CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELNO 88
OF 091715Z JANUARY 89
CONFIDENTIAL
HKB 373/1
TOP
INFO IMMEDIATE UKREP JLG HONG KONG,
PEKING
6)
146053
MDHOAN 2310
MIPT AND YOUR TELNO 72: ADMISSION OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT LAWYERS INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE.
WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ON THE DEFENSIVE Q AND A'S IN SECOND TUR:
1.
(A) A3: FINAL SENTENCE: THE NEW PROPOSALS DO NOT PUT THE AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS QUOTE ON A PAR WITH UNQUOTE THEIR UK COLLEAGUES. WE SUGGEST DELETING THIS SENTENCE. DEALT WITH ADEQUATELY IN A4.
THE POINT IS
THE POINT YOU MAKE IS VALID BUT LOOKS A BIT THIN. IT BE STRENGTHENED?
CAN
CAN IT BE
(B) A8.
(C) A12: THIS ANSWER ALSO LOOKS A BIT THIN. STRENGTHED?
(D)
PERHAPS BY REFERENCE TO A9.
A13: WE SUGGEST THAT THIS SHOULD ALSO REFER TO A9.
(E) A14: WE FIND THIS ANSWER CONFUSING. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY YOU HAVE OPTED FOR FIGURES IN EXCESS OF THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE BODIES YOU HAVE CONSULTED. THE REFERENCE TO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SEVEN YEARS EXPERIENCE ETC, FACTOR IS NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT. THE ANSWER IS PERHAPS BETTER COVERED BY A12 AND A9. WE DO NOT (NOT) THINK IT NECESSARY TO COVER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE QUOTA SHOULD APPLY TO THE RIGHT TO BE ADMITTED OR THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE: IF YOU THINK THIS IS NECESSARY WE SUGGEST YOU MAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL POINT.
(F) A17: WE SUGGEST THIS SECTION BE EXPANDED TO DEAL WITH THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION, WHICH ARE NOT SPELT OUT.
WE ARE NOT SURE WHY YOU USE QUOTE HEAVY UNQUOTE IN THE FINAL SENTENCE. SHOULD THE REFERENCE SIMPLY BE TO QUOTE THOSE CASES UNQUOTE?
(G) A18: AS SUGGESTED IN MIPT, WE THINK THIS SHOULD BE IN THE SPEAKING NOTE.
WE WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ABOVE AFTER CONSULTATION WITH UKREP JLG.
2 =
HOWE
YYYY
1
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.