| Barristers in Hong Kong have always enjoyed a monopoly on rights of audience in the High Court. However, the status quo is about to change following the introduction of a new rule this month. As the legal profession in Hong Kong is not fused, one of the fundamental differences that has always existed between barristers and solicitors has been the exclusivity that barristers have in court when it comes to rights of advocacy. The right to speak in the High Court, the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal is an unfettered right for barristers (or counsel as they are sometimes referred to in Hong Kong.)
The extension of these rights to solicitors under the new rule will have a significant impact on the industry – the most crucial consequence being the considerable cost savings passed on to the client, by not having to tag on the extra expense of a ‘hired gun.’ Under the new rule, solicitors will be empowered to take the reins in court: obviating the need for a second look by the barrister. If the transition is successful, it will translate into a mammoth saving for the client who will be able to avoid the usual duplication in costs associated with a barrister’s read-in time and the cost of his/her additional brief. Barristers have traditionally been able to charge high rates for their specific skill set which allows them to try cases, prepare and deliver oral submissions in court and provide detailed legal opinions. Under the current regime, when it comes to litigation in Hong Kong, the ambit for solicitors is fairly narrow in scope. Private practitioners at present, represent their clients in short court hearings, for example, time summons’ and brief ex parte applications. Additionally, they act as a first port of call for their clients, taking instructions before the case is handed over to counsel whenever merited. Importantly, solicitors are not allowed to act as barristers or hold themselves out as having more rights than they do -and this is cemented by the fact that different rules and codes of conduct govern their scope and remit. Looking ahead, it has been suggested* that where the case is especially complex, it may be appropriate in the future to assemble a team of lawyers comprising both barristers and solicitors so as to shore up talent from both sides of the fence. How successful the new fusion will be in practice remains to be seen, however for solicitors who have long rallied for the reform, it is a battlecry which has finally been heard. *according to a South China Morning Post article 14 January 2013 – “Solicitors close in on High Court role” |
