and another Hong Kong law- yer will be less than under the existing arrangements. Nor is it likely that much time will be saved.
In truth, so far as the client is concerned, the proposal offers little or no advantages and will result in advice on Hong Kong law being provided by, or under the supervision and management of, unqualified persons.
(ii) that adoption of the proposal would be in the best interest of Hong Kong's privileged trade status and would avoid allegations of protectionism.
Law Society's Comment: This is wholly without merit. Under the present arrangements, U.S. law. yers are able to provide advice on U.S. law in Hong Kong without restriction. Hong Kong already has a more liberal policy towards foreign lawyers than all but a handful of states in the U.S.A.. In any event the Americans contend that their proposal will increase opportunities for local lawyers. Is it from this that opponents of the proposal require protection?
(iii) that adoption of the proposal would help prepare for 1997 and preserve Hong Kong's internat- ional legal community.
Law Society's Comment: The Americans appear to argue that their presence as employers of Hong Kong solicitors will streng- then the resident lawyer population and help ensure the continuation of the Hong Kong legal system. This is misconceived. The Ameri- cana propose that the legal profes- sion should be strengthened not from within but from without. They cast doubt on the ability of the local profession to remain independent after 1997 without their help. In contrast, the Law Society believes that Hong Kong's future lies in its success as 4 Sperial Administrative Region enjoying a high degree of auto- nomy and that internationalism achieved at the expense of inde- pendent local institutions and pro- fessions will have the opposite result. The right course is to build a strong and independent legal profession firmly rooted in Hong Kong.
17
18
Page 105Page 106
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.