Ex-AG can't even start up a Law Practice properly, Only in S'pore!

[Froggy]

really low class trying to pass off as the real mccoy, really feel embarrassed just like

 

[gatehousethetinkertailor]

That's support for tenants of the chambers. But members? Overseas members?

Can we safely conclude that tenants and members are two entirely different species in the legal establishment of ECC ?

"The Singapore Group Practice is neither a branch nor an annexe of Essex Court Chambers. Instead, its members will act as independent advisors and advocates, and will both accept direct instructions from clients and work alongside local and international law firms."

Without repeating myself, the conclusive questions are do these 4 have full rights of audience as barristers in the UK, do they have practice certificates issued by the Bar Council of England and Wales (renewed annually) and are their names listed as practising barristers in chambers at ECC.

A fully fledged SG practitioner who is a barrister of ECC (no alarming statement from the MoL about his practice):

 

[eatshitndie]

they think having “sex” in the title can sell their services. might as well rename it to “excessive sex in small cock chambers”.

 

[Papsmearer]

You might want to read again, this time slowly and carefully what the Ministry of Law wrote. The press again got it wrong on what the Ministry were implying.

You might want to shut the fuck up.

 

[Debonerman]

You might want to shut the fuck up.

Don't be such a child. Pull your pants back up and make sure you button them securely. So embarrassing..

 

[Papsmearer]

the part that I don't understand is why don't he just name his law practice after himself? Like V.K. Rajah Partnership LLC or some version like that. U telling me his name is so chow tar that no one will hire him and he has to use the Essex name? Many PAP porlumpars should be falling over themselves to employ the former PAP hit man AG VK Rajah. For years of faithful service whacking PAP opponents, the govt would have steered him a lot of GLC and stat board business. Something fishy here. Instead of leveraging on his time as AG to create a law practice, it seems like he is disassociating himself from it.

I wonder if something happened between himself and Gay Loong. I am suspecting here that Gay Loong or Whore Jinx ordered VK to trump up some charges on Hsien Yang or at the very least take his passport away for all those things he and the sister said in public. You know, the standard PAP SOP. Fix some charges and whack them to intimidate and scare them. Even Wei Ling feared that she will be in legal trouble. Possible that Shan ask VK to file charges or to legally harass Wei Ling and Yang, and he declined on the grounds that it was baseless. After that Gay Loong did not trust him anymore and he fell into the bad books of Whore Jinx. was asked to resign and in his place, Gay Loong put someone in that he could really trust, i.e. his personal lawyer Lucien. Because after VK was gone in January this year, Lucien did take some action against aganist Shengwu for what I would describe as a ridiculously trivial matter on Facebook. Maybe VK was declared persona no grata to all the govt contracts? who knows, just my cents.

 

[Papsmearer]

Don't be such a child. Pull your pants back up and make sure you button them securely. So embarrassing..

Fuck off Screwedballs

 

[scroobal]

You still can’t grasp despite all the informative posting in this thread. I acknowledge that the Press cannot grasp despite the clarification that was directed by the Ministry and carried out by VK and lot.

This is an English model and advocacy central model and commercially different. The central planks are liability no longer becomes a burden and depth is much deeper in such an approach. There is also scale as the Chamber grows in size but liability does not. The benefits of scale are primarily branding and centralised bureaucracy. Plus high degree of expertise that develops.

This model sits at the apex of English Law Practice. It’s also interesting that all 3 are previous Justices clerks and not veteran lawyers who end up as consultants in established Law Firms.

In essence there is no issue between the Ministry and VK. These things must be sorted before hand and the process involves the Ministry and the Law Society. And all 4 are overseas associate of the similar namesake in London. There has been no requirements from the Ministry to re-apply, correct or amend their paperwork etc.

The issue is the press and a chap who hasn’t read or could not comprehend the 3 press releases from Ministry and the party involved and depending on the useless press.

the part that I don't understand is why don't he just name his law practice after himself? Like V.K. Rajah Partnership LLC or some version like that. U telling me his name is so chow tar that no one will hire him and he has to use the Essex name? Many PAP porlumpars should be falling over themselves to employ the former PAP hit man AG VK Rajah. For years of faithful service whacking PAP opponents, the govt would have steered him a lot of GLC and stat board business. Something fishy here. Instead of leveraging on his time as AG to create a law practice, it seems like he is disassociating himself from it.

I wonder if something happened between himself and Gay Loong. I am suspecting here that Gay Loong or Whore Jinx ordered VK to trump up some charges on Hsien Yang or at the very least take his passport away for all those things he and the sister said in public. You know, the standard PAP SOP. Fix some charges and whack them to intimidate and scare them. Even Wei Ling feared that she will be in legal trouble. Possible that Shan ask VK to file charges or to legally harass Wei Ling and Yang, and he declined on the grounds that it was baseless. After that Gay Loong did not trust him anymore and he fell into the bad books of Whore Jinx. was asked to resign and in his place, Gay Loong put someone in that he could really trust, i.e. his personal lawyer Lucien. Because after VK was gone in January this year, Lucien did take some action against aganist Shengwu for what I would describe as a ridiculously trivial matter on Facebook. Maybe VK was declared persona no grata to all the govt contracts? who knows, just my cents.

 

[eatshitndie]

This is quite an unusual arrangement as the only other non-domiciled kind of tenancy was typical to be a door tenant i.e. your name appears on the list of members but you do not have "chambers" within the set.

As mentioned, you cannot instruct the barristers directly so it has to be via a law firm - there are no obvious benefits to ECC for litigation purposes as none except Toby have rights of audience here in SG. They typically provide their legal opinions on matters of law to local law firms.

The arrangement between the two entities would obviously not be revealed publicly - if you read my response the answer to the "type of support" is mentioned already i.e. if a brief is received by the chambers the clerks will decide who gets the brief (especially significant for junior counsel) or if a barrister is requested specifically, then they were check the current caseload for availability and discuss - so the clerk relationship is very important because when you are starting out they determine what cases you get - they also then add you to briefs of cases taken by silks and you build from thereon.

Essex Court Chambers offers guaranteed minimum gross earnings of £100,000 in the first year of tenancy (although, in practice, experience shows that first year tenants may earn something in excess of this figure). Chambers’ expenses (including rent) are levied as a flat percentage of fees received and no fixed rent or other fixed charge is payable.

Locally, there are only a very small number of locally qualified SG lawyers who are fully licensed as barristers with full rights of audience. Once upon a time local lawyers would have been called to the English Bar then come back to Singapore and completed pupillage here in order to be called to the SG courts. So in the UK you did not need to complete pupillage to be called to the Bar (just pass the Bar exams) - also most of the premier commercial chambers are Oxbridge dominated and for non-Oxbridge sorts it would have been impossible almost to get a shot because the competition is so fierce. So if you come across any local lawyers claiming to be "barristers" in the UK it is a fib because more likely than not they do not have a practice certificate issued by the Bar Council of England and Wales. However, it does mean that the individual has probably passed the UK Bar exam and was indeed called to the Bar in the UK but cannot actually accepts instructions/brief or litigate in front of UK judges because they are also not tenants of any chambers - if you look at their profiles they refer to themselves as "barristers at law".

Holding out as a Barrister
The restriction on holding out prevents barristers who do not have a practising certificate but who are supplying or offering to supply legal services from using the title "barrister" or otherwise conveying the impression that they are practising as barristers. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of the circumstances which might amount to "holding out" but it is hoped that the following examples will give an idea of what is prohibited.
• Describing oneself as a barrister in any printed material used in connection with the provision of legal services: in particular in advertising or publicity, on a card or letterhead, or on premises.
• Describing oneself as a barrister to clients or prospective clients.
• Describing oneself to clients or prospective clients as a non-practising barrister or barrister-at-law (titles which have been allowed in the past but not in recent years).
• Indicating to opposing parties or their representatives (e.g. in correspondence) that one is a barrister.
• Describing oneself as a barrister or (when supplying services to the public) as "counsel", wearing robes, or sitting in a place reserved for counsel, in court.
• Using other descriptions in connection with supplying, or offering to supply, legal services which imply that the individual is a barrister (e.g. membership of an Inn of Court).
It should be noted that for a BVC graduate to mention that he/she is a holder of this qualification, is not considered as 'holding out as a barrister.'
These examples are not exhaustive.

Exercising Rights as a Barrister
Barristers who do not hold a practising certificate may not exercise any rights that they have by reason of being barristers, the most obvious example being rights of audience. This means that such a barrister may not appear as an advocate in any court or tribunal unless it is one in which lay representatives are permitted to appear or unless the barrister has a right of audience by virtue of some other qualification (e.g. as a solicitor).
Similarly barristers who do not hold a practising certificate may not undertake, or offer to supply, any other legal service which is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act such as litigation, administration of oaths, conveyancing and probate.

What Is Not Prohibited
The Code does not prohibit barristers without practising certificates from describing themselves as barristers when they are not supplying, or offering to supply, legal services. In particular, the following activities are excluded from the definition of "legal services" in the Code.
• Lecturing or teaching law.
• Writing or editing law books, articles or reports.
• Reading for libel.
• Acting as an arbitrator or mediator.
• Acting as an honorary legal adviser to a charity.

In connection with those activities (and in other circumstances where the barrister is not supplying legal services at all) it is perfectly permissible to use the title "barrister".

There may be occasions on which it is unavoidable for barristers without practising certificates who are supplying or offering to supply legal services to disclose that they are qualified as barristers. These might include, for example, job applications or enquiries by clients as to the barrister's background. In these cases there is no objection to indicating that you have qualified as a barrister but, particularly if the issue arises in the course of conversation with a client, it should be made clear that you are not practising as a barrister, are not able to exercise any rights as a barrister and are not subject to the rules that practising barristers have to obey. If your client is an individual or a small business or charity which would have the right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman if they instructed a practising barrister, you should also explain that they will not have a right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman if they instruct you. It is your responsibility to give these explanations in terms which your client can understand.

Barristers without practising certificates may describe themselves as a lawyer or as a graduate of the BVC/BPTC even when providing legal services.

Barristers who do not hold practising certificates (including first six pupils) are permitted to provide free legal advice to clients of a legal advice centre, providing they do not hold themselves out as barristers and do not undertake or offer to undertake any reserved legal services.

There is no prohibition on barristers without practising certificates who are in silk using the title QC.
In January 2011, the Bar Standards Board published a consultative paper about the review of the Code of Conduct which includes proposals concerning the provision of legal services by barristers without a practising certificate.
Last reviewed: November 2011
Standards Committee


Even Tan Wah Piow is not a barrister in chambers although I believe he has rights of audience via a separate scheme for qualified solicitors where they have rights of audience:

As a solicitor or REL you already have full rights of audience in Tribunals, Coroners Courts, Magistrates Courts, County Courts, the Family Court and European Courts. An application for civil higher rights of audience allows you to also appear in civil proceedings in the Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Solicitors and RELs undertaking criminal advocacy must also comply with the SRA QASA Regulations.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/introAuthPrac/higherrights/part3/rule2/content.page

All this information is very easily available by just googling nowadays.

at first calling themselves "essex court chambers duxton" with parenthesis (singapore group practice) and then changing to "essex court duxton" after being asked for clarification by law ministry is being a little too rich (and corrective after being called out). a slight correction of the name plus some explanation of its makeup and practice are adequate to get the ok from the law ministry. there's no confusion now. let's move on.