SINGAPORE — The proposal that lawyers be required to contribute a minimum of 16 hours of free legal services has been tweaked, following objections by members of the legal fraternity.

The high-powered committee tasked to study the Community Legal Services (CLS) initiatives, led by Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, is now proposing that the CLS scheme consists of an “aspirational” target of pro bono hours, alongside the mandatory reporting of such hours by lawyers each year.

Sanctions — to be determined — would be imposed on those who fail to make such reports.

At a later stage, “when the profession is ready”, a compulsory minimum number of hours will be put in place, the committee said in a consultation paper released by the Singapore Academy of Law yesterday.

The academy, which circulated a discussion paper on the proposed CLS scheme in October last year, said respondents “were overwhelmingly of the view that pro bono work was an integral part of legal practice”.

However, “the majority felt that the legal profession was not ready to make pro bono work compulsory” and suggested a phased implementation of the CLS scheme.

Last November, lawyers at a townhall meeting were reportedly close to unanimous in disagreeing with the idea. Among the concerns floated to the committee was that mandating pro bono work “would run contrary to the spirit of voluntarism”.

The committee pointed out that a significant proportion of Subordinate Courts litigants are unrepresented, and over 90 per cent of litigants are not represented in maintenance and family violence cases.

“However, while the need for pro bono is known, exactly how much is needed to plug the justice gap is not known,” the committee said.

The ambit of pro bono work defined by the consultation paper includes legal advice and representation for disadvantaged individuals and organisations that primarily help disadvantaged persons.

Lawyer Abraham Vergis said the committee’s proposal for mandatory reporting “will give policymakers a much better sense of the situation” and suggested that lawyers be asked to identify their areas of practice and what pro bono work they are undertaking.

“Asking lawyers who are not qualified to do criminal or family work to take on those matters on a pro bono basis — that wouldn’t be fair,” he said.

Regent Law’s Louis Joseph said the proposed definition of pro bono work is too narrow: “Anytime that anybody is in need (should) fall into the category.”

He felt the scheme is “philosophically wrong” as “you can’t force charity” but also noted that most lawyers already clock over 16 hours of pro bono work, because many clients are unable to pay halfway through trials and “lawyers finish the job free of charge”.

Views can be sent to feedback_cls [at] sal.org.sg until May 14.