ACC Opposes Proposed Restrictions on Foreign Lawyers in Hong Kong
The ACC publicly opposed proposed amendments from the Hong Kong Law Society restricting foreign lawyers.
January 09, 2019 at 03:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The Association of Corporate Counsel announced its opposition to a proposal that would impact the number of foreign lawyers practicing in Hong Kong.
The global in-house legal association published a press release Monday opposing the Hong Kong Law Society's proposed amendments to its Foreign Lawyers Registration Rules, which would change the ratio of domestic to foreign lawyers in Hong Kong firms from 1:1 to 2:1.
Mary Blatch, the ACC's associate general counsel and senior director of advocacy, said the new rule would not apply to legal department staff but would still harm Hong Kong in-house counsel by limiting their outside counsel options for global matters.
“Right now, being able to have the foreign lawyers in Hong Kong helps the businesses that are located there access the different types of legal expertise they need,” Blatch told Corporate Counsel. “There's a lot of multi-jurisdictional transactions and issues that arise and so our members value having lawyers from different jurisdictions able to work on their matters side by side. It makes for more efficient, more effective legal counsel.”
The new amendments would also “restrict lawyers to practicing only the law of the jurisdiction in which they are qualified.” The provision has prompted concern most frequently in relation to laws in offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands, according to the ACC's submission to the Law Society via its Hong Kong chapter.
In practice, the ACC Hong Kong said in its comments that lawyers advising on BVI or Cayman laws in Hong Kong may not be qualified in those jurisdictions because the BVI and the Cayman Islands allow lawyers qualified in other jurisdictions to advise on their laws.
“If a company determines that a lawyer is competent to advise on the law of a jurisdiction (other than that of Hong Kong) in which the lawyer is not licensed, it should be the company's choice to proceed,” wrote the ACC Hong Kong president Lin Shi, and vice president and chief legal officer Susanna McDonald.
“We are particularly concerned that the [proposed change] would strip the business community in Hong Kong of its current choices and further limit competition in Hong Kong's legal marketplace,” wrote Shi and McDonald.
“We always favor free flow of lawyers across borders. Today's businesses are multinational. They're operating on a global basis and they shouldn't have their legal advice subject to the jurisdictional restrictions to impede cross-border transactions and business operations,” Blatch said.
Hong Kong's 1:1 ratio has been in place since 1994. According to the ACC, about 1,500 foreign lawyers from mostly common law jurisdictions currently work in Hong Kong, accounting for more than 15 percent of the total number of practicing solicitors.
The ACC Hong Kong, which has over 900 members, said the proposal risks creating a protectionist environment that would “harm business,” hinder Hong Kong's economic goals and the “quality and integrity of the legal profession in Hong Kong.”
More than 20 American and British firms, including Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, oppose the changes. The ACC said in the press release that if the amendments pass, firms may move to Singapore. Firms in Hong Kong would have two years to comply.
“This goes beyond Hong Kong-based businesses,” Blatch said. “Because businesses located elsewhere will also work with Hong Kong-based firms, because it's really seen as a legal hub for much of Asia.”
|Read More:
Lawyers Blast Hong Kong Law Society's Proposed New Restrictions
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250