Ex-AG can't even start up a Law Practice properly, Only in S'pore!

Unfucking beliveable. A former AG goes into practice for himself and tries to trick the clients with a misleading name. Pretends to be a branch of a UK Essex Court Chambers by using their exact name here. Had to be called in to lim kopi with Ministry of Law to explain themselves. And of course, let off with a light slap on the wrist. No fine or penalties. They took advantage of the the fact the UK group is not represented in singapore nor have any international trade mark on their name and used it to start his own law practice. Potential clients were then deceived into thinking they were hiring an official subsidiary of the UK group. Very tricky and cunning for VK Rajah to do this. This kind of fucking dishonest apuneh can be the AG meh?

SINGAPORE - The Law Ministry has accepted the explanation from a Singapore legal group with former Attorney-General V. K. Rajah among its practitioners over its links with an English barristers' chambers.

In a statement on Friday (Nov 25), the ministry said the matter has been resolved after the Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) outlined the steps taken to correct misperceptions that it was part of the Essex Court Chambers (ECC) in London.

"Even though members of Essex Court Duxton are also members of ECC, Essex Court Duxton was not 'set up' or 'launched' by ECC; still less is Essex Court Duxton an 'annexe' or 'local brand' of ECC," the group said in its letter to the ministry, adding that media reports suggesting that the Singapore group practice was set up by ECC were mistaken.

"Any communications that may have contributed to this were inadvertent," said the group in the letter, which was disclosed by the ministry.

Essex Court Duxton also explained that the Singapore practice is modelled on a traditional barristers' chambers, in which the members practise individually despite being members of a set of chambers. It added that members are not partners in a firm, nor are they employees.

Besides Mr Rajah, a former Judge of Appeal who stepped down this year as the Attorney General, Essex Court Duxton also comprises three former Justices' Law Clerks: Mr Tham Lijing, Mr Colin Liew and Mr Calvin Liang.


They are understood to be the first Singaporean quartet to be admitted as members of a prominent law Chambers group in the United Kingdom.

Essex Court Duxton said its future communications and publicity will ensure more clarity that it is "an independent Singapore Group Practice".

It added that it has written to all relevant media outlets to ask that corrections be made, and also that the press statement has been removed from the ECC website "so that it could be clarified in a manner that leaves no room for doubt".

Essex Court Duxton had announced on Nov 14 of its launch here.

Two days later, the ministry called for a clarification from the Singapore group, saying the latter's press statement, articles and related statements have created the impression that it is part of the English barristers' chambers based in London.

The ministry asked for an explanation within seven days, saying the impression was contrary to the representations it had received earlier from the Singapore group.

The ministry said it was also contrary to the rules in Singapore, as barristers from ECC cannot practise Singapore law and cannot appear in Singapore courts unless given leave by the Singapore courts or have been admitted to the Singapore Bar.

being in the same profession themselves, the bona fide uk essex court chambers should now sue this ahneh and his merrymen till their pants drop

Lol

Like that another chap can register a law firm named after the Inns of Court ? Something like "Lincoln's Inn Bencoolen" or "Gray's Inn Jalan Besar" ??

I once tried to trademart 'iPhone' here before, but the courts here sided with big businesses like that gaywart steve jobs.

U should called it Steve blowjobs cfm will hv many gay bros as yr client

You might want to read again, this time slowly and carefully what the Ministry of Law wrote. The press again got it wrong on what the Ministry were implying.

Papsmearer said:

Unfucking beliveable. A former AG goes into practice for himself and tries to trick the clients with a misleading name. Pretends to be a branch of a UK Essex Court Chambers by using their exact name here. Had to be called in to lim kopi with Ministry of Law to explain themselves. And of course, let off with a light slap on the wrist. No fine or penalties. They took advantage of the the fact the UK group is not represented in singapore nor have any international trade mark on their name and used it to start his own law practice. Potential clients were then deceived into thinking they were hiring an official subsidiary of the UK group. Very tricky and cunning for VK Rajah to do this. This kind of fucking dishonest apuneh can be the AG meh?

SINGAPORE - The Law Ministry has accepted the explanation from a Singapore legal group with former Attorney-General V. K. Rajah among its practitioners over its links with an English barristers' chambers.

In a statement on Friday (Nov 25), the ministry said the matter has been resolved after the Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) outlined the steps taken to correct misperceptions that it was part of the Essex Court Chambers (ECC) in London.

"Even though members of Essex Court Duxton are also members of ECC, Essex Court Duxton was not 'set up' or 'launched' by ECC; still less is Essex Court Duxton an 'annexe' or 'local brand' of ECC," the group said in its letter to the ministry, adding that media reports suggesting that the Singapore group practice was set up by ECC were mistaken.

"Any communications that may have contributed to this were inadvertent," said the group in the letter, which was disclosed by the ministry.

Essex Court Duxton also explained that the Singapore practice is modelled on a traditional barristers' chambers, in which the members practise individually despite being members of a set of chambers. It added that members are not partners in a firm, nor are they employees.

Besides Mr Rajah, a former Judge of Appeal who stepped down this year as the Attorney General, Essex Court Duxton also comprises three former Justices' Law Clerks: Mr Tham Lijing, Mr Colin Liew and Mr Calvin Liang.


They are understood to be the first Singaporean quartet to be admitted as members of a prominent law Chambers group in the United Kingdom.

Essex Court Duxton said its future communications and publicity will ensure more clarity that it is "an independent Singapore Group Practice".

It added that it has written to all relevant media outlets to ask that corrections be made, and also that the press statement has been removed from the ECC website "so that it could be clarified in a manner that leaves no room for doubt".

Essex Court Duxton had announced on Nov 14 of its launch here.

Two days later, the ministry called for a clarification from the Singapore group, saying the latter's press statement, articles and related statements have created the impression that it is part of the English barristers' chambers based in London.

The ministry asked for an explanation within seven days, saying the impression was contrary to the representations it had received earlier from the Singapore group.

The ministry said it was also contrary to the rules in Singapore, as barristers from ECC cannot practise Singapore law and cannot appear in Singapore courts unless given leave by the Singapore courts or have been admitted to the Singapore Bar.

Click to expand...

Bonut said:

Like that another chap can register a law firm named after the Inns of Court ? Something like "Lincoln's Inn Bencoolen" or "Gray's Inn Jalan Besar" ??

Click to expand...

Middle Temple OXLEY stands a much better chance of getting official approval.Lol

Ah neh good at working in gov and employee status only.

Come to business think of cheating come first ... first class lawyer or 1st class cheating an neh all the same.

If you read the statement from the Ministry they are understand what these guys are doing but the press got it wrong and created the "misimpression". In the statement they asked the these guys to get in touch with the press and correct it. The word "Essex" is used by a number of Chambers in the UK. It is like the term "High Street" , "Stamford" , "Raffles". There is also a QC that is coming over from ECC and probably a case of they are getting as much mileage as possible.

Clearly the 4 of them are sharing the clerical and admin cost in a centralised manner but are operating on their own. The importance is that the the liability is their's along only to be burdened with.

These is not the first time but I guess it will soon be popular amongst litigators in particular as big commercial firms start to lose their good litigators to such independent setups.

KuanTi01 said:

Middle Temple OXLEY stands a much better chance of getting official approval.Lol

Click to expand...

Semaj2357 said:

being in the same profession themselves, the bona fide uk essex court chambers should now sue this ahneh and his merrymen till their pants drop

Click to expand...

hahahahahah, yes. misrepresentation and trademark infringement?

Bonut said:

Like that another chap can register a law firm named after the Inns of Court ? Something like "Lincoln's Inn Bencoolen" or "Gray's Inn Jalan Besar" ??

Click to expand...

Yes, according to Ministry of Law now. LOL. V.K. can do it. so can anyone else.

In case no one knows, there is also an Essex LLC and this law practice has been registered long before Essex Court Chambers (Duxton) came into being.Last checked, there was Gray's LLC too!

AP Rajah was once groomed or touted to be CJ...dun noe what went wrong. Dun noe how to say yes, sir...yes sir 3 bags full....????????????????

scroobal said:

If you read the statement from the Ministry they are understand what these guys are doing but the press got it wrong and created the "misimpression". In the statement they asked the these guys to get in touch with the press and correct it. The word "Essex" is used by a number of Chambers in the UK. It is like the term "High Street" , "Stamford" , "Raffles". There is also a QC that is coming over from ECC and probably a case of they are getting as much mileage as possible.

Clearly the 4 of them are sharing the clerical and admin cost in a centralised manner but are operating on their own. The importance is that the the liability is their's along only to be burdened with.

These is not the first time but I guess it will soon be popular amongst litigators in particular as big commercial firms start to lose their good litigators to such independent setups.

Click to expand...

Ironically Essex Court Chambers is not even in Essex Court (which is in Middle Temple) - its in Lincoln Inns Fields (so really in Lincoln's Inn).

There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of what distinguishes Chambers from law firms. And the fact that these 4 have set themselves up in accordance with this style of practice is intriguing as barristers in the UK for the longest time had bemoaned the inevitable absorption into law firms as specialist litigators/arbitrators.

Barristers are self-employed and belong to a set of chambers. They share the costs of overheads and the clerical team. In ECC, it is still lead by old-timer and heavyweight Chief Clerk, David Grief. He oversses the distribution of the work and he will steer you as you develop your practice. The clerks will take a cut of your fees as the administer your practice.

The layman cannot instruct a barrister directly but must go through a law firm. So the files tend to follow the barrister but typically they do not jump chambers unless the practice folds. There are often barristers who are reluctant to take silk too quickly because your entire practice then collapses as you can no longer accept instructions meant for "junior" barristers and you can only accept briefs that fall within the criteria of complexity that demands a QC's skill. So once you take silk, you have to start all over again.

I read that VK and the other 3 have been admitted as "overseas associates" but not as tenants (or door tenants) of ECC - it is moot if there is intentional duplicity on their part as the CC of ECC is not one to cross and well-known locally. Ultimately unless these 4 have practicing certificates (having completed pupillage in chambers regardless of seniority it is a mandatory requirement) there is no "trademark infringement" to speak of. ECC is one of the leading commercial chambers in the UK - there is a certain pedigree of barristers that gain tenancy there and go on to the bench ultimately. Quite alot of the traditional "essex court" branded chambers have moved out because of space constraints around those quarters since they are creaky listed buildings - 4 Essex Court moved out and had to change name to Quadrant Chambers (although they just moved onto Fleet Street adjacent to Essex Court in Middle Temple).

Toby Landau QC is the first English qualified barrister to be given full rights of audience in SG's legal history (and DG even flew down with him for the Call). Unless these 4 have also been given (or already have)full rights of audience before the English courts, their practice will be Singapore-centric and also I believe to leverage off the identity of SG as a leading arbitration centre.


https://essexcourt.com/new-members-chambers-singapore/

Also contrast with Jern - he is a tenant and full fledged member of ECC:

he got no confidence in his own brand? how about changing to Grab Lawyers? Uber Lawyers?

So what does "overseas members" of Essex Court Chambers mean in the UK legal framework ?

Does UK laws allow barrister's chambers to issue membership ? What are the rights and privileges of such membership ? Do members have to pay a membership fee ?

What kind of legal support do members receive from their parent chambers?

well... similar to SBF, this ESsex name is forelone to some farkshop with blonde pussies? so members from different OKT gets to influence members the FR and RTF?

Bonut said:

So what does "overseas members" of Essex Court Chambers mean in the UK legal framework ?

Does UK laws allow barrister's chambers to issue membership ? What are the rights and privileges of such membership ? Do members have to pay a membership fee ?

What kind of legal support do members receive from their parent chambers?

Click to expand...

This is quite an unusual arrangement as the only other non-domiciled kind of tenancy was typical to be a door tenant i.e. your name appears on the list of members but you do not have "chambers" within the set.

As mentioned, you cannot instruct the barristers directly so it has to be via a law firm - there are no obvious benefits to ECC for litigation purposes as none except Toby have rights of audience here in SG. They typically provide their legal opinions on matters of law to local law firms.

The arrangement between the two entities would obviously not be revealed publicly - if you read my response the answer to the "type of support" is mentioned already i.e. if a brief is received by the chambers the clerks will decide who gets the brief (especially significant for junior counsel) or if a barrister is requested specifically, then they were check the current caseload for availability and discuss - so the clerk relationship is very important because when you are starting out they determine what cases you get - they also then add you to briefs of cases taken by silks and you build from thereon.

Essex Court Chambers offers guaranteed minimum gross earnings of £100,000 in the first year of tenancy (although, in practice, experience shows that first year tenants may earn something in excess of this figure). Chambers’ expenses (including rent) are levied as a flat percentage of fees received and no fixed rent or other fixed charge is payable.

Locally, there are only a very small number of locally qualified SG lawyers who are fully licensed as barristers with full rights of audience. Once upon a time local lawyers would have been called to the English Bar then come back to Singapore and completed pupillage here in order to be called to the SG courts. So in the UK you did not need to complete pupillage to be called to the Bar (just pass the Bar exams) - also most of the premier commercial chambers are Oxbridge dominated and for non-Oxbridge sorts it would have been impossible almost to get a shot because the competition is so fierce. So if you come across any local lawyers claiming to be "barristers" in the UK it is a fib because more likely than not they do not have a practice certificate issued by the Bar Council of England and Wales. However, it does mean that the individual has probably passed the UK Bar exam and was indeed called to the Bar in the UK but cannot actually accepts instructions/brief or litigate in front of UK judges because they are also not tenants of any chambers - if you look at their profiles they refer to themselves as "barristers at law".

Holding out as a Barrister
The restriction on holding out prevents barristers who do not have a practising certificate but who are supplying or offering to supply legal services from using the title "barrister" or otherwise conveying the impression that they are practising as barristers. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of the circumstances which might amount to "holding out" but it is hoped that the following examples will give an idea of what is prohibited.
• Describing oneself as a barrister in any printed material used in connection with the provision of legal services: in particular in advertising or publicity, on a card or letterhead, or on premises.
• Describing oneself as a barrister to clients or prospective clients.
• Describing oneself to clients or prospective clients as a non-practising barrister or barrister-at-law (titles which have been allowed in the past but not in recent years).
• Indicating to opposing parties or their representatives (e.g. in correspondence) that one is a barrister.
• Describing oneself as a barrister or (when supplying services to the public) as "counsel", wearing robes, or sitting in a place reserved for counsel, in court.
• Using other descriptions in connection with supplying, or offering to supply, legal services which imply that the individual is a barrister (e.g. membership of an Inn of Court).
It should be noted that for a BVC graduate to mention that he/she is a holder of this qualification, is not considered as 'holding out as a barrister.'
These examples are not exhaustive.

Exercising Rights as a Barrister
Barristers who do not hold a practising certificate may not exercise any rights that they have by reason of being barristers, the most obvious example being rights of audience. This means that such a barrister may not appear as an advocate in any court or tribunal unless it is one in which lay representatives are permitted to appear or unless the barrister has a right of audience by virtue of some other qualification (e.g. as a solicitor).
Similarly barristers who do not hold a practising certificate may not undertake, or offer to supply, any other legal service which is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act such as litigation, administration of oaths, conveyancing and probate.

What Is Not Prohibited
The Code does not prohibit barristers without practising certificates from describing themselves as barristers when they are not supplying, or offering to supply, legal services. In particular, the following activities are excluded from the definition of "legal services" in the Code.
• Lecturing or teaching law.
• Writing or editing law books, articles or reports.
• Reading for libel.
• Acting as an arbitrator or mediator.
• Acting as an honorary legal adviser to a charity.

In connection with those activities (and in other circumstances where the barrister is not supplying legal services at all) it is perfectly permissible to use the title "barrister".

There may be occasions on which it is unavoidable for barristers without practising certificates who are supplying or offering to supply legal services to disclose that they are qualified as barristers. These might include, for example, job applications or enquiries by clients as to the barrister's background. In these cases there is no objection to indicating that you have qualified as a barrister but, particularly if the issue arises in the course of conversation with a client, it should be made clear that you are not practising as a barrister, are not able to exercise any rights as a barrister and are not subject to the rules that practising barristers have to obey. If your client is an individual or a small business or charity which would have the right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman if they instructed a practising barrister, you should also explain that they will not have a right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman if they instruct you. It is your responsibility to give these explanations in terms which your client can understand.

Barristers without practising certificates may describe themselves as a lawyer or as a graduate of the BVC/BPTC even when providing legal services.

Barristers who do not hold practising certificates (including first six pupils) are permitted to provide free legal advice to clients of a legal advice centre, providing they do not hold themselves out as barristers and do not undertake or offer to undertake any reserved legal services.

There is no prohibition on barristers without practising certificates who are in silk using the title QC.
In January 2011, the Bar Standards Board published a consultative paper about the review of the Code of Conduct which includes proposals concerning the provision of legal services by barristers without a practising certificate.
Last reviewed: November 2011
Standards Committee


Even Tan Wah Piow is not a barrister in chambers although I believe he has rights of audience via a separate scheme for qualified solicitors where they have rights of audience:

As a solicitor or REL you already have full rights of audience in Tribunals, Coroners Courts, Magistrates Courts, County Courts, the Family Court and European Courts. An application for civil higher rights of audience allows you to also appear in civil proceedings in the Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Solicitors and RELs undertaking criminal advocacy must also comply with the SRA QASA Regulations.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/introAuthPrac/higherrights/part3/rule2/content.page

All this information is very easily available by just googling nowadays.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

The arrangement between the two entities would obviously not be revealed publicly - if you read my response the answer to the "type of support" is mentioned already i.e. if a brief is received by the chambers the clerks will decide who gets the brief (for junior counsel) or if a barrister is requested specifically, then they were check the current caseload for availability and discuss - so the clerk relationship is very important because when you are starting out they determine what cases you get - they also then add you to briefs of cases taken by silks and you build from thereon.

All this information is very easily available by just googling nowadays.

Click to expand...

That's support for tenants of the chambers. But members? Overseas members?

Can we safely conclude that tenants and members are two entirely different species in the legal establishment of ECC ?