Uncategorized
In House Counsel = Criminals Under Section 33 of the LPA?
Reform needed in addressing ambiguity of the Legal Profession Act. Juris Illuminae
It is unfortunate that in the recent parliamentary debates over the 2009 Amendments to the Legal Profession Act [LPA] Parliament has not taken the opportunity to clarify the ambiguity over whether Section 32 and 33 of the LPA criminalises in-house counsels providing legal services to the employers.
The Turner case which started it all
The President of the Law Society, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang explained how this apparent anomaly in the LPA stems from the decision of Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v. Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd [1988] Sing. L.R. 1037 (H.C.) [Turner]. In Turner, Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was) held that an act is the act of an advocate and solicitor “when it is customarily (whether by history or tradition) within his exclusive function to provide” citing the example of “giving advice on legal rights and obligations”.
Visit The Singapore Law Review for the full write-up.
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Progress Singapore Party accuses PAP supporters of harassment during Choa Chu Kang walkabout
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Progress Singapore Party volunteer files police report alleging harassment during walkabout
-
Politics2 days ago
Desmond Tan criticised for “listening ear” remark in Straits Times podcast
-
Comments4 days ago
Ng Chee Meng faces backlash for perceived downplaying of Singaporeans’ job security concerns
-
Singapore7 days ago
SM Lee Hsien Loong defends CECA, calls for integration and openness amidst political sensitivities
-
Opinion1 week ago
Holes in Low Yen Ling’s allegations against PSP: No evidence provided from her volunteers
-
Comments4 days ago
Netizens criticise K Shanmugam for sharing video on alleged Bukit Gombak harassment incident
-
Politics2 weeks ago
Low Yen Ling accuses PSP of “twisting the truth” over alleged harassment in Choa Chu Kang GRC