London's leading silks eye up Singapore moves as region's arbitration clout grows
"A vast proportion of our work is in the field of arbitration. There's been a huge explosion of work in the region" - Commercial barristers are seeing a growing opportunity for senior advocates in Singapore
March 15, 2012 at 08:03 PM
4 minute read
Commercial barristers see a growing opportunity for senior advocates in key Asia hub. Ben Lewis reports
In 1991, a quarter of a century after winning independence from British rule, Singapore finally abolished one of the last vestiges of colonialism – the powdered wigs worn by barristers appearing in local courts.
The wigs may be gone, but the barristers who originally brought them are back. Two of London's top barristers' chambers have opened offices in Singapore in recent years, and others are eyeing the city-state as the prime Asian destination to pitch their skills.
However, they are mostly looking outside the courtroom. Even though the Singapore Government recently passed regulations that make it easier for senior barristers from abroad to practise in Singapore courts, most of those barristers are focusing on arbitration.
"A vast proportion of our work [in Singapore] is in the field of arbitration," says David Joseph QC (pictured above), a senior barrister at Essex Court Chambers, which opened a Singapore office two years ago. "There's been a huge explosion of work in the region."
Singapore has been aggressively promoting itself as a regional hub for arbitration. At the beginning of 2010, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre opened Maxwell Chambers, a purpose-built, state-of-the-art arbitration facility where both Essex Court and 20 Essex Street have their offices. The volume of arbitration in Singapore doubled between 2008 and 2010, and is expected to grow further.
The opportunities for work in the region spring in large part from the business conflicts of senior Singaporean barristers. Unlike in England, many of Singapore's 41 high-ranking advocates (known as senior counsel) work at large law firms, which do not wish to be adverse to major companies and banks. That's often where barristers from abroad come in.
Essex Court rotates barristers in and out of its Singapore office, but Simon Milnes of 20 Essex Street has been based full-time in Singapore since the chambers opened there in 2010, and a second barrister, Ben Olbourne, arrived from London in recent weeks. Milnes says the chambers has been inundated with work. "The costs of opening and manning an office have long since paid for themselves – and more," he says.
Those chambers without a presence say Singapore is the place to be. "The English Bar is increasingly looking to export its services," says Alex Taylor, the director of clerking for Fountain Court Chambers. "For us, it really is mainly Singapore."
Though Fountain Court has no plans to open an office there, Taylor says its barristers make regular visits to Singapore. Meanwhile, a joint senior clerk at 7 King's Bench Walk, Bernie Hyatt, says a Singapore office is "something we have been talking about in the clerking room," though no decision has been made. Likewise, a clerk at One Essex Court says having a presence in Singapore is under discussion. "If the market is there for it, we'll do it," he says.
However, not everyone is thrilled with Singapore's embrace of foreign litigators. Hri Kumar SC, a dispute resolution partner at Drew & Napier and a member of the Singaporean parliament, notes that Singapore was previously open to foreign practitioners but threw up barriers in 1991 over fears that the preponderance of foreign lawyers was stifling the development of the local Bar. He fears that Singapore may be heading down that road again if the barriers are lifted too readily.
"There may be a temptation [on the part of clients] to go to a foreign QC even when a local senior counsel is available," says Kumar. "There is also a message about whether we think local lawyers are good enough."
But he understands why they're coming. "They're coming here because, in a nutshell, the region is where the work is, and where the work will continue to be," says Kumar. "It's an inevitable move. I'm sure there'll be more coming."
This article first appeared in The Asian Lawyer, an affiliate title of Legal Week.
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
© 2025 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 AllIs KPMG’s Arizona ABS Strategy a Turning Point in U.S. Law? What London’s Experience Reveals
5 minute readKPMG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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