Singapore Law Review

Juris Illuminae Vol 4 (2012/13)

SHOULD PRO BONO WORK BE COMPULSORY FOR LAWYERS IN

SINGAPORE?

DENZEL CHUA

I. INTRODUCTION

Ever since the start of the year 2012, there have been ongoing debates about whether Pro Bono
Work should be compulsory for all lawyers in Singapore. A proposal has been made that lawyers
should put in a minimum of 16 compulsory hours of free legal service a year, of which some of
the 4,200 lawyers in Singapore are against. The issue has already affected legal education; starting
from the academic year 2013, a mandatory pro-bono programme will have to be included in the
law curriculum. It is obvious that the issue is a contentious one; only not too recently ago there
was a debate between the 2 law schools on whether pro bono work should be made compulsory.
It is my opinion that pro bono work should not be made compulsory and I offer my reasons
below.

II. A SPIRIT OF VOLUNTARISM

Pro Bono is short for pro bono publico, which in Latin means professional work undertaken
voluntarily, and without payment or at a reduced fee as a public service. In my opinion, it is the
spirit of voluntarism that lies at the heart of what can be considered pro bono work. Once it is
made compulsory, the essence of its very definition is lost. In principle, it is difficult to reconcile
the notions of voluntary and compulsory. How can one be considered to be acting out of his
own free will when what he does is mandated? Compulsory pro bono work is therefore a
contradiction in itself. This is not to say that lawyers cannot be made to offer free legal service to
 SHOULD PRO BONO WORK BE COMPULSORY FOR LAWYERS IN SINGAPORE? 2

the public. Of course they can be made to do so, but any service provided by such a scheme
should not be termed pro bono work. Call it whatever you want, dont call it pro bono work.

III. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Even if the above argument is considered to be a nitpick on terms, there are also other reasons
against such a scheme.
Lawyers may grow to resent pro-bono work if they are mandated to provide them. Lawyers
may be reluctant to take up pro bono cases for several reasons. They may not have the time at
all or they are not well-versed or experienced in field of law, particularly in the cases of junior
associates who have just joined the service. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong noted that
"[i]n corporate law firms, lawyers as they say eat what they kill. As pro bono work brings nothing
to the dinner table, one can understand why young aspiring corporate lawyers, would be
reluctant to do pro bono work. Daniel Chia wrote to the Straits Times that he believed many
people who are "forced" to do pro bono work are likely to resent it. Lawyers who resent pro bono
work will be unlikely to take them up when they are available to do so, and may not promote
them to for example, their junior associates. As far as possible, we do not want the situation
where the mere utterance of pro bono work conjures up feelings of resentment, dislike and
oppression amongst lawyers.
Further, it is very difficult to lay down any criteria for what can constitute as clocking an
official hour of pro bono work. Can a lawyer who spends 16 hours simply going through
clients files and providing simple advice be said to have discharged his pro bono duties?
Would this be unfair to a lawyer who argued cases before the courts? What happens when a
lawyer who refuses to act and advise a client further under the pro bono scheme after
completing his 16th hour of pro bono work? These questions need answers if a workable
compulsory pro bono scheme is to be implemented.
 Singapore Law Review: Juris Illuminae Vol 4(2012/13) 3

IV. A REALISTIC COMPROMISE?

While I disagree that a mandatory scheme should be implemented, I feel that pro bono work
should be promoted. Nonetheless, I have to admit that we have to be realistic such a matter.
Simple promotion or encouragement to participate in volunteer work may very well end up
falling on deaf ears. No one is going to provide service or expertise for free or at a reduced cost if
his own wellbeing is not secured or satisfactory. In the Singapore legal profession, standards of
legal profession are demanded at the highest level and the working environment is rigorous and
demanding. Lawyers who face endless stacks of files at their desks and the strict scrutiny and
sharp questioning of their cases by judges when they appear before the courts are least likely to
even think about volunteering their services. 1

1
The writer would like to credit the following sources consulted while writing this article.

Hetty Musfirah (6 January 2012), Pro-bono efforts to get boost as part of new legal initiatives,
Channelnewsasia, Retrieved December 2012 online:<http://www.channelnewsasia.com
/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1175153/1/.html>

<unknown> (17 December 2012), Pro Bono work should come from the heart. Straits Times Forum.
Retrieved December 2012 online: <http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/pro-bono-
work-should-come-the-heart-20121217>

Bryna Sim (11 September 2012), Law schools debate on pro bono work, Straits Times. Retrieved December
2012 online:<http://law.nus.edu.sg/about_us/news/2012/ST110912.pdf>