Clifford Chance comes under fire from Singapore government for 'misleading clients'

  • Print
  • Comments (10)

Readers' comments (10)

  • This will reflect very badly on Clifford Chance in Singapore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • nonsense, it reflects very badly on a silly, protectionist local profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As someone based in Sing, I confirm this is reflecting very badly on CC here because this is the land of sticklers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agreed: the situation in Singapore is ridiculous. Having recently moved to Singapore I have been really shock how inaccurate the OECD surveys etc are and how protectionist Singapore actually is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is a growing perception that protectionism is gaining ground in some parts of Asia. For example, India and the more recent ethics exam talks in Indonesia. But I can see the reasons behind it - they need to have a strong and robust local legal profession and bar, but they are still in their adolescence and need a bit of protection in order to advance and mature.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I hope the Singaporeon Minister reads anon's comment at 9.57am. When in Singapore respect the local laws!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With respect to anon @ 9:57, every jurisdiction's regulators can set its own rules as to how non-locally counsel are permitted to practise in their jurisdiction. I am fairly certain it is not for foreigners to lecture such a jurisdiction regulators on what is, or is not, acceptable. If it is protectionist, then so be it. It might impact on the attractiveness of that jurisdiction to foreign businesses but that is a separate issue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon 11:44 - you say that "every jurisdiction's regulators can set its own rules as to how non-locally counsel are permitted to practise in their jurisdiction. I am fairly certain it is not for foreigners to lecture such a jurisdiction regulators on what is, or is not, acceptable..."

    But when those decisions are arbitrary and capricious, how can they be justified? Why should a duly qualified Singaporean solicitor who holds all appropriate admissions and authorisations not be permitted to practice just because he is employed by (or sharing profits with) a firm of English solicitors (who, incidentally, are also duly qualified and in good standing in their relevant jurisdiction)? It does nothing for consumer protection (which is the sole reason for regulating legal services) and seems simply about protecting vested interests.


    (I am anon 9:57)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To Anon 2:48pm. Can't the Singaporean solicitor concurently practice as SLF and be employed by the English firm?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • as many laywers in Singapore are aware, the question in parliament was raised by a local lawyer (who is also an mp), whose business competes against CC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (10)