even Mr George Shultz raised the matter when he visited Hong Kong in July 1988, shortly before acceptance of the proposal was announced. It may be argued that the Government is right to give greater weight to such threats than to the long term issues arising from the proposal, but this is very short-sighted. Firstly, the dangers inherent in the proposal are far greater than the Government will admit. Secondly, having achieved suc- cess using these tactics, the Americans will be encouraged to use them again.

(iii) that the Government appears to believe that the concerns over the proposal may be eliminated by rules and regulations. In practice, of course, such rules will be ineffective. Once a foreign law firm is able to employ or take into partnership a locally quali- fied lawyer, that foreign firm will be able to advise on Hong Kong law and, inevitably, unqualified foreign lawyers within it will also do so.

(iv) that the total number of solicitors in Hong Kong is little over 1,900

27

while an individual U.S. law firm may comprise between 250 and 350 lawyers. Of course, the American lawyers pushing for the proposal will argue that the proposal will have no impact on the practice of local law, but the potential for abuse is there and once the proposal has been im- plemented, there will be nothing to prevent the future of the legal profession in Hong Kong passing from the control of locally quali- fied solicitors accountable to the High Court and subject to the discipline of the local Law Society, to foreign law firms.

(v) that on any basis, the manner in which the Government has acted is hasty, extraordinary and un- explained. First it sought the views of the profession and agre ed with them. Then overnight it reversed itself, siding with seven U.S. law firms against the entire local profession. Despite repeat- ed requests, the persons within Government who have taken this decision, the matters they took into account and their reasons have been kept secret. The way the policy proposal has been arrived at throws doubt on the

28

A

རྩྭ

Share This Page