I am very strongly of opinion that private practice should not be allowed to the Attorney General - if he does his work properly.
It has quite unfounded but it is certain that it will be held in suspicion. I think this would be detrimental to the interests of great importance attached to his official rank & title.
Private practice will be detrimental to the interests of his official work and the moral bar which deserves suffering even if it can do as much as it can do. If he has considerable risk, there is Assistant for his private practice.
But the argument is much stronger; that to allow private practice by the Attorney General in a Colony where the bulk of the population is Asiatic is to give rise to misunderstandings. Chinese litigants are probably most likely to bring the Attorney General because they will have in their notion that his position as a court officer will influence the court in their favour.
Dabblers in law will not be wrong in their consideration that the community will have suspicion, however unfounded, that there is not absolute impartiality. It is impossible to convince the Chinese that it is possible to differentiate in his capacity as Attorney General and in his capacity as barrister.
I urge therefore that it is most undesirable to grant the privilege of private practice to the A.G.