The Straits Times report yesteday that the Singaporean Govt has now voted to replace the current pupillage system
..and making it easier for lawyers to return to practise in Singapore.
The Straits times reports..
These amendments, with others in the pipeline, will put in place a holistic framework for the admission of lawyers to the Singapore Bar and their professional education, Law Minister K. Shanmugam told the House.
‘The object is to ensure that Singapore continues to attract high-calibre legal talent and to grow as a regional hub for legal services and legal education.’
The amendments, announced earlier this year, introduce a training contract system to replace the pupillage system.
In the new system, law firms will be responsible for providing structured training to fresh graduates for six months.
It replaces the existing system in which a senior lawyer, who is the pupil-master, takes care of the graduate for six months.
The second key change is the streamlining of the present overlapping powers of the Board of Legal Education and the Law Minister in exempting individuals, who want to be admitted to the Singapore Bar, from taking certain courses or exams.
The Law Minister alone is to hold such exemption powers in the new system. This will make it procedurally easier for certain categories of lawyers to return to practise here, said Mr Shanmugam.
For instance, Singaporeans and permanent residents who have significant experience as lawyers abroad may not need to sit for the Bar exam.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) suggested that the training contracts set out the kind of training the pupils should receive, to avoid situations where they do no more than photocopying and receptionist duties.
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC) asked if the Law Ministry would be drafting the terms of the training contract to ensure uniformity and consistent quality of the training.
Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim wondered whether firms with limited scope of work, such as one specialising in divorce law, would be disadvantaged in getting trainees.
Mr Shanmugam said it was neither desirable nor feasible to legislate specific criteria on law firms. ‘We provide the framework, certain basic minimum that should be complied with,’ he said.
He noted that the aim of a training contract is to ensure the pupils are adequately trained. If a firm has a narrow field of specialisation, arrangements can be made for the pupil to get additional expertise in other firms, he said.
Ms Lee, Ms Lim and Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) also expressed concerns that the Law Minister will now be the one who decides that a person is legally qualified even if he did not fall within the rules.
In response, Mr Shanmugam noted that the powers relate primarily to foreign graduates seeking to return, not the bulk of graduates from local universities.
He also pointed out that this is not a new development, as the minister already has substantial exemption powers.
As for the type of people who will qualify for exemption, he said: ‘If a person has worked as a partner in New York in a major American law firm for seven years, do you really want to put him through all these hoops?’
