bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

The Law Society has vowed to investigate whether clerks are being allowed to draft the decisions of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal after the practice drew sharp criticism from a court on Wednesday.

'Obviously we are going to look into this and see what, if any, changes need to be made,' society secretary-general Patrick Moss told the South China Morning Post yesterday.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal set aside an order for costs made by the tribunal against two solicitors after the court found that a clerk had drafted the findings and provisional orders in the case.

The court said such a situation was wrong and against the principles of natural justice.  Mr Justice Anthony Rogers made it clear that the court would have no hesitation in throwing out other cases where the same thing was found to have happened.

Mr Moss said yesterday he did not believe that allowing clerks to draft the tribunal's written decisions was standard practice.

'I don't think it is, and it certainly isn't now,' he said. 'It is certainly not something with which we [the Law Society] agree.

'I would like to think that - if [the judgment] is correct - it's an anomaly and it's something that won't happen again.'

But he sought to draw a distinction between the society and the tribunal, which, as a statutory body, is necessarily independent. Its members were appointed by Hong Kong's chief justice and although they were members of the society, they exercised the authority of the tribunal independently.

'The Law Society has no control over any of those people. It's not our tribunal,' he said. 'There's a limited amount one can do. They are subject to statutory law and the rule of natural justice ... [but] it's an independent tribunal and the way in which they conduct the tribunal is up to them.'

Mr Moss also tried to put some distance between the society and representations made during the case that suggested clerks were being asked to draft the decisions because tribunal members were not paid and were not willing to give up the time needed to perform the task. The argument caused the court to question solicitors' commitment to the principles of self-regulation.

'That is not the Law Society saying that. That is a member of an independent tribunal,' Mr Moss said, without offering further comment.



Law Society to probe claim clerk drafted tribunal ruling