The Singapore Law Gazette

200 Years of Values and Value in the Legal Profession

Introduction

This article serves as a snapshot to stimulate reflective questions on our professional identity and professional service as lawyers. ¹I am grateful to my Practice Trainee, Ms Isabelle Lim, for her research for some parts of this article. All errors and omissions remain mine. At the two century mark since the promulgation of the Second Charter of Justice, it is apt for us as a society to introspect.

Professional identity is underpinned by ethical norms spanning across generations of lawyers. Our brief historical odyssey will reveal continuing values that anchor the legal profession even amid our present day of global and digital disruptions. This piece is neither historical discourse nor a full tracing of ethical evolution. Authorities and articles are especially scarce for the first 140 years since the Second Charter of Justice but this does not render the odyssey shorter.

The heart of professional service lies in the journey of pro bono lawyering. But this, like the ethical dimension covered here, is neither comprehensive nor complete analytically.

On Ethics and Etiquette

Pre-independence

Prior to the birth of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA 1966”), several predecessor acts on ethics for advocates and solicitors in Singapore had been enacted dating back to Ordinance 32 of 1934 – Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1934²The Laws of the Straits Settlements: Revised up to and including the 31^st Day of December 1935 (1936 Ed) Volume II at p 349 – 377 (“ASO 1934”) In that Ordinance, the Bar Committee of any Settlement was empowered ³Section 31, Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1934. (a) “to make rules regulating the practice and etiquette of the profession in the Settlement, subject to such rules being approved by a majority at a general meeting of advocates and solicitors;” and (b) “to answer questions affecting professional etiquette and practice in the Settlement;” (emphasis ours). While there was no express reference to ethics in the legislation, as an observation, the reference to etiquette was probably broader in concept to connote and capture both ethics and etiquette.

Legal historian Kevin Tan has elsewhere also noted that “with the passage of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, the Bar Committee was statutorily empowered to where “it thinks necessary make representations to the Supreme Court with regard to the character of persons desiring to be admitted” for practice.”⁴Fiat Justitia at 91 In conducting such inquiry, the Bar Committee had powers to summon witnesses and order production of documents. The end product was the Bar Committee’s report filed with the Court who “shall give directions to the Bar Committee to take such proceedings as the Court shall think necessary.”⁵Section 31(6) Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1934 This was of course, at the front door of the profession and embryonic to our well defined and structured admissions process including presently hearing from all stakeholders in the justice system i.e. the Law Society, Singapore Institute of Legal Education and Attorney General’s Chambers with the Court having the final say on admissions.⁶See eg Re Tan Jia Wei Zenn and other matters (2026) SGHC 46 at (2); Re Lee Jun Ming Chester and other matters (2023) SGHC 282 at (1); Re Tay Jie Qi and another matter (2023) SGHC 59 at (2); “Apply to the Supreme Court of Singapore as Advocate & Solicitors” Singapore Institute of Legal Education < https://www.sile.edu.sg/the-singapore-bar-admission-local-graduates/admission-singapore-bar-advocate-solicitor/> (accessed 15 April 2026)

It appears that pre-ASO 1934, ethical guidelines for advocates and solicitors would have largely been derived from English common law as received and enacted in Singapore by virtue of the Second Charter of Justice in 1826. That said, there were examples of limited local legislation passed regulating the professional conduct of advocates and solicitors, apart from rules and codes of conduct transposed from English case law. One illustration is the Advocates’ and Solicitors’ Cost Ordinance 1886 (Ordinance No. XVII of 1886).⁷The Straits Settlements Government Gazette for the year 1886, p 2031-2034 Another illustration of a promulgated legislation in the pre-1934 era was the Ordinance No. 101 of 1926 (Courts),⁸The Laws of the Straits Settlements Vol II (1926 Ed). p 351 – 402 the predecessor act to the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1934.

Post-independence

A lot more has been said about ethics after 1965. In our post-independence period, Justice Andrew Phang has extrajudicially, ingenuously observed that a highly materialistic pragmatism was a factor in the Singapore context in addition to leading to “the consequent impoverishment of the common law in Singapore during the “modern period” via its adverse effects on the legal profession” ⁹Andrew Phang, “Convergence and Divergence – A Preliminary Comparative Analysis of the Singapore and Hong Kong Legal Systems” 23 Hong Kong L.J. 1 (1993) at 6 observing its provenance :“excessive materialism arose out of a concern for the survival of Singapore as a nation after its independence in 1965.”, During that period, Professor Andrew Phang has commented that “Symptomatic of this general malaise was an apparent, and worrying, increase in breaches of legal ethics …”¹⁰Supra note 9 at 7 He further observed that the “development of an indigenous Singapore legal system would serve several other purposes: the building as well as reinforcement of a spirit of professionalism and service (admittedly idealistic but wholly in accordance with the traditional ideals of the legal profession);”¹¹Supra note 9 at 8 This broader socio-legal context needs to be borne in mind.

Some of our older generation of practising lawyers reading this will recall that ethics would typically come under the negative spotlight when real life tales of rogue lawyers and errant lawyers’ professional misconduct hit the news. Hence, through lessons learnt from such case studies (including on the ethical breaches involved and professional sanctions meted or mulcted), they served as negative exemplars for practice guidance. These also added to the mix in our autochthonous ethical jurisprudence that was starting to take shape.

A useful practical tool used by lawyers post-independence as an “ethical compass” was Sir Thomas Lund’s “A Guide to the Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Lawyers”.¹²Sir Thomas Lund, Guide to the Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Solicitors (1960). President Wong Meng Meng SC in January 2011 writing the foreword to the “Guide to Professional Conduct for Advocates and Solicitors” had this to say:¹³The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors (issued by the Law Society, 1990).

“Practitioners of my generation, and perhaps those in the generation after mine, may remember a little red book written by Sir Thomas Lund, C.B.E, in 1960 titled A Guide to the Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Lawyers. Sir Thomas Lund was then a solicitor of the Supreme Court and he Secretary of the English Law Society. In the 176-page Guide, Sir Thomas Lund sought to provide a short introduction to the basic principles of professional conduct and etiquette which English solicitors were expected to conform.

Some of Sir Thomas Lund’s principles were eventually adopted in the Practice Directions of the Law Society of Singapore. For example, on relations with other solicitors, his adage “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was reiterated at paragraph 27 of the Practice Directions and Rulings issued by the Law Society in 1989 in the context of communicating with represented clients.

It is also worth bearing in mind Sir Thomas Lund’s personal observations following his adage at page 73 of his Guide:

“I think that when we are dealing with another member of our profession, consistent with our overriding duty to a client in any special case. I know that the client’s interest must prevail, but I like to think that that means the interests of our clients in general taking the long view, and I do not believe that it is a good thing that one client, who perhaps is not straight or brings improper pressure to bear upon you, should succeed in getting you to do something unfair or underhand. I do not think that that is in the interests of your clients generally; I think it is better for your clients that you should lose that one man as a client than that you should acquire a reputation as being a man who is not straightforward or a man whose word cannot be relied upon”

Timeless advice indeed and I would urge all new practitioners to read Sir Thomas Lund’s Guide to better understand the historical underpinnings of the traditional ethical obligations of a lawyer, many of which still remain relevant today.”

In an illuminating judgment two decades ago in Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore,¹⁴(2006) 4 SLR 934, at (84) and (85 VK Rajah J propounded invaluable perspectives the ethico-legal framework governing professional conduct:

“The rules of ethics, as articulated in the LPA, its subsidiary legislation and the Law Society Practice Directions and conventions (collectively “ethical rules”), should not be perceived as an external and inconvenient imposition of values on the legal profession but rather as an embodiment of the moral compass and aspirations of the profession. It must also be recognised that ethical rules only delineate minimal standards and duties which solicitors must observe. There is much left unsaid that must be implicitly understood and observed with intelligent flexibility. Unstinting compliance with all ethical rules and practices is in the enlightened self-interest of the profession. Without such observance and effective enforcement of ethical rules, the glue that binds and distinguishes advocates and solicitors as professionals as opposed to merely self-serving businessmen will soon dissolve. A solicitor is most certainly not merely a businessman or client proxy. He is an officer of the court charged with the unique responsibility of upholding the legal system and the quality of justice …

A failure by significant numbers of the legal profession to abide by and observe these ethical standards would eventually drive the entire profession down the slippery slope of ignominy. Systemic ethical corruption will fray and ultimately destroy the moral fibre of the profession. In a race to the bottom, legal practices will expend more and more valuable time and resources competing with and out-foxing each other for business rather than focusing their efforts on effectively delivering premier services to clients and appropriately discharging their wider obligations to the community. While legal practices are necessarily run as profit-making businesses, this does not, and cannot, mean that ethical constraints should be perceived as inconveniences to be either accepted and ignored at will. Solicitors who take their obligations and roles seriously should not be disadvantaged by the less scrupulous who do not.”

It was later on 1 June 1998 that a Code of Conduct was operationalized via the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 1998¹⁵For a detailed analysis of these rules, see “Deciphering the Code of Conduct” by this author published in 1998, Singapore Law Gazette.

Subsequent to this, in more mature form, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules 2015)(“PCR”) came into operation on 18 November 2015. It is a relatively comprehensive set of rules on professional conduct that not only contains negative proscriptions on what advocates and solicitors should not do but also outlines positive prescriptions on what advocates and solicitors should do. It was former President Michael Hwang SC who challenged me (in a good way) after a talk I gave on ethics to consider reframing the rules into positive ethical normative prescriptions. This is my stab at it:-

1. Being Honourable (e.g. Rule 4(c) PCR);

2. Being Courteous (e.g. Rules 4(f) and 7(2) PCR);

3. Being Diligent and Prepared (e.g. Rules 4(h), 5(1)(c), 5(2)(b),(c),(e),(h) PCR)

4. Being Competent (e.g. Rules 5(1)(b) and 5(2)(c),(d), PCR)

5. Being Honest and Trustworthy to the client (e.g. honest in client dealings – Rule 5(2)(a) PCR and duties of confidentiality in Rule 6, PCR

6. Being Loyal to the client (e.g. conflict of interest rules in Rules 20-22, PCR and complying with instructions in Rule 5(2)(i) PCR)

7. Being Fair and Transparent to the client on Fees

8. Being Truthful to the Court (e.g. Rule 9(2) and Rule 9(3), PCR- duty to draw Court’s attention to all adverse authorities)

9. Being Respectful to the Court (e.g. Rule 13(2), PCR)

10. Being Fair minded (e.g. to opposing counsel – see Rules 7(2) and 28, PCR) 

I leave us to reflect on the following:

1. Rather than focussing on the don’ts, how would our individual practices look like if we focus on the positive ethico-legal norms above? How would this look like in different relationships in the legal profession? How can the balance be struck between different duties owed to the court, the client, the counterparty and administration of justice?

2. We have seen observations on professional etiquette twice in the short narrative above in ASO 1934 and the “Guide to Professional Conduct for Advocates and Solicitors”. Beyond the letter of the PCR, is there merit in preserving long standing etiquettes, practices, and conventions that have served us generations of lawyers in salutary fashion? What would this look like in our individual day-to-day praxis? For example, can we consistently practise the Golden Rule in law as per Sir Thomas Lund’s guidance to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

On Pro Bono Lawyering

Pro Bono lawyering was practically non-existent in pre-independent years. The term was neither in vogue nor bandied about among legal practitioners. There is also little evidence of the same given the nation’s and lawyers’ priorities in the early years¹⁶Of which see supra note 9..

Yet beacons of light existed. One anecdotal example of a lawyer providing pro bono services was TT Rajah. In Duty of Care+, the description of the founders of Rajah & Tann merit reproducing for both colour and context:

“[TT’s] passion was justice for the hapless in society, and this resonated deeply with Wee Tiong. After both of them first met within the PAP, they were soon practising alongside each other, fighting for the rights of the defenceless, who could be anyone from bus drivers to kitchen hands.

However modest their clients’ means might have been, TT and Wee Tiong always did their best for them, often not charging them as cent for their services. Both even dug into their own pockets frequently to cover their clients’ legal expenses. As friends and family members of those whom TT and Wee Tiong represented began learning of how kind and giving both gentlemen were, they took to seeking their advice on legal matters well after business hours, even visiting their homes to that end. If either of the lawyers was too tied up to field their queries, the other would step into the breach. TT and Wee Tiong would not turn anyone away.

So it was that they became heroes of ordinary folk” ¹⁷Duty of Care + (Rajah & Tann Asia, 2022).

In his President’s Message, Law Society Annual Report 2009, then President of the Law Society Michael Hwang described “Concern” as one of the aims of the Law Society: “…. We want our Society to be perceived by the Government and the public as caring for the community, especially those in the less advantaged position, so that we can ensure access to justice for all who need it. Thus, we should assist needy citizens and residents and deserving non-profit organisations on a pro bono basis.”¹⁸Fiat Justitia at 244

This was no bolt from the blue. Enshrined in the LPA 1966 as hard-coded statutory societal objectives are the following purposes of the Law Society:

“(f) “to protect and assist the public in Singapore in all matters touching or ancillary or incidental to the law;”

(g) “to make provision for or assist in the promotion of a scheme whereby impecunious persons on non-capital charges are represented by advocates;” ¹⁹Section 38(1)f),(g), LPA 1965

In 2006, the Law Society established an important committee to strategically review its work on legal aid and pro bono services. The Committee, co-chaired by Jimmy Yim SC and Malathi Das, which included, our present the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (as he now is) as an illustrious member, made two main recommendations:

1. first, an aspirational aim that every practising lawyer commit to 25 hours of pro bono work each year; and

2. a pro bono services office be established by the Law Society to coordinate its pro bono initiatives.

In August 2007, supported by both the Ministry of Law and the Singapore Academy of Law, the Law Society established the Pro Bono Services Office (“PBSO”) to coordinate and administer all its pro bono initiatives.

To ensure proper governance of the PBSO, the Law Society incepted and institutionalized a charity i.e. the Pro Bono Learning and Support Services (“PLSS’) on 8 October 2007. PLSS was not only a charity but also enjoyed the status of an institution of public character. Its inaugural chair was former Law Society President, Mrs Arfat Selvam.

After its official opening on 10 September 2007, it began to grow and grow and grow. In Kevin Tan’s words “The range of programmes offered and managed by PBSO was tremendous. In addition to legacy schemes and programmes like CLAS and Law Awareness, the PBSO took over the operation of some more recently added services such as the Community Legal Clinic and Project Law Help”²⁰Fiat Justitia at 247 Project Law Help was designed and developed to offer free legal advice to voluntary welfare organizations in need of gratuitous legal assistance. PBSO matched volunteer lawyers with “low means” voluntary welfare organizations requiring legal advice.

In 2014, then Law Society President Lok Vi Ming SC announced a strategic and envisioning move for the Law Society : CLAS expansion plans to increase the number of assisted persons a year from 400 to about 6,000. This would be via “unbundled services” in addition to full representation. The Enhanced CLAS scheme was officially launched by Law Minister K. Shanmugam on 18 May 2015 at the State Courts Auditorium. Writing on this, Kevin Tan recorded “Under the scheme, the government provided a one-time $800,000 payment to support the PBSO and committed up to $3.5 million annually to cover operational expenses, disbursements and honoraria to lawyers under the new scheme.”

In President Thio Shen-yi SC’s eloquent speech at the launch of the Enhanced CLAS: “Unprecedentedly, the Government has risen to explicitly acknowledge that access to justice is not a challenge for lawyers alone, but a shared aspiration of the whole country. It is a collective civic responsibility.

In our adversarial criminal justice system, where the search for truth depends on two opposing parties presenting and testing the evidence, if one of these parties has a lawyer and the other does not, it cannot be a fair fight. To echo US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, “There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has” For that reason, intrinsic to access to justice is access to counsel. Personal liberty is at stake. A person’s impecuniosity should have no bearing whatsoever on any determination regarding his guilt or innocence. Today, we begin to make that aspiration more real.” ²¹Thio Shen Yi, “Sui Generis: President’s Message, Singapore Law Gazette, June 2015, at 1-4

Kevin Tan described the backdrop to the developments of Enhanced CLAS and establishing the PBSO as the third phase of development of the society coinciding with the new millennium. This was, in my view, the mature phase of the Society from inward to outward. And as he concludes this part in his conclusion in Fiat Justitia “In April 2017, the Pro Bono Services Office became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Law Society, known as the Law Society Pro Bono Services.”. Of course, I know that date and season thereafter very well having served as founding Chair of Pro Bono Singapore (formerly known as the Law Society Pro Bono Services) from April 2017 to January 2025. It was a time of establishment of identity in broader society including social services, maturity and unprecedented growth of Law Society’s access to justice arm. Not only the Law Society but our Singapore society generally. Members here can feel justifiably proud that this is the strategic, sustainable impact we have made in Singapore Pro Bono SG continues to grow from strength to strength in its latest chapters of continued growth and development in the socio-legal landscape. This is not the place to write of it for it will be a tome unto itself.

A reflective question for us is how, and in what way, can we give our time in the current buffet of pro bono service opportunities considering our unique gifts and talents? There is room for all of us around the table of service. A dream which lawyers of yesteryear could only yearn for.

Conclusion

Looking continually inwards into ethics, we must use that as a continuing compass to guide us in practice to stay on the straight and narrow. Ethics and etiquette of lawyering have endured as an ethos of the legal profession for two centuries.

Looking continually outwards into professional service, we must use our niche skillsets to best serve our fellow members of society. Not merely because of legal mandate or societal stipulation but because of an unwavering, relentless belief in a cause larger than anyone of us – justice for all. This is our sacred trust, our social compact, our stewardship of legal practice. May we do so, ever mindful of both our timeless values and value even as we celebrate the Bicentennial.