LAWYERS in Singapore will have to undergo a longer practice training period, while law graduates can be admitted to the Bar without completing practice training, under changes to the law that were passed in Parliament on Tuesday (Nov 7).

The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, first tabled in October, seeks to lift the overall standards of the professional training regime for lawyers and thus “better prepare a future-ready legal workforce”, said Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law Rahayu Mahzam.

The recommendations, whose implementation was previously deferred, were made by the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers, and will take effect from the 2024 session of the Part B Singapore Bar Examinations.

Under the new requirements, a new title of “Lawyer (Non-Practitioner)” will be introduced, allowing law graduates who have passed the Part B examinations to be admitted to the Bar without completing practice training.

These graduates cannot practice in law firms and similar entities, but can work as in-house counsel and academics, or join other sectors which may benefit from legal expertise.

The changes will allow law graduates who do not intend to practise to be admitted to the Bar earlier, and free up more practice training contracts for those who do intend to practise law, said Rahayu.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

Meanwhile, aspiring lawyers will soon be subject to a longer minimum practice training period of one year, from six months previously. This will give practice trainees a longer period of direct mentorship, better equip them for private practice through greater exposure to a range of practice areas, and allow law firms to make a more holistic assessment of trainees’ performance.

The Bill grants trainees limited rights to practise after completing at least six months of practice training. Practice trainees will soon also be able to complete up to three months of their training period at approved in-house legal departments.

The approved entities will be subject to certain requirements, such as being of a minimum size and handling “a reasonable amount of Singapore law-related work”, with the criteria to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, said Rahayu.

To alleviate law students’ anxieties over securing training contracts, the Bill will introduce a moratorium period, during which students cannot apply for such contracts and firms cannot offer them. Details on the moratorium’s implementation will be announced later.

During the debate on the Bill, MPs raised concerns about law firms facing additional costs as a result of the changes.

Nominated MP Raj Joshua Thomas noted that with a longer training period, legal trainees may expect higher allowances since their full-time salaries will now be pushed back by six months – and this may be difficult for smaller firms to swallow.

Law firms typically pay trainees an honorarium that is lower than what they would earn as fully qualified lawyers.

In contrast, People’s Action Party MP Yip Hon Weng raised concerns that the longer training period will leave trainees vulnerable to being exploited, and asked for a minimum wage for trainees.

To this, Rahayu said that implementing a minimum honorarium quantum may be too prescriptive, as it would need to be constantly reviewed to account for prevailing market conditions. The minimum quantum may also be set above what small firms can afford, which may have the inadvertent effect of reducing the number of training places offered, she added.

The government thus encourages firms to provide a “fair and reasonable honorarium that recognises trainees’ contributions and allows them to meet (their) financial obligations”, she said.