THE Council of the Law Society appointed a committee to look into the question of the fusion of the two branches of the legal profession over two years ago. The committee took a year to prepare a paper which was released in January 1993. The committee proposed that the distinction between barristers and solicitors should be scrapped. Before the release of the paper, efforts were made by the Law Society Council to solicit the views of its 2,800 members on the fusion proposal. The response was poor. Fewer than 50 of the 2,800 solicitors responded. There was then a consultation held at the Hilton Hotel to discuss the fusion proposal. Around 30 solicitors attended. It appears that either most solicitors were indifferent to the fusion proposal or the busy practitioners were really too busy to give the proposal their serious thoughts. Whatever the sentiment of the solicitors, it cannot be said that the fusion proposal has the support of the majority of the practising solicitors in Hong Kong. The majority view of the practising solicitors is yet to be ascertained. Fusion of the two branches of the legal profession is a very controversial matter. It involves a sensitive balance of interests among solicitors, barristers and the community at large. This question cannot be answered simply by reference to the situations in other jurisdictions. Hong Kong is unique in many ways - more so in the light of the impact bound to be caused by the change of sovereignty due to take place in less than 31/2 years. There has been and still is the practice for law students to choose which branch of the legal profession to enter. Would-be solicitors knew on the day when they chose the profession that they could not argue cases at the High Court and other higher tribunals. Likewise, would-be barristers were aware that they would be denied the chance of drafting conveyancing deeds and receiving lay clients without a solicitor. There has been and still is the practice for solicitors and barristers to switch their roles subject to the requirements for some tests to pass and some trainings to undergo. This provides a convenient avenue for those solicitors who aspire to become serious advocates to become barristers. Likewise, those barristers who wish to practise conveyancing law can become solicitors. I see nothing unfair in the present system. In an article published in January 1994, the President of the Law Society, Mr Roderick Woo, complained that there is no valid reason why a solicitor in private practice should be excluded from advocacy in the High Court. He thus complains that solicitorsare discriminated against. If Mr Woo were right, the Bar Association can also complain why the barristers should be excluded from conveyancing work. As I see it, for a highly sophisticated financial centre like Hong Kong, the true rationale for the existence of two branches of the legal profession is that there should be a division of the huge volume of legal work, thus ensuring expertise in the chosen field of the legal services. This must not be construed as discrimination against either branch of the legal profession. The Law Society Council held a press conference in January 1993 advocating loudly and forcibly a fusion. Regrettably, the proclamation of the good of a fusion sounded like forcing a marriage on a lady without getting the lady's prior consent. To the 500 practising barristers, the fusion was like a hostile take-over bid. The Bar Association later gathered its members together for a vote and by a clear majority, rejected the fusion proposal. I urge the Law Society Council to hold a proper ballot of its 2,800 members and ascertain if the fusion proposal has the support of its members. Before the majority view of its members is known, the Law Society Council should not advocate the fusion proposal any further. FRANCIS CHONG WING-CHARN Central
