Fifteen Hong Kong lawyers win higher rights to appear in court
Fifteen lawyers have been granted approval to appear in Hong Kong courts with exemption from litigation training, as the region moves to broaden the scope of work law firms are permitted to handle. Some of Hong Kong's top dispute resolution partners - including top-ranked Skadden disputes partner Paul Mitchard QC and Ashurst senior associate and former barrister Sanjay Sakhrani - are among the line-up receiving Higher Rights of Audience (HRA).
February 08, 2013 at 07:45 AM
4 minute read
Fifteen lawyers have been granted approval to appear in Hong Kong courts with exemption from litigation training, as the region moves to broaden the scope of work law firms are permitted to handle.
Some of Hong Kong's top dispute resolution partners – including top-ranked Skadden disputes partner Paul Mitchard QC (pictured) and Ashurst senior associate and former barrister Sanjay Sakhrani – are among the line-up receiving Higher Rights of Audience (HRA).
The list also includes Baker & McKenzie disputes duo Gary Seib and Kareena Teh, Mayer Brown JSM partner Nicholas Hunsworth, Allen & Overy arbitration partner Matthew Gearing and Sidley Austin international arbitration practice co-chair Yang Ing Loong.
The appointments come after legislation giving solicitors the right to appear in court came into force last June, allowing solicitors with the relevant experience to be given HRA at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal.
Until now, barristers have dominated court roles, despite Hong Kong-qualified litigators being involved in almost all behind-the-scenes tasks such as preparing pleadings, putting together evidence and sourcing witnesses.
To qualify as a solicitor-advocate in Hong Kong, lawyers were required to apply for training and assessment to the Higher Rights Assessment Board, which is made up of a panel of judges, barristers and senior solicitors.
Those with substantial dispute resolution or litigation advocacy experience were permitted to apply for an exemption from the training.
Just two lawyers have been granted HRA in respect of criminal proceedings, with the other 13 for civil cases. No-one was awarded rights for both.
A total of 90 solicitors applied last September for the rights with exclusion from assessment, with 13 hoping to be able to appear in criminal and civil cases, five applying for rights to criminal proceedings only and 72 for civil.
There were a further 30 applications for HRA with training, all of which are expected to be given a place on a course administered by the College of Law in Hong Kong.
The Law Society is expected to issue formal certificates confirming the approved rights after the Chinese New Year holiday.
According to Justice Michael Hartmann, chairman of the Higher Rights Assessment Board which reviewed the applications, unsuccessful applicants can apply for HRA again but not in the same calendar year. There is no limit on the number of times a solicitor can apply.
"We will be putting out guidelines to assist future applicants for higher rights who seek it by way of exemption from assessment," Hartmann told Legal Week. "We will be explaining our approach. They will come out shortly after Chinese New Year.
"It is up to the board to decide how many times a year it will receive applications, and we're actively looking at that at the moment. But there will be another opportunity this year for people to apply via exemption."
As for the applications for HRA by way of assessment, he said the board hopes to announce a timeline for the course very soon, but that all 30 would be put forward.
"Sometime in March or even late February we will be able to advise the profession on when training will start. The trainers are coming out in a matter of weeks to set everything up. We sincerely hope [the training will commence] in April, and then in April to early May will be the assessments."
The new rules are expected to provide an additional revenue stream for international law firms in the region, by allowing them to represent their clients in court. The development could also benefit clients by potentially saving large sums in legal fees.
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 AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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