extension of the training period may have different implications on a law student depending on his or her family circumstances. Has MinLaw considered the fact that lengthening the practice training period by a further six months may cause financial hardship on law students? It may also create the impression that all aspiring lawyers must have deep financial means.

Next, Sir, I want to talk about quality of training. I recognise that the CPTL wanted to lengthen the training period so as to allow a longer period of mentorship to acquire basic legal skills. It also allows the mentor lawyer a longer period to assess the trainee lawyer.

Currently, there is no structure for the training contract. The SILE does provide guidelines but whether the trainee receives proper training very much depends on the law firm and the supervising lawyer. If a supervising lawyer behaves unethically, then the trainee maybe be learning the wrong behaviour about a lawyer's conduct.

Two years ago, there was a case about a lawyer who took on the role of being a supervising lawyer when he was not qualified to do so. And according to the judgment by Justice Choo Han Teck, the lawyer may have supervised another trainee who have since been admitted to the Bar. In other words, that person who had been admitted to the Bar had received training from a supervising lawyer who was not qualified to do so. Justice Choo had then said in the judgment that the Supervising Authorities should pursue the matter.

Thus, Sir, even if the training contract is for one year and not six months, whether the trainee receives adequate supervision and training during this training period depends very much on the experience and ability of the supervising solicitor. And even then, the supervising solicitor must have the time to teach or guide the trainee. Otherwise, the trainee may not benefit from a training contract, whether it is for six months or one year.

Third, Sir, I want to talk about admission of lawyers (NP). Clause 6 of the Amendment Bill provides for a new category of individuals to be admitted to the Singapore Bar as a lawyer (NP).

My query is on the use of the term "lawyer (NP)". Generally, the term "lawyer" is meant to apply to those whose profession is to conduct lawsuits on behalf of clients and to advise as to their legal rights and obligations. For the non-practising lawyers, they are generally known as legal counsel.

By adding a category of the term "lawyer (NP)", would members of the public be able to distinguish between a lawyer in active practice and a lawyer (NP) who, in the past would be called a legal counsel?

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary which other jurisdictions has a similar term as lawyer (NP)? Would members of the public then feel that lawyers (NP) would be in a position to advise the clients on legal practice matters when they are not really legal practitioners?

Sir, I do not, in any way, mean to suggest that legal counsels are less regarded as compared to lawyers. But it is important to distinguish the primary function of lawyers and that of legal counsel. They are separate as they advise different parties.

Further, if this law is passed, would all the existing legal counsels be able to apply to be admitted to the Bar as lawyers (NP)?

If so, would there be a large number of applicants because currently, there are many legal counsels who are working in corporate organisations advising their companies. What would the process be like in dealing with such applications?

Finally, Sir, let me address Part B of the course. From the Report by the CPTL, I understand that there is an intention to make Part B more vigorous. I have received a lot of feedback from existing students that the academic workload for Part B is worse than the law school examinations.

I took a look at the course content at the SILE website and I was surprised by the large number of subjects that are covered. It was as if SILE was trying to squeeze in a few years of legal content into a five- or six-month Part B course.

Sir, in the past, the Practice Law Course, which is the current Part B, was meant to ensure that law students have sufficient knowledge of the practical aspect of legal practice before they are allowed to practise as advocates and solicitors. And that learning journey is always ongoing, because it is impossible to know everything as a lawyer. The law school examination is meant to give the student academic knowledge of a particular areas of law and the Practice Law Course is to supplement that knowledge in terms of the legal practice.

Sir, I am of the view that we ought to maintain the intent of the Part B which is to impart practical skills to the aspiring lawyer and it is not meant to sieve out those who have no interest in the practice of law. If a student has passed his or her examinations and graduated with a law degree, MinLaw should accept that that student does have the requisite academic legal knowledge. Otherwise, that person should not have obtained the law degree. Making Part B more difficult would merely add on the stress of being a lawyer when the legal profession is currently suffering from a shortage of lawyers.

I hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can clarify my queries.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana.

1.23 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, the rule of law is fundamental to Singapore's prosperity. A robust and effective legal system provides a stable environment for our nation's governance and growth and is one of the futures that gives Singapore its ongoing international reputation as a safe, credible and trustworthy country.

Lawyers play a vital role in upholding the rule of law, defending rights of individuals and ensuring access to justice for all.

The proposal amendments in this Bill align with the recommendations of the CPTL. The Committee's underlying objectives are to ensure equitable access to professional training for trainee lawyers and to enhance the quality of their training.

This guarantees that future lawyers are not technically skilled but are also valued driven and embody compassion, continuous learning, excellence and a commitment to Public Service.

The suggested changes aim to foster a legal profession that is both effective and compassionate, with lawyers who carry out their duties guided by principles and accountability and are firmly grounded in ethical practice.

With that understanding, while I acknowledge the potential benefits of the changes, I do have some clarifications and suggestions.

Before I do so, however, I would like to declare my position as an educator with Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and to note that many of the concerns raised in my speech are based on my engagement and discussion with students, university colleagues, legal practitioners and users of Legal Services.

Mr Speaker, my first set of comments related to the proposed amendments to Part B of the syllabus and the extension of the practice training period and how these changes will impact qualified persons seeking admission as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.

I understand that Part B syllabus has been restructured, requiring candidates to complete more modules on different subjects.

The expansion in the number of subjects in Part B syllabus reflects a commitment to providing a comprehensive legal education to qualified persons aspiring to practise law. It also acknowledges that the law is a multi-faceted field, touching on various aspects of society, from business and technology, to constitutional rights and environmental concerns. By offering a broader range of subjects, candidates will gain a broader perspective of the law and its intersection with other disciplines.

However, this broad-based approach needs to be considered in tandem with the practicality of the teaching methodology and the opportunity to observe all this new information. Though most candidates appreciate the opportunity to learn and be exposed to a variety of subjects, we need to maintain our focus on the critical skills required for candidates to become competent lawyers and be cautious of knowledge overload.

In light of this, could be review the subjects offered in Part B and consider allowing candidates to select courses in areas of their interests. Doing so could assist to manage knowledge overload while still providing candidates with the opportunity to develop critical skills.

Mr Speaker, in the ever-evolving legal landscapes, lawyers must embrace continuous learning to stay abreast of the dynamic changes within the field. On that note and in the context of our national emphasis on lifelong learning, could candidates, once admitted, have the option to select certain broad-based courses as part of their ongoing professional development?

Related, I would like to share that several candidates completing Part B course have commented that they would welcome greater interaction and engagement with senior lawyers. Accordingly, could we explore the possibility of providing mentorship and guidance for candidates at an earlier stage of their Part B education, similar to the Law Society mentorship scheme and in that scheme, supports junior lawyers with less than five years of experience?

My next comment, regarding the impact of these amendments on candidates seeking for admission relate to the extension of the practice training period. Increasing the training period from six to 12 months offers some advantages. It ensures that junior lawyers begin their legal career with a robust foundation, practical experience and a comprehensive grasp of the law. Additionally, it benefits law firms by enabling a thorough assessment of their trainees.

Nonetheless, it is essential to contemplate the consequences for both trainees and the law firm that engage them, particularly in terms of associated costs. There are two direct consequences that trainee remain concerned about: low pay is extended to 12 months instead of six months and no paid or sick leave.

Mr Speaker, at this point, I would like to emphasise the challenges faced by several law students, especially adult learners at SUSS. I would like to relay the feedback from one of our adult learners who is enrolled in the law programme and he is also financially supporting two children attending university. He has indicated the longer duration of the practice training period makes it financially onerous for him to pursue a career as a practising lawyer.

Considering the financial constraints that may affect the decision to practise, is there possibility of utilising the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidies to financially support selected trainees during their practice training period?

In addressing the financial challenges and, at the same juncture, to qualify to be called to the Bar, would the Ministry consider offering legal executive positions in public organisations, like the Legal Aid Bureau, Community Law Centre and the Public Defender's Office?

It is reassuring that the practice training period can be carried out within pre-approved in-house legal departments or qualified organisations. This offers a chance for trainees to gain exposure to a variety of legal practices. On that note, may I check with the Ministry on the criteria established in defining the work done as part of the in-house legal departments and how do we assess if a trainee is given the opportunity to rotate within the different legal departments or qualified organisations?

I would now like to talk about the proposed introduction of the provisional practising certificates for trainees.

I applaud the Ministry for including this option for trainees. This will surely expand the scope of work for the trainees and strengthen their capabilities in becoming a confident lawyer.

While enhancing a trainee's practical application of legal knowledge, this proposal also means that firms can now get trainees to do associate work without the trainee receiving the same renumeration as an associate. I understand that a trainee may receive some allowance while doing similar, if not, the same tasks as an associate. I believe if the current amendment is not accompanied with adjustments to the trainees' allowance, practising as lawyers may become less appealing to new entrants.

On that note, may I check if the Ministry would consider advising law firms to provide a standard package for trainees, including benefits like medical and maternity leave, to ensure a fair and consistent experience for trainee lawyers.

I would also like to seek clarification on the process for suspension or revocation of provisional practising certificates, and if a trainee does have their professional certificate suspended, are there mandatory causes or relearning procedures for affected trainees?

Mr Speaker, as an advocate for experiential learning, I believe in the value of extending the practice training period. However, I would like to suggest that we provide options for trainees and take into account the unique needs of affected trainees. While law is frequently characterised as being clear-cut, it is essential to acknowledge the diverse characteristics of trainees who are planning to become practising lawyers. We must consider the nuances aspects of law, the various shades of grey when supporting these trainees, without compromising the necessary knowledge and skills to help them achieve their aspiration and goals as competent and responsible lawyers.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to move away from candidates and trainees and talk about the impact of the amendments on the law firms.

While extending the training programme from six to 12 months may allow additional time for law firms to assess and evaluate trainees and may enable continuity of services for the firms' clients, the longer duration may result in a reduced number of contracts being offered or being available to trainees. Considering the potential reduction in the number of contracts offered, will the Ministry encourage law firms to expand their offer of practice training contracts or provide incentives for them to do so?

Mr Speaker, the last group we must consider is the end user. The legal profession in Singapore plays a pivotal role in preserving peace and justice. Its function in upholding the rule of law, offering access to justice and resolving disputes are essential in guaranteeing the continued fairness and orderliness of the Singaporean society.

The amendment that proposes uncoupling admission to the bar from the completion of practice training offers a choice to law graduates and may assist retaining them in the legal field. However, it may also inadvertently lead to a decline in the number of graduates becoming practising lawyers. This may result in fewer lawyers taking on matters related to the needs of the community such as family or criminal law-related cases.

It is crucial for lawyers to comprehend the challenges their clients face. Lawyers should actively explore methods for mediation and conflict resolution, when necessary, rather than rushing to push the cases into the courtroom. This approach helps foster a legal system that is more accessible, empathetic and focused on finding just resolutions for the benefit of all involved.

On that note, is there any consideration for lawyers to receive education on more relational theory of justice such as restorative justice? If I may explain, according to the United Nation (UN) Office on Drugs and Crime, and I quote, "restorative justice refers to a way of responding to crime or to the types of wrongdoing, injustice or conflict that focuses primarily on repairing the damage caused by the wrongful action and restoring as in so far as possible the well-being of those involved". I believe such topics would enhance the ability of lawyers to provide quality advice aligned to the needs of their clients.

Sir, the proposed amendments in this Bill represent a constructive move towards establishing regulation that can foster the development of dependable and ethical lawyers, thus contributing to a more equitable, ethical and inclusive society that serves both the legal profession and the broader community. In conclusion, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

1.34 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as Director, Legal, of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and Honorary Member and Board of Advisors to Singapore Corporate Counsel Association.

The Bill before us today seeks to amend the Legal Profession Act, with the key objective of strengthening the professional training regime for lawyers in Singapore and to better equip law graduates with the relevant skills and competencies to meet the demands of our changing economy.

I would like to highlight two key changes: first, lengthening the practice training period (PTP) from six months to one year; and second, permitting up to three months of the practice training contract to be completed at approved in-house legal departments of approved corporations.

The purpose of lengthening the PTP is to provide trainee lawyers with a longer runway to pick up, grasp and hone their skills to be better lawyers. While the intent is a noble one, this must be balanced against the adverse financial impacts borne by the trainee lawyers.

First, the financial impact of the prolonged PTP on trainees. Trainee lawyers typically work long hours, from an early start till late into the night and also on weekends. From the postings online and from the trainees I spoke to, they are paid monthly allowances or honorariums of between S$1,000 or S$2,500 each month during the PTP. Some firms offer training contracts with only a pittance as an allowance, which I opine can be seen as exploitative. This pales in comparison to their peers or fresh graduates in other industries, who draw between S$3,500 or S$5,000, depending on the industry, each month and work lesser hours than these trainees.

The trainees are neither less qualified nor less capable than any of their peers in other industries. Indeed, many have gone through rigorous curriculums in the law schools and learnt much in preparation for the law and bar exams. They have to push on against all odds as they need it to be called to the bar. And one can say that a new lawyer’s pay goes up significantly upon their call, but the skills and abilities have not suddenly nor exponentially increased.

While I understand that trainee lawyers should not be driven solely by financial rewards, and that the quantum for the monthly honorarium or allowance is largely driven by market forces, it is nonetheless important for them to be paid fairly, in recognition of their skills and contributions to the firms. The trainees provide valuable contributions to the firm, in terms of research on novel points of the law and preparation of the initial drafts, which are used to advance the client’s case. This also helps lighten the lawyers’ loads.

To that end, is there more that can be done to ensure our trainees are paid reasonably, especially during the lengthened PTP? How can we encourage firms to pay more in terms of the monthly allowance? How can the bigger firms also pay more for those on training contracts, as they currently set the de facto upper limit? How can we help those from lower-income families, who may need the income to support their families? In the same vein, how can we ensure better retention in the legal industry?

Second, mandating certain benefits, including paid sick leave, to be provided under training contracts. In my recent interactions with trainees, many have expressed their concerns about the lack of paid sick leave and annual leave, especially with the prolonged PTP period. People do fall ill and are required to rest to be more productive.

Sir, the past three years, we battled multiple waves of COVID-19. Apart from COVID-19, there also other strains of flu circulating within our society. As with all other individuals, trainees also fall ill and may require medical attention from time to time.

Given that there are some similarities between trainees and employees, it is humbly submitted that paid sick leave should similarly accrue for trainees after three months of employment with a law firm.

Under the existing rules, breaks taken during the PTP will be excluded from the computation of the PTP period. There is value in such a rule to ensure that trainees complete the entire training period and reap the full benefits of it, and I recognise that.

In view of the above, I am therefore proposing that trainees be accorded paid sick leave when they are unwell, while requiring them to “make-up” for the same number of days at the end of their PTP. In other words, those who fall ill during the PTP will have an extended PTP – reflecting the “make-up period” – but will be paid a larger allowance or honorarium at the end of the PTP, to reflect the paid sick leave accorded.

Apart from providing trainees with paid sick leave, it may also be useful to let trainees have paid annual leave. There is a Chinese saying which says " 休息是为了走更远的路 ". If translated, it means one can accomplish more with adequate rest and breaks along the way. I am really concerned about the overall mental well-being and health of our young trainee lawyers including lawyers in practice. Any positive move and step can better our workers’ welfare and well-being overall.

Third, training contracts bear some semblance to employment contracts. Leaving aside the practical concerns that I had highlighted, I noted that there are significant similarities between training contracts and employment contracts, which justify providing certain basic employment benefits, such as paid sick leave, to trainees, which employees under the Employment Act currently enjoy.

First, the law firm exercises substantial control over the trainee’s work. Apart from training the trainee, the supervising solicitors or other lawyers in the firm set timelines, guide, review and provide input to the trainee’s work before the same is sent to the client for approval.

Second, the trainee is interviewed by and selected by the law firm, presumably based on the individual’s skills, character and fit, with a view to retain him or her upon the conclusion of the PTP. This contrasts with a contract for services, whereby a particular vendor is engaged to provide general services.

Third, the trainee has access to and uses the firm's equipment and resources in the course of his or her work. This includes having access to the firm’s laptop, legal research websites and existing precedents.

Fourth, the trainee is remunerated through regular allowance, rather by means of commissions or otherwise.

Fifth, some of the practice training contracts stipulate the trainee’s working hours and duration, which contrasts with independent contractors who have flexibility over their schedules.

Sixth, the trainee is typically only allowed to work for one employer or law firm at any one point, and should the trainee wish to change firm, he or she must notify SILE beforehand. This is unlike independent contractors who may work for multiple service buyers at the same time.

Lastly, if a "contract of service" as defined under the Employment Act also includes "an apprenticeship contract", a fortiori, a training contract offered to graduates should likewise be classified as a "contract of service" with attendant benefits.

Given that there is some semblance between training contracts and employment contracts, it is humbly submitted that trainees should likewise be accorded basic employment benefits, such as paid sick leave and annual leave for a start, during the PTP, with other benefits to be considered at a later stage.

Finally, I applaud the proposed change of permitting up to three months of the practice training contract to be completed at in-house legal departments of approved corporations. As the “in-house” option is a popular alternative to private practice, having first-hand experience witnessing the operations and needs of a business would give trainees a flavour of the type of work to expect as an in-house legal counsel. Additionally, a short stint in companies would help them be more attuned to the business needs of an organisation and consider matters holistically, instead of looking at matters purely from a legal perspective. I submit that this definition of "corporations" extend to other organisations where they have an in-house team such as NTUC. With this, it is hoped that they would be more well-rounded lawyers.

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

1.42 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill will strengthen the training of law graduates and better equip them to enter the legal profession.

Key amendments introduced include decoupling admission to the Singapore bar from practice training, increasing the practice training period, allowing limited rights to practise after six months’ training and introducing a moratorium for practice training contract applications.

I have three clarifications to raise.

My first set of clarifications relate to the moratorium date on applications for training contracts. The Bill empowers the SILE to disregard any period in calculating the training period completed by a practice trainee. The explanatory statement clarifies that this may include any contravention of the moratorium date on applications for training contracts.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify how any breach of the moratorium date will be factored into calculating the training period completed? For instance, will SILE discount the training period completed by the same amount of time that the practice trainee and law firm breached the moratorium? Would SILE consider certain factors as aggravating or mitigating in this calculation? And are there other penalties that practice trainees would face, apart from the discounting of the training period?

Second, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share whether law firms may face any penalties if they offer practice training contracts in breach of a law student’s moratorium? It does not appear that this Bill provides for such penalties. If that is the case, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain the rationale behind such an omission?

The omission is odd because the Bill's explanatory statement says that a moratorium is meant to be two-prong: it bars law students from making applications and it bars law practices from making offers. It seems inconsistent and unfair to punish only the student if the law firm wittingly makes an offer in breach of the moratorium date.

Finally, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how the SILE detects breaches of the moratorium? The Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers themselves noted in their recommendation that breaches would be hard to detect. Will there be audits or reporting obligations that enable more effective policing of the moratorium?

My second clarification is on the exposure of practice trainees to contrasting practice areas. One reason the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) recommended increasing the practice training period to one year was to allow practice trainees more meaningful exposures to contrasting practice areas. However, small law firms may not be able to provide such exposure, given that their firm's work may be more narrow. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what efforts will be made to ensure that even practice trainees in small law firms can have meaningful exposure to different practice areas?

My third and final clarification is on the salary of practice trainees that many Members have raised. Practice trainees usually receive salaries that are significantly lower than what they would earn as a fully qualified lawyer. For example, it is reported that the Big Four law firms in Singapore pay trainees an honorarium of around $2,000 to $2,500 while their first-year associates now get $7,500 to $7,900. The effect of increasing the practice training period to one year is that practice trainees will earn a lower salary for a longer period.

While the media has reported that some law firms are looking to increase practice trainee salaries, relying on individual law firms' review of practice trainees will likely lead to unequal and inequitable outcomes across the board. Can the Senior Minister of State share what steps will be taken across the board to review practice trainee salaries? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

1.46 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, a 2022 report from the International Bar Association revealed that out of 3,000 lawyers aged 40 and under surveyed around the world, 54% reported that they were somewhat likely or highly likely to move to a new workplace and 20% were thinking about leaving the profession entirely. In Singapore, one in seven junior lawyers stopped practising in 2021.

While unfortunately some prefer to carelessly put this down to zoomers being not as hungry as those in generations before or feeling less pressure to earn an income, to quote the late and great former Law Society president and unofficial King of Singapore according to LinkedIn, Mr Adrian Tan, "It may be tougher to be a young lawyer now than at any time in history. They work at an intense pace and are on call night and day."

I remember once getting a request from a client to set up a virtual call quickly at about 1.00 am and, on another occasion, leaving the office around 3.00 am after waiting for a turn of documents from the other counsel, only to come back some three hours later to facilitate a deal signing during an auspicious early morning fengshui hour.

Yet, many still want to join the noble profession and numbers grow steadily. Between 2019 and 2021, Singapore saw an average of 394 university graduates obtaining a first degree in law. As of August 2023, the Law Society reports 6,512 practitioners.

The CPTL was convened in 2016, as shared by many hon Members earlier, to conduct a review of the professional training regime for trainee lawyers. The Committee outlined various challenges, including intense competition for practice training contracts, perceived unfair recruitment practices and a lack of consistency in training standards across firms.

Upon the completion of training contracts, the Committee also found the trend of attrition amongst young lawyers due to unsustainable work practices, unsuitability of the individual for legal work and the absence of alternative pathways. This trend was cast in the spotlight again in 2021.

I am heartened by the Government's concern and efforts to work together with industry and schools to improve retention and quality of training. To quote the International Bar Association (IBA) president, "The young lawyers of today are the senior leaders of tomorrow."

I have four clarifications.

First, the extension of the practice training period from six to 12 months. This extension brings us closer to training contracts in some other jurisdictions, for example, 12 months of pupilage in the UK before one practises as a barrister, and 24 months of qualifying work experience in up to four firms for solicitors and 12 months in New South Wales. The extended timeframe, on one hand, gives trainees more time to oversee cases that cannot be completed in six months and grants firms more time to assess performance for a more informed retention decisions based on mutual fit.

However, in my dialogues and engagements with young law students, some have expressed concerns. Given the rising cost of living, coupled with potential debt after university degrees, and another $6,000-plus required for the Part B examinations, some are worried about the quantum of the allowance if the training is lengthened. Figures between $1,000 and $2,500 have been shared as a rough quantum of allowance during practice training. In particular, this can be challenging for adult learners or students facing financial challenges.

I, for one, could not have completed my law degree without support from MENDAKI and a Singapore Management University (SMU) scholarship in my first year. It was only after receiving my first pay cheque as a young lawyer after my training could I finally breathe and contribute to my family after all my parents' sacrifices.

Most law firms also do not charge clients for the work done by trainees. Should this practice and trend persist with the extension, the current allowance renumerated may not be tenable for trainees and law firms over a long period of time.

In comparison with other jurisdictions, the Law Society in the UK and Bar Standards Board recommend that trainees be paid approximately $2,800 to $3,600 in London.

Furthermore, trainees presently do not have annual or sick leave accounted for during their practice training. Guidelines under the SILE also necessitate trainees to make up for any leave taken. This may not be sustainable for the health and well-being of trainees in the long run.

Further, relying on a checklist and increasing the length of the training contract alone may not enrich the quality and rigour of the training experience. I would like to ask the Minister if there will be specific guidance and support given to law firms to ensure that the training period is a meaningful one, both for the employers and students.

Finally, with a longer training period, firms will need to spend more money to hire trainees. Will there be support in place for smaller firms who are unable to cope with the increased costs?

Secondly, on the introduction of a moratorium, this is not the first time this is being considered.

During interactions with young law students, they shared the immense pressure and competition to secure a training contract way ahead of graduation. This practice not only creates additional stress but also questions on whether it is fair to only account for two years of school results in the process.

However, I would like to clarify on the specific implementation details of the moratorium. Will firms be restricted to only accepting applications in particular months or will students be bound by their year of study for application? How will the Ministry enforce this amongst firms upon implementation and what are the avenues for students and firms to voice out any unfair practices that they may observe?

Third, on the permission for trainees to complete up to three months of the practice training period at approved in-house legal departments of non-law practice entities. Given the broad range of opportunities there are, I can see how this would be an exciting option. For example, I was grateful for the chance previously to intern in ESPN, which married my interest in media and the law and helped me understand commercial needs.

Although this expands the opportunities for trainees and also provides a potential pipeline of support for these companies, I would like to ask if there are any criteria imposed to ensure that trainees can gain an enriching experience comparable to their peers who are practising with law firms. Is there an estimate number of how many of such departments will be available to cater to potential demand? What will the allowance guidelines be for trainees who choose to pursue this path?

Finally, the new section 22 empowers a judge on an application by the Attorney-General or the Council to order a lawyer (non-practitioner) to submit to a medical examination by a registered medical practitioner to determine whether the lawyer (non practitioner)'s fitness to practise provisionally has been impaired by a physical or mental condition. The Council will also be able to direct a lawyer (non-practitioner) to stop practising provisionally until he or she has submitted to a medical examination.

As we understand, mental health is a continuum. The Government is also generally very cautious about compulsion to submit to medical examinations and the seeking of treatment unless an individual is at risk of harm to themselves or to the public.

For greater clarity, could the Ministry describe what sort of circumstances will warrant such an examination and how will the Council or Attorney-General determine when one is not suitable to practise? What are some conditions that will be considered an impairment and how can an individual who has recovered come back to practise?

In conclusion, Sir, I am glad that the amendments facilitate a greater depth of exposure and experience and provide more career pathways for young lawyers. While the changes bring our system closer in alignment to other jurisdictions' standards and guidelines, greater clarity is necessary for aspiring and current law students. This is even more so as the recent changes to the Part B examinations have sparked distress among students. Previously, students studied seven compulsory subjects and two elective subjects. The latest revision sees students completing six modules across a wide breadth of 31 topics.

I also look forward to the future guidance notes, which I understand will be developed in a consultative manner. This approach is much appreciated. Beyond legal practitioners, industry, Government and organisations, I hope that we involve, hear out and co-create with the very people these amendments seek to serve as well – law students themselves. To do so would be very much in line with the Government's call under Forward SG.

In her speech, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also described that many of these guidance notes and subsidiary legislation are in the works. My final question is whether there is an estimate when these will be ready. Notwithstanding the clarifications, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

1.56 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill represents a significant step forward in our legal profession. The amendments are a positive development in addressing concerns about the availability of practice roles for our aspiring lawyers. However, I have several clarifications on the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are practical concerns about how this Bill can truly enhance the quality of our legal professionals.

Has the Ministry gathered feedback on the breadth and depth of training received by trainees? Additionally, is the supply of training places able to meet the demand? What trainees do and learn should advance their aspirations and chosen career paths. However, due to a shortage of training positions, a trainee may have little choice but to train at a firm or with a lawyer whose practice areas are vastly different. An extended training period may be disadvantageous to them in such cases. What types of support are available to such trainees if they wish to transition to other practice areas?

Furthermore, if a trainee is unable to secure a training contract in one of the larger law firms, which may not have as many or as varied legal departments, will there still be an assurance of the same high-quality training? Will these trainees receive the breadth of experience required to enhance their knowledge and skillsets?

Can we implement a system, perhaps through logbooks or checklists, to ensure that trainees in smaller law firms, or all trainees, gain the relevant breadth of experience? This could be a record-keeping document or online system that trainees use to track their activities, experiences and tasks during their practice training period. Equally important, how do we ensure the accuracy of these logbooks?

Often, larger firms will select those who may have performed better in law school. How does the Law Society ensure that all trainees will continue to get equal exposure, regardless of their graduating results?

Moreover, we should consider avenues for trainees to provide anonymous feedback to the Law Society regarding the quality of their training. This could be an invaluable resource in maintaining and improving the standard of training across the profession in the long term.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we extend the practice training period, we must be vigilant in safeguarding against the potential exploitation of trainees and their wages. Some firms may take the work of trainees and charge clients as their own without giving due credit to the trainees.

How will the Law Society safeguard against such exploitation? In such cases, when clients are billed at the full rate, how is liability managed in the event of any issues arising from this arrangement?

Furthermore, will the Law Society consider mandating a minimum wage for trainees similar to what housemen are paid in the medical field? How will the Law Society protect those inexperienced trainees from law firms that might seek to take advantage of this extended practice period? As much as the extended practice period is important to an aspiring lawyer's development, they must also be treated fairly and remunerated equitably.

Addressing the possible exploitation of young lawyers, particularly in larger firms where they are often burdened with arduous tasks and long hours, is critical. This scenario could also happen in smaller firms where there are fewer resources and manpower. This unhealthy work environment, characterised by excessive demands and little support, has led to a concerning attrition rate within the profession. Many dedicated individuals have been driven to leave due to these toxic conditions.

What measures are being taken to rectify this issue and ensure a more sustainable and nurturing atmosphere for young legal professionals? I ask this because this House would recall that a lawyer of 20 years' standing was jailed, fined and disbarred for having abused his employees, among whom was a trainee.

As with all other occupations, the relationship and balance of power between a supervising solicitor and a trainee tilt in the balance of the former. Have any measures been put in place to minimise future recurrences?

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is worth noting that this Bill was crafted during a time when there was an excess of lawyers. However, the situation may have evolved. Today, we are facing a shortage of legal professionals. Considering this, we must question whether the changes outlined in this Bill remain relevant in our current legal landscape.

Undoubtedly, the quality of our legal professionals is paramount. Providing them with more time and exposure to different aspects of the legal landscape is a valuable step in their career development. It aids them in deciding their career goals and which specific areas to pursue.

However, I am concerned that the longer practice period, while beneficial in many aspects, may exacerbate the existing shortage of legal professionals. This, in turn, places more pressure on lawyers, particularly the younger ones, potentially resulting in a vicious cycle as more may experience burnout and leave the profession. We must strike a balance between quality training and ensuring an adequate number of legal professionals to meet the growing demands of our society.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my younger years, I almost did pursue an education in law. But due to circumstances then, I eventually ended up pursuing Mathematics. However, in a strange twist of fate, I am now a legislator as a Member of Parliament, working alongside lawyers, legal professionals and Parliamentary Clerks, scrutinising Bills and legislation. Hence, I am speaking on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill because I believe this marks a substantial stride forward in advancing our legal field, particularly in addressing concerns over ample practice opportunities for aspiring lawyers. Nevertheless, there are critical clarifications needed.

Firstly, we must address the practicality of ensuring top-notch training for all, especially in smaller law firms. Secondly, as we extend the practice training period, safeguards against potential exploitation of trainees must be in place. Lastly, we need to evaluate the Bill's relevance, considering the evolving legal landscape. While augmenting training time is beneficial, it is imperative to consider its potential impact on the shortage of legal professionals. Striking a balance between quality training and meeting the increasing demands of society is imperative to ensure a sustainable and thriving legal profession in Singapore. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu.

2.03 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Sir, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Let me now address the questions that were raised.

First, Mr Yip Hon Weng has queried about the relevance of the Bill in our current legal landscape. While the Committee's recommendations were made in 2018, they were based on a longer-term, market-neutral perspective. Earlier, I referred to the recently released Forward SG Report, which stated that Singapore, as a society, wants to recognise and embrace multiple career pathways.

The Committee's report in 2018 recognised that the legal profession is a diverse and multi-faceted community with space for persons to contribute in many ways, and that it was important to cater to this. The Committee's recommendations also aimed to ensure overall standards for the professional training of lawyers were lifted. This continues to be relevant today.

The existing framework has served Singapore well, training generations of Singapore lawyers who have shaped Singapore's legal industry into the leading legal services hub it is today. But with the operating environment becoming more complex and competitive, it is even more pressing to adequately prepare our legal workforce for the multitude of roles that they may be expected to play in the future.

Our world is getting smaller yet increasingly polarised, and the lawyers of tomorrow will need to work collaboratively while embracing diversity, as they engage in more cross-border work. Technology has changed how lawyers work. Legal tech is increasingly used by law firms, in-house legal departments, the Courts and dispute resolution institutions. As consumers become more sophisticated, there is also growing demand for higher-value advice from lawyers.

As I mentioned earlier, this Bill is part of overall efforts to uplift the quality of law students and better prepare a future-ready legal workforce. Whether lawyers practise in a big or small Singapore law practice, or SLP, or in an international firm, their employer, clients and the broader industry will benefit from them having a better-grounded foundation. The first batch of law graduates under the new admission framework will commence their practice training period, or PTP, in January 2025. Upon completing their PTP, they will be better equipped to hit the ground running.

Next, I will address questions from Mr Yip and Mr Patrick Tay on whether the recommendations will impact the supply of lawyers in Singapore, including whether there will be adequate practice training places and on retention of aspiring young lawyers in the industry.

Uncoupling admission from practice training will allow those who do not intend to practise to pursue other legal roles without investing additional time to complete the PTP. This will, in turn, reduce the competition for practice training positions. The attrition of lawyers is not a new phenomenon. Lawyers have many different options, aside from private practice. These include becoming in-house counsel, joining the Government or legal tech companies or entering academia.

We should embrace this. Legal talent is required to support all aspects of Singapore's economy and society. Through this Bill, we hope to better equip future law graduates to seize the myriad of opportunities available. At the same time, for those who choose to, the changes will better prepare and sustain them through the rigours of legal practice.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the need for the new nomenclature of lawyer (NP) and their role in the legal landscape vis-à-vis other legal professionals. Both he and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked if, going forward, in-house legal counsel will need to, first, be admitted as lawyers (NP). The nomenclature of "lawyer (non-practitioner)" was determined after public consultation. It was not intended to replace the term "legal counsel", nor was it intended to introduce new qualification requirements for in-house counsel.

Rather, it is to distinguish lawyers (NP) from advocates and solicitors and other individuals, while still recognising them as crucial stakeholders in the legal industry. The nomenclature does not reflect any professional hierarchy; it differentiates who is able to practise in the public's and industry's minds. For existing in-house legal counsel who wish to be admitted as lawyers (NP), this would depend on whether they fall within the transitional arrangements in the Bill.

Next, several Members, including Mr Louis Ng and Ms Nadia Samdin raised questions relating to the content and quality of the practice training during the lengthened Practice Training Period, or PTP. On this, I earlier mentioned that the SILE has published a detailed notice on its website outlining the new training requirements. Some of these requirements are already found in subsidiary legislation. MinLaw is working with the multiple stakeholders to amend the subsidiary legislation to include further operational details before the new framework comes into force by July 2024.

This includes the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, or the Admission Rules, which already provide for the responsibilities of supervising solicitors and training SLPs under practice training contracts; how a practice trainee may serve his or her PTP, including in certain law offices in the Public Service, such as the Public Defender's Office; and flexibility for practice trainees to undertake their practice training with more than one SLP. This recognises that training SLPs may not have the expertise or resources to provide exposure to all the required practice areas.

The door is also open for trainees to provide feedback on their training. The Law Society has a dedicated email address and the Members' Assistance and Care Helpline through which it offers career counselling, mentorship, guidance and practical tips to members and law graduates who are seeking to practise law.

Several Members have raised the issue of honoraria and leave benefits for practice trainees during the lengthened PTP. Concerns include whether practice trainees are being treated as "cheap" labour; whether during the lengthened PTP, practice trainees from lower-income families or who have additional responsibilities, will face a disproportionate or undue financial burden; and whether practice trainees will "burn out" if they are not given leave benefits.

MinLaw understands these concerns. As part of the plan to implement the Committee's recommendations, we have been discussing measures to address them with the working groups. I will, first, cover the issue of honoraria.

Practice training is, at its core, an apprenticeship, where aspiring legal practitioners seek out mentors to guide them in the industry and provide opportunities for practical exposure. It is a symbiotic relationship, where both trainees and supervising solicitors come together to contribute to the continued development of Singapore's legal industry.

Through the mentorship and experience gained from being attached to a supervising solicitor, a practice trainee is better equipped to operate independently as a lawyer. On this basis, practice trainees today typically receive honoraria, but do not receive employee benefits, like paid leave or Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions.

Training SLPs are often a practice trainee's first taste of legal practice and its accompanying realities and rigours. As ambassadors of the legal industry, it is important for training SLPs and supervising solicitors to support trainees, through the transition from school to legal practice with understanding, patience and fairness. This also sets the tone for a potentially longer-term employment relationship in the foreseeable future.

We encourage training SLPs to provide fair and reasonable honoraria that recognises trainees' contributions and allows them to meet their financial obligations. Under the new framework, training SLPs could also choose to grant larger honoraria to trainees with provisional PCs, recognising that they undertake a broader scope of responsibilities.

At the same time, we recognise that this needs to be balanced against the potential increased costs to law practices, particularly the smaller SLPs.

At present, there is no legislation prohibiting training SLPs from charging out for trainees' work. The Law Society has released guidance on such charging, which could help defray some costs of a longer PTP. Charging out for trainees' work would also recognise trainees' contributions and engender a greater sense of belonging within the profession.

That said, training SLPs will have to be mindful that charging clients for work done by practice trainees may change the nature of their relationship with the trainee to that of an employment relationship, with attendant CPF and employment tax obligations.

Some Members have suggested mandating a minimum honorarium quantum. While MinLaw has considered this, such a measure is prescriptive, introduces rigidity and would need to be constantly reviewed to account for prevailing conditions. The quantum also risks being set above what some small SLPs can afford and may also have the inadvertent effect of reducing the number of training places offered. MinLaw and the Law Society will continue to monitor the industry trends. Further guidance will be released as needed.

Next, I will address the issue of leave benefits. MinLaw, SILE and the Law Society are already looking into granting practice trainees leave days and medical leave to support them through their PTP, as part of the overall implementation of the lengthened PTP. More details will be announced in due course.

Beyond pay and leave, we also recognise that there are other important factors in ensuring a trainee's mental well-being. The Law Society has led by example by establishing the Law Society Mentorship Scheme and the Young Lawyers Law Mentor Scheme. These schemes provide platforms for law graduates and young lawyers to discuss issues on mental well-being, career development and ethics in full confidentiality with more experienced mentors.

Next, Mr Murali Pillai sought clarification on the length of PTP that legal and judicial service officers, or LSOs and JSOs, will be required to complete under the new framework. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum had also asked about completing PTP within the Public Service.

Today, LSOs and JSOs who wish to be admitted to the Bar can do so after completing their PTP, which is currently 36 months. However, unlike their peers in private practice, LSOs and JSOs are not required to be admitted to the Bar to perform their job functions in the Public Service. Their progression is also not prejudiced or affected by admission to the Bar.

Under the new framework, the PTP will be 12 months for all trainees across the industry. Trainees may continue to complete their PTP by working as an LSO or a JSO, or under the supervision of a Qualifying Relevant Legal Officer in the public sector. A review was undertaken of the training programme for LSOs and JSOs. The Committee's report noted that there is little substantive difference in the content or quality of training provided in the public and private sectors. In both cases, the training covers legal skills, professional responsibilities and ethics, etiquette and conduct. This was a key rationale for the change in the PTP period for LSOs and JSOs.

Next, several Members raised questions and concerns about implementing the CPTL's recommendation to raise the standards and stringency of the Part B Bar exams. This topic falls outside the scope of the Bill. However, I will comment briefly.

This was one of the Committee's key structural recommendations. It was intended to ensure that the quality of the Singapore Bar remains consistently high and to better equip our law graduates. SILE has revamped the Part B Course to include topics that are gaining importance, focus on core principles and mirror the realities of practice.

The new Part B Course was introduced in the 2023 session. SILE has received constructive feedback from the industry and current candidates. Support has been offered to the current candidates, including more on-demand video lectures and contact hours, live Q&A segments during Contact Sessions and recordings for candidates to review. MinLaw will continue working with SILE to engage current candidates to understand where the gaps are and what further refinements can be introduced.

Next, on allowing up to three months of PTP to be completed at the in-house legal departments of approved non-law practice entities. Members had asked for more details about the application process, the qualifying criteria for these entities and had proposed entities for consideration.

This is optional for practice trainees. Further details, including the formal application process and finalised criteria for qualifying entities, will be announced in due course.

To provide insight, MinLaw had, in 2019, publicly consulted on the qualifying criteria proposed by the working group. They included suggestions that the entity should: have a minimum of three lawyers doing legal work; have at least one Singapore-qualified lawyer with at least five years of legal experience, either in-house or in active practice, within the last seven years, who will act as supervising counsel to the trainee; and handle a sufficient amount of Singapore law-related work for the trainee to receive meaningful training in Singapore law.

The majority of the respondents supported the criteria proposed in the public consultation. The working group will refer to these proposed criteria and Members' suggestions when preparing the subsidiary legislation on the qualifying criteria. Non-law practice entities that wish to offer training opportunities may write to SILE and MinLaw to register their interest in being considered.

Some Members asked about how the new framework for provisional PCs will be operationalised, such as the professional indemnity insurance requirements, what happens if a provisional PC is suspended or revoked and how a lawyer (NP)'s fitness to hold a provisional PC will be determined.

I had mentioned in my opening speech that the framework for provisional PCs in the Bill is substantively similar to that concerning PCs for advocates and solicitors. It is, therefore, open to the relevant stakeholders to take guidance from existing practices and case law concerning PCs, such as a solicitor's fitness to hold a PC when applying the new provisional PC framework. Further operational details are being worked on by the multi-stakeholder working groups and will be released in due course.

Next, several Members have sought clarification on how the moratorium period will be implemented and operationalised, including how breaches will be detected and possible consequences. The multi-stakeholder working group has been discussing these details.

As mentioned earlier, this Bill amends the Act to provide flexibility for implementing such details in the future. Before introducing the measures to strictly enforce the moratorium period, the relevant agencies will engage law students and law practices to socialise the change.

Several Members have also raised issues not directly covered in the Bill. These touch on implementation and operational details of the Committee's recommendations. For example, the relationship between trainees and supervising solicitors, suggestions for Continuing Professional Development activities and the extension of the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy to support trainees during the lengthened PTP. I thank Members for their comments and suggestions. MinLaw will work with the relevant stakeholders and working groups to review the feedback received.

Mr Speaker, I believe that I have addressed all the questions posed by Members on the Bill. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Do Members have any clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu? No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.