•
An interview with the Senior Counsel Selection Committee
•
Senior Counsel scheme may be changed
©Reproduced by permission of the
Singapore Academy of Law,
publisher of Inter Se
by Tan Boon Khai, Legal Service Officer
Three Senior Counsel speak candidly to Tan Boon Khai about trials and
tribulations of an advocate's career, feeling like they are on top of the world,
and the importance of staying grounded through it all.
Ever wonder what makes a Senior Counsel (“SC”) tick? What drives and motivates them? Is the SC Scheme good for the Singapore legal profession as a whole? What now for those who are appointed as SC – is this the end of it all or the beginning of a new chapter in their professional career?
Several weeks back, when Inter Se asked me to pen an article to mark the passing of a decade since Singapore’s very own SC were first appointed, these were precisely the questions running through my mind. After all, it is not everyday that one gets SC to share their personal perspectives with you. As someone mentioned to me, such information was priceless (for everything else, there is MasterCard, of course!).
So off I went, searching for “answers” to these questions. A senior member of the Bar once told me, “In law, it is not always about what you know about the law, but where you find the law.” As any lawyer would do, I applied this piece of “advice” literally, which meant, for the purposes of this article, approaching a few of our most distinguished SC.
I started first with Mr Harry Elias SC whom, as many would know, was one of the first SC appointed by the former Chief Justice Yong Pung How in January 1997. It was certainly a privilege when I managed to sneak in an appointment with him at short notice. By some measure of good fortune, I also managed to squeeze in two separate interviews with two other SC. One was with The Honourable Justice V K Rajah, one of the youngest SC when he was appointed in 1997, now Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore; and the other with Ms Deborah Barker SC, one of the few female SC (or, as I was reminded anonymously, one of the “roses” amongst the thorns).
If there is anything that one should know before meeting an SC (whether in court
or otherwise), it is always be prepared. At each interview, I posed three
thought–provoking questions to this distinguished panel of SC. In typical SC
fashion, I took away more than I bargained for. Curious to know what these three
distinguished SC shared with me? Then read on!
It has been more than ten years since SC were first appointed in Singapore. In
your view, has the appointment of SC altered the legal landscape in Singapore?
If so, in what way?
Harry Elias SC: It has certainly raised the standard of the Bar here, but I must
also say that the fact that you have these titles does not make you a giant
because the giant is in the man himself, not in the title, and I can certainly
give you the names of several non–SC who are on par with our SC today. Are you
saying I will definitely have an advantage over them? Not necessarily. I am just
putting these views so that we do not get carried away.
Justice V K Rajah: I think that it has made a serious difference to the
litigation landscape in Singapore. Both for those within and outside the
profession, there is now an independent mark of quality. This mark of quality is
acknowledged as being objective and largely accurate in singling out some of the
better advocates of the day. There is now a presumption that an SC has all the
necessary prerequisites to handle the most difficult and sensitive cases. Having
said that, it is important to recognise that for one reason or another, there
are a number of extremely good advocates who are not SC. My experience, both as
a private practitioner and judge, is that while an SC will certainly get a good
hearing and be taken seriously when he presents a case, other lawyers are
certainly not disadvantaged if they do have good cases or points to argue.
Personally, I have witnessed a number of cases where SC have not succeeded
against parties represented by other advocates. Indeed, I am sure many of us can
still remember the matrimonial matter where two well–known SC roundly lost their
arguments and bearings against a feisty female litigant in person. It was the
talk of the town. If my memory serves me well, a leading daily had a banner
headline that read something like this, “Jane and the Two Tarzans”. Not all SC
have a well–rounded experience that gives them a distinct advantage over
advocates who specialise in particular fields. So the advantage conferred on an
advocate as an SC is mainly one of market recognition and an acknowledgment
within the legal community that the advocate concerned is one of the better
advocates, but it is by no means a guarantee that that SC will succeed in all
their cases and/or will be more effective than other lawyers in all cases
undertaken. At the end of the day, I can now say with confidence, the court
looks at the message and not the messenger. I must also stress that being an SC
is not necessarily the be all and end all. One can be recognised as being a good
and effective advocate without ever being appointed as SC. Appointment to the
ranks of SC is just the beginning of another track and not the end point.
Deborah Barker SC: Even before the day of SC, certain people were recognised as
having risen to the top of the profession and being very good in their field.
But the fact of having an SC quality mark has assisted that trend, and certainly
assisted our profession by allowing us to rely more on our own resources. The
very fact that you have a selected group approved by their profession and the
Bench has encouraged the trend of not looking outside for foreign Queen’s
Counsel (“QC”). You look inside to whoever you have here, and this is a good
thing. Of course if there is someone who is really the best or the only one in
that area, a QC would still be available to be appointed, and I would have
nothing against that. So the SC Scheme, by encouraging local lawyers and setting
the trend to look inside at your own talent, is good. I would also add, just on
a very superficial level, I certainly do not think QC stand out more than our SC
today.
People often ask how it feels like being the cream of the profession. Has being
an SC changed your life or your practice? How so?
H Elias: Not particularly, although what it did give me was the pride and joy
that I had been part of the first batch to be chosen from among the profession.
You certainly feel honoured. Did I celebrate? I would say “yes”. Did I bring a
lot of joy to the family? I would undoubtedly say “yes” also. And did I walk
around with a strut? At the beginning, “yes”! But over the years, it is an
accepted norm that you have more critical matters to do other than strutting
around. And one of the things that SC should, and must do, is to give back to
the profession. So for me, I would like the day to come when the phone rings,
and someone says, “My name is XYZ, I have a criminal matter, my client is ...
Can you please come and help on a free basis?”, I would say “yes”.
Rajah JA: It was a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction to be appointed
as SC and thereby ranked amongst the better advocates in Singapore. The fact
that this was among the very first appointments made it special. I must
acknowledge that it benefited my practice, and gave me an extra fillip with
clients who were not familiar with me and/or my practice. The fact that there
were so few SC initially appointed did not hurt. It also encouraged me to grow
the firm rather rapidly. But let me say this. With the benefits and privileges
comes a responsibility to the legal community to share knowledge and expertise.
I like to think that I played my part. Today, I feel that a small fraction of SC
may not be wholeheartedly discharging their role as role models for younger
advocates. This disappoints me. I hope all SC will be more involved either in
the Singapore Academy of Law and/or the Law Society of Singapore, working with
them, through legal education or in the various committees. As a quid pro quo
for the recognition, they ought to make time to contribute to the legal
community. I hope more, if not all, will step forward. The Senior Counsel Forum
is unfortunately rather lacking in vigour and direction.
D Barker: It has not changed my life in any real way I suppose, although I
recall that when I was appointed as SC in January 2001, about a week later I
conducted a case before the Court of Appeal. I remember feeling very nervous,
because in my mind I was wondering whether, now that I was an SC, the court
expected me to be brilliant, and whether I would be able to live up to the
court’s expectations? So the one thing about being an SC is that you do feel
some pressure about the standard you may have to live up to and that all eyes
are on you. Also, there is the feeling that since you have been given this honour and privilege, you should give back to the profession and do some
“national service”. Personally, I also wanted to get the appointment in memory
of my father, and in that sense, I was very pleased and honoured when I did.
Finally, what are some things which, as an SC, you would share with our young
lawyers today? Is there a secret to your success which you could impart to
today’s aspiring young litigation lawyers?
H Elias: That is a difficult question. A lot of young people nowadays make the
mistake of coming into the law without knowing what it is all about. So I would
encourage those who wish to practise law to find out what exactly it is before
jumping in.
Rajah JA: There are two or three attitudes I would like to share. They are not
peculiar to me. First, always be thoroughly prepared for any court appearance.
It is better to be over–prepared than under–prepared. Work on the basis that it
is important to maintain your credibility with the court at all times by showing
that you have applied yourself to the matter and have covered all grounds,
factual and/or legal. It is also important to establish a rapport with the
court. Once you have done that, it leads to a better hearing. After credibility
is established, the court will be prepared to repose more confidence in the
advocate. Second, be passionate about what you are doing. The satisfaction comes
not so much from just the material rewards but from the sense of pride in
craftsmanship that when a job has to be done, it is done well. Receiving
recognition from the court and/or your peers will bring with it an incalculable
measure of satisfaction. The greatest satisfaction in litigation is being able
to bring a personal dimension to a matter which perhaps few others could have
brought, in short, being able to make a tangible difference to your clients and
to the court. In the final analysis, this can only be effectively done if there
is a real and abiding commitment to the profession and its ideals. It must also
be appreciated that one cannot be always correct or successful. Accept adverse
results with equanimity when you have done your best and move on.
D Barker: I can see why some young lawyers feel that they will have a less
stressful life if they are not in litigation or in the profession at all, or if
they are in–house counsel. I would think one has to accept that and that we
cannot completely eradicate the trend of litigation lawyers leaving the
profession. To a large extent, litigation requires a certain mindset and
character, but for those who have it, I would say that it can be very
satisfying. Doing a case can be a thrilling experience – you reach highs and
lows. Personally, I find doing cases exciting, and it gives great intellectual
joy and satisfaction. So I think there is a very special job satisfaction, but
you must do it to know about it, so I would encourage young people to try it.
You must, however, distinguish this satisfaction from glamour, I do not recall
it being glamorous at all, given that it involves a lot of hours and hard work!
Inter Se thanks Mr Harry Elias SC, Justice V K Rajah and Ms Deborah Barker SC
for their time in granting us this interview and wishes them every success.