University of Technology, Sydney Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
University of Technology, Sydney Law Review |
|
M. J. Le Brun[1]
Visiting Associate Professor, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong
IN ANY DISCUSSION of the issue of transportable law degrees, we need to address the following questions. Is the effect of globalisation on legal practice an issue simply and solely of reciprocity or mutual recognition of formal qualifications, or is it centrally one of knowledge, abilities, attributes, values, and know-how, of demonstrated legal competence to work successfully in a foreign jurisdiction and perhaps a foreign culture? If the former, are we ignoring the differences of history, culture, and economy that do affect the quality of legal services? If the latter, is it possible that we may simply be disseminating particular culturally specific ideas about what effective professional legal practice entails? Indeed, are these issues, or should they be, of concern to university educators at all? Perhaps these issues are best left with those responsible for admission to practice or to other regulating authorities?[2]
In this article I argue that the issue of transportable law degrees is central to the work of legal educators and should not be left to the control of the regulators. I use Hong Kong to illustrate some of the matters that I believe need to be considered when we discuss whether universities should respond, and how they might respond, to the challenge of transportable law degrees.[3]
Beijing has lifted a key restriction on foreign law firms operating in the mainland, opening huge growth opportunities for the Hong Kong legal profession.
The ‘one firm, one office’ rule will be abolished, leaving foreign firms the latitude to open as many offices as they wish in the cities of their choice...
Previously, foreign firms could have only one office and the choice of city was subject to approval from the ministry...
Hong Kong lawyers will be allowed to be employed by mainland firms to practice SAR (Hong Kong) law. After training in mainland law, the lawyers would also be allowed to enter into partnerships.
From next year Hong Kong lawyers will be eligible to sit for mainland legal qualification examinations, then obtain credentials to practice in the mainland after completing required courses...[4]
A comprehensive review into legal education in Hong Kong is currently underway. The working party that has organised the review is comprised of barristers, solicitors, government officials and academics. Two leading Australian legal educationists are expected to produce a consultation paper and final report that will then be considered by a review panel comprised of local and overseas experts.
The preliminary stage of this process of review will examine all stages of legal education and training in Hong Kong (this includes undergraduate, vocational and continuing legal education). The aim of the preliminary review is to ‘assess the current system of legal education and training in Hong Kong’; ‘advise on the requirements of a legal education and training system best capable of meeting the challenges of legal practice and the needs of Hong Kong society into the 21st century and how these challenges and needs can be met’; ‘provide a set of benchmarks for measuring the quality and standard...so as to ensure that those entering the legal profession receive the best legal training for the maintenance or improvement of professional standards’; ‘provide suggestions and alternative models for a reformed system’; and ‘make recommendations for improvements...including reforms of the existing system or the introduction of an alternative model’.5
With the door to practice in mainland China now opening, one item on the legal educators’ agenda in Hong Kong will, no doubt, be how to seize market advantage of this initiative—which will mean that law teachers are likely to need to decide how to educate and train law students in Hong Kong for work in China (and possibly how to train Chinese lawyers for work in Hong Kong). Being realistic, I mention the financial matters first because increasingly economics drives educational policies and directions. Instead of discussing the benefits that a broad, even comparative, educa- tion in law can bring, educators are listened to more closely these days when they speak in terms of market opportunities and the bottom line.
The greater scope for lawyers to work in China is a welcome initiative in many respects. It will, no doubt, raise issues of reciprocity of qualifications, a potentially vexed and difficult question given the demographics and the economic realities of China and of the SAR. In time it is likely that institutions in Hong Kong and in China will need to consider the issue of transportable law degrees that we are now addressing in this forum.
In my admittedly somewhat limited experience, few law teachers (except the occasional dean or head) in Hong Kong or Australia, where I worked for 14 years, have considered in any depth how the issue of transportable law degrees affects their law curricula, except perhaps in the graduate or diploma arena. Few appear to have considered whether it should influence the direction of their undergraduate curricula; they seem neither to have the time nor the inclination for such considerations. Recently Australian law school undergraduate initiatives have focused on attracting students from overseas, improving the quality of teaching, integrating skills and, to a lesser extent, embedding legal ethics in the curriculum, increasing their research ‘output’ and documenting what they have been ‘achieving’—that is, when they are not busy looking for money. To date, legal academics in Hong Kong, luckily, have escaped some of the administrative and fiscal burdens that have ravaged Australian education.
There may be many reasons why we educators have not focused specifically on this subject. In the past, professional legal bodies have limited practice in a variety of ways so that transnational practice has been the exception.[6] Rules about reciprocity have been their domain after graduation. Academic initiatives to open up the world of law tended to be confined to postgraduate offerings, student exchanges, scholarships for overseas and local students wishing to study overseas, credit transfers and the like.
The world has changed remarkably since that time. What once was a career choice with limited geographic compass has now become a marketable passport. And the passport comes with several classes of ‘visa’, the transnational ‘visa’ possibly the most attractive to the sort of lawyer who, years ago, aspired to senior partner in a law firm with offices overseas.
John Flood, in a provocative article about legal education and globalisation, vividly describes this different legal regime:
Although legal education is parochial and prescriptive, it has a residual power. Most of the major institutions—governmental, NGOs, supranational—in the western world (and many elsewhere) are partly staffed by people with legal training (but not necessarily legal education). It is one of the ultimate portable skills.[7]
In his partial, and admittedly speculative, article, Flood raises questions about the role and function of law schools in an increasingly globalised world. I wish to address only the part of his argument that pertains to the issue of transportability.
According to Flood, English language facility, contract drafting ability and an understanding of private dispute resolution systems make the international business lawyer highly marketable.[8] Nevertheless, since there are (relatively) few lawyers working in transnational legal practice there is a shortage of formal educational skills. ‘Much of the craft of lawyering for the global order is learned through apprenticeship with elites rather than through academic routes.’[9] Still,
[t]here is a paradox...in the skills required and those supplied by the academy. Finance and capital are more or less the same anywhere...but legal rules are inextricably embedded in jurisdictions that operate largely within national boundaries...Despite this inherent parochialism, there has been an explosion in the development of global law firms and some would say global law...and in the global roles of professionals who work alongside the law.[10]
Despite the significant contribution of craft to the training of the transational lawyer, Flood does admit that some educational institutions do add value in various ways. They offer courses or specialist degrees or qualifications on international or global topics such as international tax and commercial transactions. Additionally, and possibly of more interest is that Flood believes that these institutions provide the glue of trust that is necessary to do business overseas.[11] At risk of simplifying his argument, Flood claims that trust is central to the operation of a global market because, inter alia, of a lack of shared culture and understandings amongst all people. Flood argues that trust is created in various ways, for example by ‘engendering and sharing common cultural values with others that accrue from common institutional bases, e.g., college, law school, profession, by creating moral and epistemic communities that transcend national categories’.[12] Trust, thus, can be ‘facilitated by membership of a relatively small number of institutions, such as leading law and business schools and professional service firms’.[13] Some law schools have become adept at producing this trust, enabling their graduates to assume powerful roles in powerful law firms.
In short, if Flood’s argument is correct, what we have now is ‘old school tie’ gone global, one more level up the food chain in the transnational legal arena. But instead of promoting just their ‘mates’, these institutional ties will export foreign legal concepts and ideas, especially among ‘emerging markets’. Flood asks, ‘What is happening here?...Have certain dominant educational institutions become gatekeepers for a global corps of leaders?’[14]
If Flood’s analysis is accurate, what are the consequences if we educators do decide that our law degrees should be transportable? What exactly are we transporting?
If learning law and holding a degree in law were (still) defined solely in terms of knowledge of substantive law, what we would focus on ‘transporting’, surely, would be this knowledge base. This pragmatic philosophy appears to underpin the American Bar Association’s approach. Drafting contracts and concluding commercial deals are skills that are very marketable to emerging economies. These skills are needed to conduct business, raise the GDP and secure loans. The more the knowledge base is (or is seen to be) neutral and value free, the more attractive is our ‘export’, if for no other reason than that it adds immediate value because it does not have to adapt to local cultures and conditions—an economy of scale similar to the one that allows fast food joints to proliferate.
But are these skills themselves neutral and value free? Are they what is actually being ‘transported’ today? What happens when the assumed shared understandings are actually not shared?
THE PARIS FORUM
In 1998, three papers were produced for discussion at the Paris Forum on the Transnational Practice for the Legal Profession.[15] Although there was some difference in topics and in coverage, the papers produced by the American Bar Association (ABA), the Council of the Bars and the Law Societies of the European Community (CCBE) and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) considered measures that might be taken to reduce impediments that prevent lawyers from practising in jurisdictions other than those in which they have been trained. Their differences in approach and underlying philosophy are striking but not surprising.
Of the three, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations adopted the most culturally responsive approach. In its Discussion Paper, the JFBA emphasised the need to respect the difference of each country’s legal system.
If, because of the sameness or similarity of laws and societies, cultures or languages, among countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, the common law countries or the EC countries, a country decides to grant reciprocally to lawyers of other countries the same licence as that of lawyers of their own country, there is no reason not to do so. However, it is not appropriate globally to do so, ignoring the difference of each country in its laws, legal system, training system of legal professionals, history, economy or culture, and to seek mutual recognition of the lawyer’s licence as an international principle.[16]
The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community adopted a systematic approach to discussing the issue, acknowledging the need to consider qualification criteria (education and training), issues of access to the profession and issues of regulation in both the country of origin and the host country. Its stated aim was to decide whether the conditions or criteria in the home and host country are identical, similar, or compatible, and whether the applicable laws are sufficiently transparent and accessible for the foreign lawyer. Candidates working transnationally are, in general, required to have completed a course of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration. Some lawyers may be ‘integrated into the profession in the host Member State, inter alia, by passing an aptitude test...in the language of the host Member State, dealing with, in principle, rather than simple questions related to most important domestic subjects.’[17]
The American Bar Association Discussion Paper, by way of contrast, focused briefly on issues of education and accreditation and on prohibitions against forming certain types of partnerships. It outlined three ways to address the education/examination barrier. In the first approach, adopted by the United Kingdom and Belgium, legal practice is not regulated under domestic law. As a result, lawyers can assume transnational practice relatively easily. In the second, rules are passed which license foreign lawyers without examination provided that they are members of good standing in a system that has effective regulatory and disciplinary controls, although the scope of the representation may be limited, for example, to advice on the law of the foreign lawyer’s home jurisdiction. In the third approach, adopted in the ABA Model Rule, foreign lawyers are allowed to provide advice on any matter, provided that any advice about matters of USA or Federal law are based upon the advice of a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction.
That little was said about university education is not surprising. That little was said by the ABA about cultural differences is not surprising either. American lawyers are in the best position worldwide to profit from a global marketplace in legal work; mutual recognition is to their advantage, provided they can protect their ‘patch of American law expertise’ from others and provided that they can continue to corner the market by selling their expertise as merely ‘technical’ expertise. They would know only too well that once one adds culture into the mix, what they have to ‘transport’ becomes much less ‘transportable’.
What was surprising about the three Discussion Papers, though, at least from an educator’s point of view, was how little attention was actually directed to determining what the ‘expertise’ involved in transnational practice actually is. It appears to be taken as a given, although glimpses of its problematic nature can be gleaned from the JBA paper and to a lesser extent from the CCBE paper. As an educator I found this lack of examination fascinating because there does appear to be some shared understanding of what legal expertise entails, at least in the USA, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia and Hong Kong. This shared understanding could have provided a background for discussion at the Forum.
TRANSPORTING WHAT?
Eight years ago, the American Bar Association published its widely influential ‘Report of the Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap’.[18] In order to provide a vision for lawyers for the future, the Association listed the following fundamental legal skills and professional values as ones that American law schools should aim to instill in their graduates. They are problem solving, legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, factual investigation, communication, counselling, negotiation, litigation and alternative dispute resolution procedures, organisation and management of legal work, recognising and resolving ethical dilemmas, the provision of competent representation, striving to promote justice, fairness and morality, striving to improve the profession, and professional self development.[19]
Mission statements of many law schools in Australia (and wherever else such documents are written) adopt similar goals.[20] England, Wales and Northern Ireland have embarked on a similar exercise and are referring to similar skills and abilities.[21] Although late on the scene, Hong Kong is following this trend.
To give but one example, the Law Society of Hong Kong stated in its November 2000 position paper on legal education and training that a ‘law degree...should enable students to acquire through study in depth of substantive areas of law, and by using primary resources: general transferable intellectual skills; knowledge and understanding of the general principles, nature, and development of law, and of the making and interpretation of common law and legislation; legal values, including a commitment to the rule of law, justice, fairness, and high ethical standards knowledge and understanding of the contexts in which law operates; and a knowledge and understanding of the legal system of China’.[22] What is interesting is that this aim is specified for students who seek admission to practice in Hong Kong (a ‘qualifying’ degree).
In its position paper, the Society recommends that the Hong Kong qualifying degree should be of four years’ duration (it is currently three). It should ‘rigorously develop general transferable intellectual skills such as critical thinking and analysis, contextual analysis, problem solving, the development of arguments and solutions, and clear and effective writing’.[23] Not surprisingly, the Society prescribes a course of study of specified areas of knowledge. The eight areas of law specified are to be completed in the ‘context of an overall course of study which provides: a well-rounded education in law; a level of scholarship usually associated with a course leading to an undergraduate degree; and a good grounding in the research, analytical, communication and other skills required of a legal practitioner in a modern society.’[24] Interestingly however, knowledge of legal ethics and professional responsibility is absent from this list.
If these reports describe what law graduates should be able to do, is this what transportable law degrees should seek to achieve? Here the Japan Bar Federation’s discussion paper provides some insight.
Although the development of legal skills and the introduction of subjects on legal ethics and professional responsibility were introduced into American law schools some time ago, the development of skills in the undergraduate law curricula of Australia and England (to name two jurisdictions) has occurred only recently. Nevertheless, skills introduction and integration have proceeded apace while the place of legal ethics and professional responsibility education is now being given closer attention.
Many law schools in Australia and England, and to some extent the law schools in Hong Kong, are focusing increasingly on skills training in their curricula, whether generic skills training or training in lawyering skills. Law students are competing in increasing numbers in international competitions such as the International Client Counselling Competition. Success in these competitions is highly prized and showcased. Competitions of this nature are rightly valued because they give students a chance to meet each other, share their knowledge and skills, and learn about what is happening in other jurisdictions.
Although learning of skills should, if done well, enhance the learning of substantive law as well as the skill itself, one concern about transportable law degrees is the, at times, uncritical adoption of the model that is advocated in the training and development of skills. Unlike some areas of substantive law such as family law, which often reflects local culture, history and economy, the sorts of skills that are being demonstrated in these competitions can appear, like contract drafting or tax advice, neutral and value free. To illustrate: to win the International Client Counseling Competition one must, understandably, adopt the model advocated by the competition. Although I personally support the sort of client-centred model used in the competition, I have some reservations about the conduct of the competition and the model when used in the international arena. This issue raises a central question that law teachers need to address when teaching skills as part of a transportable law degree: which model is appropriate for whom and for what purpose?
Although I focus here on the International Client Counseling Competition, similar remarks can be made about other international competitions. Skills such as interviewing, negotiation, and arbitration involve learning about a variety of behaviours and attitudes. Cultures vary in many ways: deference to others, eye contact, voice pace and modulation, the use of the pause and the framing of and response to questions and the like. To expect students to adopt wholeheartedly and without reflection the behaviours and mannerisms of cultures not their own for the purposes of learning a skill is questionable—unless, of course, the student understands and appreciates what is happening, and why the skill is being taught and learned in a certain way. (For example, ‘Research indicates in country X that a client-participatory model of lawyering is more successful, when success is defined in terms of minimising delay...than the traditional model of lawyering in which the role of the lawyer is...and the role of the client is...’.) Similarly, to ask students to engage in learning situations that would not arise in their home jurisdictions or to ask them to address hypothetical issues that may be culturally offensive is of doubtful value from an educator’s point of view. Nevertheless, these are the sorts of issues that law teachers should consider when addressing the transportability of legal skills and legal qualifications.
Sadly, helping students adopt a critical approach to the learning of skills and legal values and attitudes is not always possible in competitions or in the classroom. Many teachers in Australia and Hong Kong already complain about problems of syllabus coverage. Asking them to devote time to teaching skills and, for example, exploring various models of lawyering, may be too burdensome altogether. As a result, some teachers may take short cuts; others just want the trophy, so why not adopt the model?
The model for the International Client Counselling Competition is essentially American. The International Client Competition developed
from the vision and contributions of the work of Lou Brown in the United States. Not surprisingly, it embodies the values of American culture, and at times expects students whose first language is not English to speak ‘Americanese’.[25] That the competition has been won recently by non-American teams should prompt some reflection about what is being learned, by whom, and for what purpose. In learning interviewing in order to enter the competition, are students being indoctrinated unquestioningly into a model of interviewing that may be unsuitable for the cultural context within which they will be working, or are they being introduced to a series of possible models from which to choose when they are in practice? If the former, what happens when these students are ‘transported’ to other jurisdictions and what they have learned does not fit the cultural context? If the latter, how does this approach affect the actual transportability of the skill to a foreign jurisdiction?
In the discussion papers for International Law and Practice for the Paris Forum on Transnational Legal Practice for the Legal Profession, the American Bar Association, without any supporting footnote or reference, states that ‘[w]e note as a general comment that ethical codes and practices throughout the world contain largely the same prescriptions for lawyer conduct...’.[26] In the subsequent five paragraphs the discussion paper describes in some detail the ways in which ethical norms vary amongst jurisdictions in regards to conflicts of interest, the concept of ‘incompatible professions’, the scope of the attorney-client privilege, contingency fees, advertising by lawyers, trust accounts and the handling of clients’ money, professional indemnity insurance, who bears the responsibility for the fees of a lawyer who has been replaced, the problem of ‘networks’, the ‘reach of secret professionel’,[27] fees for referrals, disciplinary processes, corrupt practices and the like.[28] Given the scope of these differences, one wonders about the actual content of the shared prescriptions identified by the ABA.
One may also wonder about the issue of transportability where there is wide divergence concerning what, when and how students learn legal ethics and professional responsibility. To allow lawyers to practise transnationally, provided that they have worked for a certain period of time in their home jurisdiction, on the assumption that ‘ethical codes and practices throughout the world cover largely the same ground and contain largely the same prescriptions for lawyers’ conduct’[29] without more is to adopt a flawed approach. Only recently have law students in some law schools in Australia, for example, completed any in-depth study of legal ethics. And past claims that this area has been ‘covered’ in postgraduate training programs is, at best, just that—coverage. Sweeping statements about the similarity between codes ignore differences in culture, politics, history and economies. Differences such as these, as well as the differences in knowledge, abilities and attributes of individual graduates, need to be addressed before we should give free rein to our graduates to practise abroad.[30]
Flood (quite rightly) points out that the export of Western expertise to the developing world is problematical because ‘entire populations are perceived to have problems in common with each other that diminish their own cultural values’.[31] (emphasis added). He succinctly summarises some of the concerns expressed in this discussion paper:
Even the international organisations, such as the IMF, reduce changes in legal systems to one of ‘technical assistance’ which assist economic change without particularly paying heed to the social effects of these policies ...Globalisation transforms states into corporate enterprises to which the same rules apply; they can be restructured or go bankrupt...labour forces can be downsized, all being done independently of the cultural milieu of the ‘exporters’ and ‘importers’...The globalisation project supplies a modus operandi that isolates the processes of change from the larger questions about society. It is not too remote from the type of analysis used in law: the ability to think of two things, ineluctably connected, as separate. Law and legal education are in a struggle where they may become the handmaidens...or maybe the consiglieri, of economic efficiency and the juridification of daily life, in the pursuit of global hegemony and as a result are devoid of a sense of justice and community...[32]
——————
‘Obviously, there will be plenty of investment and trade transactions rushing into China [after WTO accession], and all will require legal services,’ Mr Chow said.[33]
‘Hong Kong lawyers share the same heritage, culture, and have the language skills needed.
‘They should seize on these advantages.’[34]
Reaction to the abolition of the restrictions (on practice by Hong Kong lawyers in China) will undoubtedly be mixed.
Local firms are expected to embrace the new policies but international firms have already expressed reservations about preferential treatment given to Hong Kong-based law firms, especially in light of the legal business windfall forecast to come with WTO entry. (emphasis added)[35]
Surprised? Not the Japanese. Nor the Chinese. They know that there is more to transporting law degrees than simple ‘technical’ expertise. Just ask them, and wait for the outcry of unequal competition.36
[1]Edited version of a paper presented, p.the International Bar Association Conference, Amsterdam, October 2000.
[2]There are some preliminary issues that may need to be addressed before an analysis can proceed: (1) What do we mean by a ‘transportable’ law degree? Do we mean: full mutual recognition with or without further qualifications/examinations; recognition with or without restrictions on the nature of practice (such as home law, foreign law); recognition of all knowledge, skills, values, and attributes. or just some (for example, substantive law, generic skills such as communication/legal skills such as client interviewing, acting professionally or doing ‘good’ etc.?); (2) Transportable from where to where and why?; (3) What factors, if any, should affect our decision (for example, the nature of the legal system (civil law, common law, hybrid), the role and function of legal personnel, language, culture, etc.)?
[3]In this paper I interpret this to mean some form of mutual recognition and/or transnational legal practice.
[4]M. Carlson, ‘Mainland Opens Up Legal Sector’, South China Morning Post, Business Section, 26 July, 2000, p.1.
[5]Legal Education and Training in Hong Kong: Preliminary Review: Final Report of the Consultants, May 2001, p.1.
[6]The regulation of the practice of law in my generation of lawyers was so extensive that when I was a law student in the United States in the 1970s I was told not to leave the country upon graduation. I was warned that if I were foolish enough to work overseas I should not stay away for longer than five years or I would not be considered a ‘real lawyer’.
[7]J. Flood, ‘Legal Education, Globalisation, and the New Imperialism’ in F. Cownie (ed.) The Law School—Global Issues, Local Questions, Ashgate, Aldershot, 1999, p.131.
[8]n.5 p.130. Occasionally admission to a jurisdiction such as the New York Bar is also necessary.
[9]Op. cit. p.131.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Op. cit. p.130.
[12]Op. cit. p.128.
[13]Op. cit. p.132.
[14]Op. cit. p.131.
[15]Held in France in November 1998. The proceedings of the symposium are reported in (1999) 18 Dickinson Journal of International Law.
[16]S. Kobori, ‘Discussion Paper Presented by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ (1999) 18 Dickinson Journal of International Law 109, p.129.
[17]C. Bevernage, ‘Discussion Paper Presented by the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community’ (1999) 18 Dickinson Journal of International Law 89, p.100.
[18]American Bar Association, Legal Education and Professional Development—A Continuum, ABA, Chicago, 1992.
[19]Ibid pp. 138—41.
[20]To provide a ready example: Christensen and Kift below describe a project in which the Faculty of Law attempt to identify a homogeneous framework for the teaching of transferable legal skills, such as those identified by the ABA in the McCrate report, as well as conceptual knowledge. The project team identified six desirable capabilities of a Queensland university law student upon graduation. These are: communication (clear, appropriate, accurate oral and written skills); ethical behaviour (‘Graduates will possess a sense of community and professional responsibility’); social and relational skills; information literacy, problem solving and reasoning; discipline knowledge (‘Graduates will possess a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of Australian legal principles and statutory regimes, knowledge of legal systems outside Australia and understanding of their relationship with the Australian legal system, and fundamental knowledge of extra legal factors impinging upon substantive law’). S. Christensen and S. Kift, ‘Legal Skills and Ethics—Integration or Disintegration?’, paper presented to the Commonwealth Legal Education Association Conference, Adelaide, 2000, p.9.
[21]In the Draft for Consultation: Benchmark Standards for Law Degree(s) in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: Preliminary Draft and Commentary, 30 June 1998, attempts are made to set benchmarks for the performance of law graduates. ‘Any student graduating in Law must show achievement in all of the following areas of performance, thereby demonstrating most or all of the abilities and competences identified in each area of performance’, Op. cit. p.3. The headings of the abilities and skills required are: knowledge, application and problem-solving, sources and research, analysis and synthesis, evaluation, autonomy and ability to learn, communication and literacy, numeracy, information technology and teamwork.
[22]Law Society of Hong Kong, Position on Legal Education and Training, November 2000, p.3.
[23]Op. cit. p.4.
[24]Op. cit. p.5.
[25]One American judge in the international competition told a Hong Kong competitor that she should not have asked her client a question about ‘the’ daughter. She should have asked about ‘her’ daughter. This trivial point crushed the student’s confidence, demoralized the team, and displayed an ignorance of how some cultures demonstrate respect. One wonders how native English speaking teams would feel if a judge told them, for example, that they wrongly used the subjunctive.
[26]ABA, n 19 p.62.
[27]Op. cit. p.64.
[28]Op. cit. pp. 62–64, p.64.
[29]Op. cit. p.62.
[30]It is in the ethics arena that I believe the most significant challenges should await those who wish to create opportunities for global law practice. I say ‘should’ because I am not confident that many will wish to tackle this difficult issue head on.
[31]Flood, n.8 p.149.
[32]Op. cit. pp. 149—50.
[33]Mr Anthony Chow Wing-kin is a former president of the Hong Kong Law Society.
[34]Quote from Anthony Chow Wing-kin.
[35]Carlson, n 5.
[36]Here I offer some suggestions: teach skills critically and contextually by exploring underlying philosophies and tracing through potential consequences of certain types of actions and values; teach legal ethics and professional responsibility comparatively; adopt a critical and analytical eye to the teaching of substantive law; help students see how law is a product of society; become involved in committees that make decisions about issues such as those discussed, p.the Paris Forum; hire colleagues from foreign jurisdictions and draw on their expertise, for example, by team teaching interviewing skills; conduct local research on the success of various types of lawyer behaviours; invite communications experts to teach classes on skills; encourage students to take employment and study opportunities abroad and have them complete research papers on the issue to ‘sensitise’ them to the issues of culture, travel and study abroad; be wary of the pressure to move too quickly lest an opportunity for reflection is missed and beware of arguments coached in terms of the importance of client choice—they often are used to hide the benefits that the lawyers reap from the opening of a global world market.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLawRw/2001/7.html