- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 334
- Points
- 28
Lawyers' row bares David-Goliath divide
Most of the lawyers behind no-confidence-vote petition are from small law firms
By K.C. Vijayan , Mavis Toh and Elizabeth Soh
Mr Anandan spearheaded the EGM move that began over the issue of business class travel. -- ST PHOTO: RAJ NADARAJAN
AN ESCALATING row between lawyers and the Law Society chiefs that began over business-class travel is unmasking a bigger divide between big- and small-firm lawyers.
The Law Society leadership faces the prospect of ouster as a no-confidence-vote petition has been filed against it, and The Straits Times has learnt that most of the lawyers behind the move are from small firms.
On Wednesday, 88 lawyers signed the petition to be tabled at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). At least two-thirds of them are small-firm lawyers with 10 years' experience, but the group includes at least one Senior Counsel.
Contrast that with the Law Society's 21-member governing council. Only a handful are from small firms.
Lawyer Subhas Anandan, who spearheaded the EGM move, said yesterday that the number of those who signed was capped at 88, double the original number who had filed a petition.
The group was unhappy with the business-class travel for the society's top leaders for approved events. They noted that the society had raised its fees only months earlier.
In their first petition, they had questioned the decision to allow business-class travel and wanted an EGM to revoke it.
But the Law Society rejected that bid, maintaining that members did not have the power to pass such a resolution.
The second petition calls for a no-confidence vote, as the disaffected lawyers said the issue was no longer about business-class travel but accountability.
Behind the petition was the unstated sentiment that concerns of small-firm lawyers were not always received positively by the society, said several of the lawyers.
Reactions from 30 lawyers contacted yesterday were mixed, but some noted that the issue revealed the divide between big and small law firms.
Lawyer Josephus Tan, who signed the petition, said: 'It is clear it is headed towards a David-Goliath kind of struggle between big firms and small firms.'
Another sole proprietor lawyer who declined to be named said: 'It's a game that small firms can't win. Big firms have got the numbers, they are going to come by the busload to support the council. Small firms don't have those numbers.'
Others felt the issue was about accountability and how the society needed to heed feedback.
'The council has to listen to members and their concerns about the Bar,' said lawyer R.S. Wijaya.
Mr Noor Marican said: 'If the council feel they can run on their own and not be accountable to us, they are down the wrong path.'
But others supported the society, saying that to boot out the council because of one issue was unfair. Said lawyer R. Pillai: 'Give them more credit and let them do their work.'
Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi said that as an ex-council member and current volunteer, he knew council members worked hard and sacrificed time and energy for the legal fraternity.
'All sense of proportion seems to have been lost. How much time and resources do the Law Society have to spend to deal with these unconstructive resolutions?'
Former Law Society vice-president Annabel Pennefather called for things to be settled amicably. 'They should spend more time watching over their professional duties than over this,' she said.
Yesterday, Mr Anandan said: 'I believe that if the matter can be settled without the convening of an EGM, it will be better for everybody concerned.'
He said that with such a battle brewing, there would be people questioning the relevance of the Law Society.
A Law Society spokesman said it was still looking into the EGM petition.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
HIGH-HANDED
'Under the Constitution, when you receive a requisition, at the very least you must call for an EGM. The Law Society has displayed high-handedness in calling for a 'townhall meeting' instead - what does that even mean? Something more informal?'
Lawyer Josephus Tan
IT'S OVERBLOWN
'The petitioners are making a mountain out of a molehill. They are definitely entitled to their own views, but they should further them by challenging the Law Society at the next EGM... Calling a vote of no confidence and throwing out a whole council on this is just silly.'
Lawyer Paul Lim
MORE PRESSING ISSUES
'I think the law fraternity should involve itself in more pressing issues, such as the competitiveness of the industry and its relevance to society. Sadly, the adversarial nature of our training sometimes gets the better of us.'
Lawyer Bryan Tan
IT'S OKAY
'I have no problem with the business-class travel. They represent the face of the Law Society and they sacrifice their time too. People expect free service plus sacrifices in totality and I think sometimes that's a bit hard to achieve.'
Lawyer Lee Chow Soon
BE ACCOUNTABLE
'As leader of the society, one must be open and come down for any forum to hear the views of his members. If the council feels it can run on its own and not be accountable to us, it is down the wrong path.'
Lawyer Noor Marican
Most of the lawyers behind no-confidence-vote petition are from small law firms
By K.C. Vijayan , Mavis Toh and Elizabeth Soh
Mr Anandan spearheaded the EGM move that began over the issue of business class travel. -- ST PHOTO: RAJ NADARAJAN
AN ESCALATING row between lawyers and the Law Society chiefs that began over business-class travel is unmasking a bigger divide between big- and small-firm lawyers.
The Law Society leadership faces the prospect of ouster as a no-confidence-vote petition has been filed against it, and The Straits Times has learnt that most of the lawyers behind the move are from small firms.
On Wednesday, 88 lawyers signed the petition to be tabled at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). At least two-thirds of them are small-firm lawyers with 10 years' experience, but the group includes at least one Senior Counsel.
Contrast that with the Law Society's 21-member governing council. Only a handful are from small firms.
Lawyer Subhas Anandan, who spearheaded the EGM move, said yesterday that the number of those who signed was capped at 88, double the original number who had filed a petition.
The group was unhappy with the business-class travel for the society's top leaders for approved events. They noted that the society had raised its fees only months earlier.
In their first petition, they had questioned the decision to allow business-class travel and wanted an EGM to revoke it.
But the Law Society rejected that bid, maintaining that members did not have the power to pass such a resolution.
The second petition calls for a no-confidence vote, as the disaffected lawyers said the issue was no longer about business-class travel but accountability.
Behind the petition was the unstated sentiment that concerns of small-firm lawyers were not always received positively by the society, said several of the lawyers.
Reactions from 30 lawyers contacted yesterday were mixed, but some noted that the issue revealed the divide between big and small law firms.
Lawyer Josephus Tan, who signed the petition, said: 'It is clear it is headed towards a David-Goliath kind of struggle between big firms and small firms.'
Another sole proprietor lawyer who declined to be named said: 'It's a game that small firms can't win. Big firms have got the numbers, they are going to come by the busload to support the council. Small firms don't have those numbers.'
Others felt the issue was about accountability and how the society needed to heed feedback.
'The council has to listen to members and their concerns about the Bar,' said lawyer R.S. Wijaya.
Mr Noor Marican said: 'If the council feel they can run on their own and not be accountable to us, they are down the wrong path.'
But others supported the society, saying that to boot out the council because of one issue was unfair. Said lawyer R. Pillai: 'Give them more credit and let them do their work.'
Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi said that as an ex-council member and current volunteer, he knew council members worked hard and sacrificed time and energy for the legal fraternity.
'All sense of proportion seems to have been lost. How much time and resources do the Law Society have to spend to deal with these unconstructive resolutions?'
Former Law Society vice-president Annabel Pennefather called for things to be settled amicably. 'They should spend more time watching over their professional duties than over this,' she said.
Yesterday, Mr Anandan said: 'I believe that if the matter can be settled without the convening of an EGM, it will be better for everybody concerned.'
He said that with such a battle brewing, there would be people questioning the relevance of the Law Society.
A Law Society spokesman said it was still looking into the EGM petition.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
HIGH-HANDED
'Under the Constitution, when you receive a requisition, at the very least you must call for an EGM. The Law Society has displayed high-handedness in calling for a 'townhall meeting' instead - what does that even mean? Something more informal?'
Lawyer Josephus Tan
IT'S OVERBLOWN
'The petitioners are making a mountain out of a molehill. They are definitely entitled to their own views, but they should further them by challenging the Law Society at the next EGM... Calling a vote of no confidence and throwing out a whole council on this is just silly.'
Lawyer Paul Lim
MORE PRESSING ISSUES
'I think the law fraternity should involve itself in more pressing issues, such as the competitiveness of the industry and its relevance to society. Sadly, the adversarial nature of our training sometimes gets the better of us.'
Lawyer Bryan Tan
IT'S OKAY
'I have no problem with the business-class travel. They represent the face of the Law Society and they sacrifice their time too. People expect free service plus sacrifices in totality and I think sometimes that's a bit hard to achieve.'
Lawyer Lee Chow Soon
BE ACCOUNTABLE
'As leader of the society, one must be open and come down for any forum to hear the views of his members. If the council feels it can run on its own and not be accountable to us, it is down the wrong path.'
Lawyer Noor Marican
