 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In the Bar Association's response to the Interim Report, its position was consistent
with that taken in the Interim Report. It stated that "The Bar fully supports
transparency in the fees charged by its members (especially the basis upon which fees
are charged for work done)," while being against compulsory disclosure. Other
respondents to the consultation were generally also in favour of such information
being published.
The Bar Council was hopeful of introducing changes to the Bar Code to enable
relevant information to be published, stating :-
"The Bar is currently looking into the revision of the rules in the Code of Conduct restricting
members' ability to disclose their fees. It is anticipated that the Bar Council will be putting
forward proposals allowing disclosure of fees to a vote by its membership at the end of 2002.
In the event that the proposals are approved, the public will have general access to
information about barristers' fees. There will be no need for legislation to achieve the same
end."
A Special Committee on Practice Reforms and Development produced reports
including a Final Report
which argued in favour of permitting barristers to state
their academic qualifications, the nature and extent of their practice and experience,
their fees and methods of charging and to publish a recent photograph in print or on a
website. However, such information was to be provided only passively, with active
dissemination prohibited. The Special Committee's report provided a template for
websites and printed publications and also draft amendments to the Code.
Notes
Including the Law Society, the DOJ, the APAA, the HKMLA (which thought this more relevant to
non-Commercial List parties), the Consumer Council, the High Court masters and the Hon Mr
Andrew Cheng, the Hon Mr Ip Kwok Him (delivering the speech of the Hon Mr Jasper Tsang) all
speaking in Legco, one set of barristers' chambers and a solicitors' firm. The BCC thought that
clients did not need such information and one firm of solicitors thought that such information may
lead to inflexible bases of charging rather than a more flexible approach to charges for each case.
A copy of which was kindly supplied by the Bar Chairman to the Chief Justice.
|
 |
|