Scheme To Expose Misconduct In Law Firms Mooted

Source : The Straits Times, Sep 7, 2007

Lawyers supportive of Law Society president's idea to help firms deal with such conduct more effectively

By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

LAW Society president Philip Jeyaretnam has called for a whistle-blowing scheme to be put in place for law firms, in the same way public-listed firms have one to nip corporate scandals in the bud.

His remarks were made in the September issue of the Law Gazette, amid his discussions on the new rules that protect lawyers from becoming party to money-laundering activities by dubious clients who park huge sums with them.

Mr Jeyaretnam said law firms too should have a policy in place 'so that associates know that there is someone to talk to if a partner engages in professional misconduct'.

He cited the hypothetical example of a lawyer who withholds a document that could have been subject to inspection by the opposing party.

This act is tantamount to misconduct and, if an associate knew about it, he may need to raise it to someone.

There are some who might baulk at the prospect of telling on others, Mr Jeyaretnam noted.

But he argued that promoting a culture of whistle-blowing could be the only way of detecting and then 'eradicating harmful conduct that takes place in secrecy'.

He said that, among other things, whistle-blowing was already a legal duty here in relation to corruption, as part of the larger fight against crime.

At public-listed firms, whistle-blowing schemes enable subordinates to report on 'erring superiors without fear of retaliation', he said.

Since the Enron scandal of 2001 which involved losses of billions, whistle-blowing has became an accepted way to expose illegal or unethical conduct.

It is understood that the Association of Banks of Singapore, for instance, has maintained a code of practice since 2005 that, among other things, provides for how whistle-blowing can be done.

Major banks here are also believed to have internal whistle-blowing policy guidelines that encourage staff to raise serious concerns rather than sweep them under the carpet or wait till someone blows the proverbial whistle outside the bank's walls.

Lawyers from major law firms welcomed Mr Jeyaretnam's suggestion, but cautioned that the mechanics had to be carefully thought through and discussed by the legal fraternity.

Describing the idea as 'timely', Mr Nish Shetty from the WongPartnership said that, given that misconduct is becoming increasingly difficult to detect nowadays, there is a need to 'incentivise' people who have information by removing the fear of reprisals against them.

Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim from Drew & Napier said he was all for the scheme but for two concerns:

'What happens if the whistle is wrongly blown?

'Secondly, it should not promote a culture of gossip and snitching within the law firms,' he said.

Lawyer Amolat Singh is wary about its feasibility because, with the legal fraternity being relatively small, the prospect of the whistle-blower being identified is real and that person would find it difficult to remain in practice.

Law firm Harry Elias Partnership (HEP) practises an 'open-door policy'.

HEP partner Philip Fong said: 'To this extent, if an associate here is unsure about a partner's actions, they know they can discuss this with the other senior partners.'