 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
25.2
Higher rights of audience and conditional fees
Quite apart from such general economic considerations, the Interim Report also
acknowledged that other structural features of our civil justice system might have an
important impact on costs. We stated :-
"Issues such as the extent to which foreign-qualified lawyers are admitted to appear before
the local courts; how far rights of audience may be extended; the availability of conditional or
contingency fee arrangements and the scope of legal aid, among others, are all questions with
a possibly significant impact on litigation costs. However, such questions fall outside the
Working Party's remit."
The Interim Report pointed out that such matters fell outside the Working Party's
remit, but this did not deter a number of respondents from suggesting that conditional
fees
(or in some cases, contingency fees
) and higher rights of audience for
solicitors
ought to be considered by the Working Party.
The Law Society went so
far as to suggest that failure to deal with these matters detracted intellectually from the
Interim Report, stating :-
"The most patent omission in ...... the CJR ...... is that of higher rights of audience of
solicitors in the High Court. The failure to consider this topic — an expedient way to reduce
costs in civil litigation — detracts intellectually from the CJR. The public should be apprised
of the reasons why this is not addressed in the CJR. Legal services, like any other industry,
has to provide a good service at reasonable cost. It has to keep abreast of the demands of
contemporary society. This will not be achieved unless the debate is objective and
comprehensive and the omission of considered debate of higher rights and other matters, such
as conditional/contingency fees, prevents the CJR from meeting this criterion."
Notes
Including the Hongkong Civic Association, the Hon Mr Andrew Cheng speaking in Legco, the BCC
and a firm of solicitors.
Including the BCC and two individual respondents.
The BCC, two firms of solicitors and an individual respondent.
The DOJ pointed to the possible relevance of conditional fees but indicated that it was itself studying
the matter. As indicated below, a reference has now been made to the Law Reform Commission.
The Consumer Council supported such a study by the government.
|
 |
|