- 5 -
(12)
The Australian Chamber of Commerce's letter dated 29th August 1991
Generally supportive.
No points arose from this.
(13) The American Chamber of Commerce's letter dated 30th August
1991
This raised the ratio point dealt with at paragraph 4(b) above.
(14) Robin Bridge & John Liu's letter dated 30th September 1991
This was supportive of the proposals.
(15) Chow King & Associates' letter dated 15th October 1991
The letter drew attention to the requirement that a foreign law firm applying for registration must have been in existence in the foreign jurisdiction for at least ten years and have a substantial reputation. This requirement appeared to substantial reputation. This requirement appeared to foreclose registered foreign lawyers from establishing new foreign firms in Hong Kong.
It was pointed out that the scheme envisaged both the creation of new foreign law firms by registered sole practitioners and the establishment of branches of existing foreign firms. The Committee decided the letter raised legitimate concerns and that the criteria for the
registration of foreign lawyers and law firms would have to be clarified.
It was decided that:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The provision that the foreign firm must have been practising in their home jurisdiction(s) for at least 10 years should be deleted.
In
A new section should be added which would permit a sole practitioner or a partnership to practise in the name of the sole practitioner or the partners. this context the requirement of substantial reputation would refer to the personal reputation of the sole practitioner or partners.
If a foreign law firm wishes to establish a Hong Kong
branch then one of the foreign lawyers in the Hong
哺
Kong branch would still have to have been an
associate with the firm for 2 years prior to being a partner in the Hong Kong branch.
The five year requirement should remain for at least one of the persons who was a partner or a sole practitioner in the new foreign firm.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.