Judiciary, Law Society to tackle lawyers’ attrition

SINGAPORE – The judiciary and the Law Society of Singapore will set up a joint working committee to address some of the issues raised in a study that revealed reasons for lawyers leaving the profession.

An SG Courts spokesperson said regular dialogues between the Law Society and the leadership of the courts have surfaced concerns.

Lawyers had cited court deadlines and interactions with judges as significant sources of stress driving attrition in the four-year study commissioned by the Law Society and released on June 23.

The spokesperson for SG Courts said that in the past three years, a total of two formal conduct complaints were received, both of which were investigated thoroughly.

“Our formal, independent judicial complaints process remains active and accessible for conduct-related complaints,” the spokesperson said, adding that the joint committee will look into whether the dialogue mechanisms and feedback channels are working and whether awareness of the available channels is sufficiently widespread.

The committee will also examine whether case management practices and timeline expectations are appropriately calibrated to the current realities of practice.

“We have always recognised that timely justice is not a bureaucratic target,” said the spokesperson, adding that it is a fundamental issue of access to justice that benefits parties to court proceedings.

“At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that the pursuit of timeliness does not come at an unreasonable cost to the practitioners, who are essential partners in the delivery of justice.”

The study commissioned by the Law Society drew on 31 in-depth interviews with former judges, legal academics and lawyers from diverse types of firms, alongside a survey of 855 practising and former lawyers.

People insights company Anthro, which conducted the study, said in a media statement that a consistent message in both the survey and the interviews is that the conditions driving attrition – a decades-old problem in Singapore’s legal sector – are produced by many actors.

“The pressures cascade: Court timelines set deadlines, client expectations set intensity, billing models shape boundaries, senior practitioners set norms, and law schools shape what new lawyers expect.”

According to the report, court deadlines and interactions with judges are external factors that law firms cannot mitigate through internal policy changes.

Several lawyers in the study observed that disposition-rate targets or time-bound goals appear to influence timeline-setting rather than the circumstances of individual cases.

Lawyers also described being scolded, ridiculed or personally faulted by judicial officers, said the report.

A number of junior lawyers said they were explicitly advised against litigation careers because of stressful and demoralising interactions with the Bench.

The report suggested setting up formal channels for lawyers to provide feedback on timeline practices and judicial conduct.

The SG Courts spokesperson said the judiciary will work with the Law Society to address the feedback within the courts’ purview.

The judiciary’s representatives on the joint committee include Juthika Ramanathan, who is chief executive of the Office of the Chief Justice, and Supreme Court Registrar Jill Tan.

The Law Society’s representatives include Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming and co-chairs of the society’s young lawyers’ committee, Darryl Chew and Charmaine Yap.

Chew and Yap are also leading a task force, formed by the society following the completion of the study, to develop practical recommendations on areas such as workplace culture and supervisory conduct, the measurement of well-being and mental health, and mentorship.

Reflecting on the findings, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said an effective justice system relies on mutual respect, collaboration and a shared commitment to sustainability between the Bench and the Bar.

“While we must maintain the high standards necessary to deliver timely justice, our courtrooms must always remain places of dignity, professionalism and mutual respect.

“We hold all our judges and judicial officers to these strict tenets of conduct,” he said.

The study also found that client demands were the primary driver of the always-on culture: an expectation of round-the-clock availability and work intruding into annual and medical leave.

Some lawyers described 80-hour weeks as normal.

The lawyers also said they were leaving bad managers rather than the work itself, and reported bullying, especially in firms without proper HR infrastructure.

They report a pattern of intergenerational transmission, where senior lawyers who have experienced harsh treatment rationalise inflicting it on the next generation.

The Law Ministry said the findings of the study must be taken seriously and considered carefully, and welcomed the immediate steps by the Law Society and the setting up of the joint working committee

“Our legal talent in Singapore is a precious asset.

“It is therefore important that we have an open and honest conversation about how we can sustain the balance between industry and individual professional growth, alongside the well-being and long-term sustainability of being engaged in legal practice,” said a MinLaw spokesperson.

Read Full Article At Source