2.
There is currently no adequate official system to handle complaints with
aims for solicitors "dishonesty or incompetence". I don't advocate solicitors 'cab-ranking' but a totally independant body in this country to handle such cases. One proposal being mooted by the Law Society is direct claims to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. I tried that a couple of years ago on the frequent advice of 'declining solicitors' but while under their auspices three attempts have been made to strike out my defence & case! In England the result is that when solicitors fail to take on cases of any consequence because of the sensitivity of the case (there are bound to be plenty of those in Hong Kong) or because of the high losses involved (which in Hong Kong are bound to involve triads & intimidation) subjects have no access to justice. Ah so, this is democracy in Britain.
Until barristers can receive direct instruction from the public not dependant on solicitors firms the monopoly solicitors enjoy to the publics access to justice can not change in England. On the whole solicitors seem to fear the intellectual integrity of barristers and invariably refuse to instruct independant counsel for solicitors 'negligence' or "maladministration" by professional bodies. Now, of course, in England solicitors are to act in the courts themselves and can technically keep such problems very much in-house. (The 'evidential problem') Despite a democratic government secret cartels in the system it seems are not actually illegal in Britain. There would not appear to be any solution in enforcing triads illegality in Hong Kong for the next 50 years (if it was even a practical possibility) when their alleged backers are to have overall control anyway. Two way mirror this. I know you would agree that both systems should provide democratic safeguards.
While not a lawyer or politician, I'm sure that it would not be possible to prevent the Chinese administration changing the ground rules after 1997. The father of a friend of mine won a case in Britain for Burmah Shell to receive compensation for allied bombing during the war but the labour gov- ernament of the day promptly passed an act preventing compensation. You surely have a daunting task ahead! At least as a politician you could use the 'loss of face' phenomenon to advantage for security.
The current English system is a surprise to most of us - I wouldn't have believed it a few years ago. Nonetheless I have no doubt that the Hong Kong legal system is a priority on your brief but perhaps without the insight or implications explained herein. However, as you are well positioned to unravel the technical complications to provide a suitable legal system to guarantee Hong Kong citizens liberty in civil & criminal justice with insider inform- ation and understanding of our system I think you're a very lucky chap!
The Chinese, even educated Chinese, as you will know have great deference to the symbols of the year. You were born (Dods) in the Year of the Monkey and as such will be known to be mentally agile and gifted with a rare power of persuasion! Do we even need to wish you luck! (I'm just a humble Ox who apparently ploughs to make the ground fertile). I'm enclosing a copy of my letter to Ken Clarke for your interest which lays out some of the domestic problems.
With best wishes for your future success,
Yours sincerel
E. N. Carl m
Elizabeth Gaskell Syms (mrs)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.