 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Thus, initiatives (a) and (b), to do with getting professional representation or advice
for those unable to afford it must primarily be addressed by such non-judicial bodies.
However, one reform discussed in this Final Report which may have an impact on
getting representation for litigants in person is for the introduction of a multi-party
litigation scheme suitable for Hong Kong (see Recommendation 70). Such a scheme
might make it possible for individuals to instruct lawyers by sharing the cost.
Moreover, parties litigating under such a scheme might be more manageably granted
legal aid.
In this context, it is interesting to note that in a paper dated June 2003 prepared by the
Administration Wing of the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office for the LegCo
Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services ("the AJLS Paper"), the
government noted the proposal in the Interim Report that a multi-party litigation
scheme appropriate for Hong Kong should be adopted after further study and indicated
that the Administration "do not see, at this stage, in-principle objection to provision of
legal aid to cover class action proceedings", although this would also require further
study.
The government also noted the Interim Report's proposal for the provision of
"unbundled legal assistance" to unrepresented litigants and stated that the
Administration would keep this proposal in view while noting that a degree of
government subvention was already being provided to the Duty Lawyer Service in
relation to the Legal Advice Scheme being provided to members of the public and the
Tel-Law Scheme providing basic information on legal aspects of everyday problems
through a free telephone advice service.
Additionally, it noted the proposal that legal aid might be made conditional on the
recipient first engaging in ADR (a recommendation pursued by the Working Party in a
modified form, see Recommendation 141) and stated that it would await this Final
Report before considering the way forward.
|
 |
|