The hiring of top lawyers from overseas has long been a feature of Hong Kong’s legal system, with the courts deciding whether to admit them for specific cases. That position is set to change when national security is involved. Legal amendments proposed by the government would shift the power to decide whether a lawyer can be admitted from the judges to the chief executive. This is a fundamental change that requires careful handling. The move was sparked by the hiring of British lawyer Timothy Owen by media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who faces trial on national security law charges. Owen’s admission was approved by the courts. But the issue was then, at Hong Kong’s request, taken up by China’s top legislature. It decided, in an interpretation of the security law, that the matter should be resolved by the city’s leader and the national security committee he chairs. This prompted the proposed law change. Under the plan, the courts must refer applications for overseas lawyers in national security cases to the chief executive, who will decide whether such a move is contrary to national security interests. His decision must be applied by the judges. The proposal gives the government a veto over the hiring of lawyers from overseas in such cases. The rationale is that the chief executive is better placed than the courts to determine whether security risks arise. A blanket ban is not proposed. The door would still be open to overseas lawyers in such cases, so long as Hong Kong’s leader approves of their involvement. This is important as these lawyers have the potential to help the city develop its jurisprudence. Overseas lawyers could be ‘banned from Hong Kong security trials within 6 months’ But the proposal requires further detail. One of the benefits of the judicial process is that arguments are aired in public and reasons given for rulings. The chief executive should explain any decision to block the admission of a lawyer, so that it can be understood. Greater clarity is needed on the timing of applications and whether there will be a fair opportunity for representations to be made to the chief executive by the person seeking to hire the lawyer. It is also not clear how Lai’s case will be affected. He has applied for the court to confirm his hiring of Owen for the trial. Both the Law Society and Bar Association are being consulted on the proposed law change. Their views, and those of other stakeholders, should be taken into account seriously. As the chairman of the Bar has said, this issue concerns matters that are “fundamental and foundational” to the rule of law. The legislative changes should provide clarity. They must safeguard national security while preserving the city’s judicial independence and right to a fair trial.