Solicitors under pressure as Law Society president vote approaches
Law Society chief's backers fear defeat in confidence vote - but opponents are dubious
An unprecedented attempt to seek a vote of no confidence in Law Society president Ambrose Lam San-keung hangs in the balance three days before an extraordinary general meeting is due to decide his fate.
Supporters of Lam are seeking publicly and privately to win votes from the 7,400 solicitors who make up the society's membership. Some solicitors said they had also come under pressure behind closed doors to reject the no-confidence motion.
Lam has been under fire since June, when he expressed support for Beijing's controversial white paper on Hong Kong affairs.
A source in an international law firm said a senior lawyer had urged all registered lawyers to sign a proxy vote form against the no-confidence motion - and submit them on the spot.
Clients with mainland links had also called lawyers indicating a preference for Lam to prevail, according to another solicitor, who asked not to be named.
Kevin Yam, who initiated the anti-Lam campaign, suggested the cases might be the tip of the iceberg. He had heard talk of chambers of commerce and community associations lobbying lawyers to turn in proxy votes.
"No one has explicitly vowed to take further action if the lawyers refuse [but] … it's hard to say there isn't any pressure," Yam said. He admitted it would be difficult to offer concrete proof for such accusations.
More than 240 solicitors signed a petition in June to trigger the confidence vote after Lam praised Beijing's white paper as a "positive document". The comment was controversial not least because the white paper characterised judges as administrators with a "political requirement" to love the country. Some 1,800 lawyers marched in protest against the document.
Since the confidence vote was called, solicitors have been bombarded with emails and text messages from Lam's supporters.
High-profile solicitors Fred Kan Ka-chong and Henry Yip Kui-wan issued letters of support. Kan even attached a proxy vote form to his email. He quoted former society president Roderick Woo Bun, who criticised the Bar Association - the city's barristers - for condemning the paper.
"I think the Bar, in its rush to seize the moral high ground, has pulled wool over the eyes of the public," wrote Woo.
A source close to the society's council and an ally of Lam said the result was up in the air, and that: "Many of my allies have refused to pass me proxy votes."
But Yam sees warnings of defeat as part of Lam's lobbying effort and expects the motion to fall. "With so many people rallying support … how dangerous could his situation be?"
