*
(vi) that the proposal is nothing to do with lawyers and the rule of law but is solely in order to meet the requirements of international businessmen on the basis that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
Law Society's Comment: This typifies the over-simplified view of the issues taken by the Govern- ment. Every lawyer knows that the independence of the judiciary must go hand in hand with the independence of the legal profes- sion in order to maintain the rule of law. However, this is often not understood by lay people, even those who occupy the highest places in Government. For this reason, attempts to preserve an independent local legal profession are often confused with the main- tenance of a closed shop. In truth, the proposal involves conflicting aspects of public policy and a comparison of the arguments for and against the proposal must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the proposal is not in the interests of the public in Hong Kong.
(vii) that there is a growing inter- national interest in the provision of multi-jurisdictional advice within a single firm.
Law Society's Comment: This is untrue. Although a small number of foreign law firms are pushing the proposal in the countries in which they operate, they are making little or no progress in persuading the local authorities to accept it. We repeat that in no other country or state investigated by the Law Society, including all the states within the U.S.A. and the countries in Europe and else- where cited by the Americans and by the Hong Kong Government as examples of the proposal in action, are foreign lawyers per- mitted to do what they will be permitted to do in Hong Kong if the proposal is adopted. Indeed, in the state of New York and in France, being two jurisdictions much relied upon by the pro- ponents of the proposal, the authorities either have recently restricted, or are proposing to restrict, their arrangements for
23
24
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.