Singapore attracts 23 licence applications
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has confirmed that 23 foreign law firms have applied for the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licence following the two-month window for applications, which closed on 31 August.
DLA Piper, Jones Day, K&L Gates and Watson, Farley & Williams are among the firms lining up to bid for a lucrative licence.
The Ministry of Law’s spokesperson said: “The number of licences to be awarded will depend on the quality of applications received for the QFLP exercise”.
The evaluation and selection committee will consider a number of factors when deliberating who will be successful. This includes the firm’s commitment to the amount of offshore work that the Singapore office will do. In addition, it will consider the number of lawyers who will be based in the base, what practice areas it will cover and to what extent the office will function as a headquarters for the firm in the region.
The Lawyer revealed in May that the government of Singapore was inviting more foreign firms to apply for QFLP licences, as the City State continues to liberalise its legal services market (29 May 2012). The Ministry of Law started accepting new applications from 1 July. The successful firms will be announced by the end of this year.
The QFLP licences allow foreign law firms to practise permitted areas of Singapore law. Six law firms - Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith, Lathan & Watkins, Norton Rose and White & Case - were awarded QFLP licences in December 2008 (5 December 2008).
Once approved, the QFLP licensees will have up to six months to set up their Singapore office and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from then.
Readers' comments (4)
Chrles Soon | 8-Sep-2012 5:37 am
I am NOT a lawyer & have no wish protecting the livelihhoods of our multi-millionaire laywer fellow citizens.
But why opening this segment to foreign firms? Is there a dearth of good lawyers in Singapore? Or the standards of our lawyers left much to be desired?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Singaporean lawyer in London | 10-Sep-2012 9:45 am
In theory, a non-Singaporean client who already uses a non-Singaporean firm for most of its work will benefit from cost and other synergies on its Singaporean transactions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ex-Singapore lawyer | 10-Sep-2012 10:15 am
To be fair, only two or three dozen Singapore lawyers earn over a million dollars a year - a lot of the guys in the smaller firms and the sole proprietors can only dream about earning such a livelihood.
But I too question the rationale for allowing so many foreign firms to have qualifying licenses. I cannot think of another jurisdiction that is so liberal in the scope of the foreign entry it allows to foreign firms. There is no doubt that some of the bread and butter work of local firms is now being done by the foreign firms and the skill levels needed for such work is not cutting-edge. So who really wins from this? I guess if as a client you can get international firms to work for you at local rates then you are a winner. Equally, if you are a local lawyer who can land a job at an international firm to do local work then you will be a winner salary-wise at least in the short term.
But how is the Singapore legal profession a winner?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 13-Nov-2012 0:34 am
@ Charles Soon and 'Ex Singapore lawyer',
There is a dearth of good lawyers in Singapore (and every country actually) who have the training and experience to advise on foreign and international law.
Law is the language of international trade, so any company seeking to export or import goods and services needs to engage suitably qualified lawyers.
The most efficient and convenient way to ensure that companies have access to international legal advice is to allow them to establish an office in the country and to create rules which allow foreign lawyers to provide legal advice on foreign and international law.
Many companies are interested in engaging a single law firm (rather than 2 or 3 or more) to provide a 'full package' of legal advice. By enabling foreign law firms to employ Singaporean lawyers to provide advice in critical commercial and corporate areas of law, these firms are able to provide that service.
In many cases, the company may have already been seeking advice from the foreign firm, but because the advice was not provided in Singapore it could not be taxed by the Government and the profits simply went overseas.
If a firm establishes in Singapore under a Joint Venture or using a QLFP license, then all profits earned in Singapore are taxed with the benefit ultimately going to Singapore.
The rationale for allowing so many licences is that competition will drive down prices and increase the benefit to Singaporean companies. As with the original JLV arrangements, many foreign firms will not be able to compete effectively, but that is the nature of business.
The legal services sector in Singapore grew from $1.4 billion in 2007 to $1.8 billion in 2011. That is a pretty good growth rate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment