:
They have treated English firms as if they are foreign firms, and have used the benefits which flow from the presence of Hong Kong lawyers qualified in England to support their proposal. In doing this they ignore Hong Kong's status as a British Colony and the very close similarity and connection between the laws of Hong Kong and the laws of England. They also ignore the fact that a large proportion of Hong Kong solicitors receive their training in England to this day. In this connection, a brief look at history may be helpful. The Law Department of the University of Hong Kong was first established in 1969. Before then, the only methods of qualifying as a solicitor in Hong Kong were by qualifying in the United Kingdom or by serving arti- cles with a solicitor in Hong Kong and then taking professional exams set by the English Law Society.
Until 1976, only British subjects were eligible to become Hong Kong solicitors and, even now, a person secking admission as a lawyer in Hong Kong must be a common- wealth citizen or have been or-
dinarily resident in Hong Kong for seven years.
Solicitors qualified in the United Kingdom continue to be eligible for admission in Hong Kong although the Law Society proposes that they should not be admitted until they have been resident here for three months, and should not be eligible to become partners in a Hong Kong firm until they have been resident for one year.
In 1988, the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong established a law facul- ty and the Law Society is now considering the introduction of its own professional examinations.
As can be seen, the legal profession in Hong Kong is evolving and undergoing a process of gradual separation from the United King- dom, a process which will continue up to and beyond 1997. The Ameri- cans' proposal must be considered in this context. There is a very real danger that the proposal will enable the large foreign firms concerned to divert the development of the Hong Kong legal profession if it is intro- duced now.
11
IKKURULAR FO
12