Bar chief Edward Chan King-sang has urged the chief justice not to impose laws that will force barristers to publish their fees. He said Andrew Li Kwok-nang should instead listen to the voices of dissenting members of the Bar. Last week Mr Justice Li chastised the Bar for ignoring calls for greater transparency. In his speech at the opening of the legal year he said it was 'unfortunate' that members had rejected revisions to their code of conduct. Legislation is now being considered to require them to publish their fees, expertise and other information for the public to see. 'There is plainly a public interest in encouraging reasonable transparency in the legal services market,' Mr Justice Li said. But Mr Chan said while he agreed there was a public interest in publishing such information, it was important for the Judiciary to understand the views of dissenting members of the Bar. 'For example, the issue of whether one should be able to give a list of cases one was involved in . . . this may not be desirable,' he said. 'There are concerns about barristers giving misleading information about how major a role they played in a case, and this could result in unfair competition.' The Consultative Paper on Civil Justice Reform published last year proposed legislation should be considered to give the public access to information of legal professionals. The Bar Association said then that it would self-regulate by revising its rules relating to advertising fees, experience and expertise, but the revisions were rejected by members last month. Mr Chan, who voted for the revisions, said he would not make a similar proposal again because 'the members have already spoken'. 'Some dissenting members thought it might be unfair to those from less well-known universities and chambers,' he said. 'I hope the chief justice will not simply impose legislation.' But former Bar chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that after three failed attempts to rid the Bar of 'outdated traditions', legislation was the only way. Kevin Egan, a senior criminal barrister, said: 'He [Mr Justice Li] is basically saying barristers should be able to say who they are, what they do and what they charge. Bar Associations elsewhere allow for far more than that . . . I don't think he is asking for much.' But Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, a barrister who represents the legal sector in Legco, said: 'Do we have any other precedent of legislation obliging people to say what they should charge? How do you intend to police this?'