4
(8) Dunstan Styles & Co.'s letter dated 29th August 1991
(9)
(10)
(11)
Note:
The Committee decided that this letter was more in the nature of a sepcific application for a change of name rather than a comment on the Consultation Paper. The Committee acknowledged that the Law Society would have to deal with applications from entities such as The Australian Legal Group which did not constitute any single firm in a foreign jurisdiction but rather represented an association of firms in that jurisdiction.
Lovell White Durrant's letter dated 10th October 1991
Is the proposed scheme intended to require foreign law firms which establish Hong Kong practices to register them with the Law Society?
The Committee considered whether registration of such firms should be required. Under current regulations local firms do not have to be registered. The Committee decided that once a foreign firm met the criteria required to establish a local practice, registration would not be necessary. concluded that the Law Society would be able to monitor foreign law firms which established local practices through such existing mechanisms as the ratio requirements and the issuing of conditional and unconditional practising certificates.
Note:
The Committee raised additional issues which would have to be explored in due course. The first dealt with the treatment of foreign firms, incorporated for the purpose of limited liability in their home jurisdiction, which establish local practices. The second addressed the Law Society's approach to foreign law firms which formed an international entity for the purpose of practising in Hong Kong. A couple of Canadian firms fell into the latter category.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy's letter dated 10th October 1991
Should it be necessary to require a foreign firm to have a partner residing in Hong Kong?
The Committee decided that this requirement was an important one and should be kept.
The Hong Kong Bar Association's letter dated 13th September
No points arose from this.
Page 135Page 136