Compromised justice?

Categories: Singapore

Today reported that the courts will no longer wait for big name litigation lawyers to fit a case into their packed schedules. This was stated by CJ Chan in an interview published by a magazine by Singapore Academy of Law. Chief among the reasons is to increase the efficiency of the Law Courts. An indirect effect of this ruling is the spreading out of litigation cases especially to the younger lawyers.

The CJ has a good reason for the change. Currently, cases got postponed because lawyers were too busy with a packed schedule, causing cases to be postponed sometimes up to 9 months. This make the court inefficient and cases got dragged on longer than it should reasonably be. However a 'fallout' of this ruling is that such big names lawyers are unable to take further cases, thus denying litigants a chance to hire what they deemed as the best lawyers. The CJ accepted this and was quick to add that "but it may very well be that others are just as good, if given the chance to demonstrate it."

But is the real need to increase efficiency of the Courts be made at the expense of justice? In our society, justice is based on facts and also to how well these facts are presented and how persuasive the lawyers are. Sometimes a case is won because of a very persuasive lawyers. Such lawyers are good because of years of training and experience. Therefore it is not surprising that big names lawyers get bigger with bigger and more serious cases fought. A younger lawyer maybe good academically but still lack the persuasive power or the sharpness of mind that is associated with years of experience. Hence it is not surprising that the outcome of a case maybe different if handled by different lawyers. Because of this, by implementing such measure, is justice served?

I was even more alarm when the CJ said that "What is also happening is that where counsel from a big firm appears against counsel from a small firm, the chances are that the former is better prepared than the latter, if only because he has more resources at his command." This is precisely the reason why litigants employ lawyers from big firms because of the resources available, not to mention the well-grind and experience lawyers. Because facts has to be presented in Court, the more facts one can present, the better the outcome for him. This should be ultimate standard the Court should base its verdict on and not on how persuasive a lawyer can be. If a litigant is even denied this basic right to hire a lawyer with large resources at his disposal, is this a denial of justice?

One of the positive outcome of this decision is the spreading out of cases to younger lawyers. I am not sure whether this was one of the intended outcome but the CJ certainly spoke positively about this. I find this as akin to an 'affirmative' action. Don't get me wrong. I am all for help for the 'small' people. However in this case, apart from financial might, this is as level a playing field as can be. If you are good, you excel. By having to fight tooth and nail also, makes one a better lawyer, able to sharpened the mind and grow with the experience. It is true that if most cases go to the big firms, these lawyers will not have the necessary clientele to improve. This argument is somewhat flawed because even the big firms employ young lawyers. Therefore the door is not entirely closed to young lawyers, just that much tougher.

Whatever the reasons for the change, the CJ certainly has a good reason - to increase the efficiency of the Courts. If a positive outcome is a more level playing field for younger lawyers, without any compromise in justice, then this change should be supported wholeheartedly. This process will enhance the renewal process so that when big names lawyers retire, there will not be any vacuum created resulting in a drop in the legal standings of the country.

PS: I am not a lawyer and receive no renumeration in voicing my concerns other than for upholding the standard of justice.