Managing discourse about lawyers: pro bono and professional misconduct

ABSTRACT

The concept of pro bono has been established in a variety of countries and has developed a distinctive discourse. Aspects of this discourse have also begun to impact other areas of the law, such as mitigation in professional misconduct. However, problems can arise if aspects of one discourse are imported into others. Using the Singapore law of professional misconduct as a case study, this article utilizes concepts from discourse analysis to understand how discourse regarding lawyers can be removed from its original context and inserted into another. The article identifies two examples of pro bono discourse in the mitigation of professional misconduct, that of distinguishing law-related public service from other charitable acts and distinguishing genuine pro bono services from self-serving commercial activity. The article investigates the coherence of this pro bono discourse in the field of professional misconduct and concludes that some pro bono discourse fits its new context while others do not. The article argues for an increased awareness of how lawyer discourse potentially impacts professional regulation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See Cummings, S.L., De Sa E Silva, F. & Trubek, L. (2021) Global Pro Bono: Causes, Context, and Contestation (Cambridge); Whalen-Bridge, H. (2014) The conceptualisation of pro bono in Singapore, Asian Journal of Comparative Law; Cummings, S. (2004) The politics of pro bono, UCLA Law Review, 52; and Boon, A. & Whyte, A. (1999) “Charity and beating begins at home”: the aetiology of the new culture of pro bono publico, Legal Ethics, 2(2).

2 Maldonado, D. (2020) The mandarins of the law: pro bono legal work from a comparative perspective, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 27 .

3 Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse (London: Palgrave Macmillan), p. 3.

4 Schiffren, D., Tannen D. & Hamilton, H. (2015) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons). (2013), Introduction to the First Edition (2005), p. 1.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Conley, J. & O'Barr, W. (1990) Rules versus relationships: the ethnography of legal discourse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 2, cited by Heffer, 2005, p. 4.

8 Little, L. (2009) Characterization and legal discourse, Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors, 6, p. 122, n. 4, citing Jean Caron (1992), An Introduction to Psycholinguistics, trans. Tim Pownall (Toronto), p. 153.

9 Heffer 2005, p. 4.

10 Goodrich, P. (1987) Legal Discourse Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric and Legal Analysis (London: Palgrave Macmillan); Heffer, 2005, p. 4; Bhatia, V.K., Candlin, C.N. & Engberg, J. (Eds.) (2008) Legal Discourse Across Cultures and Systems, with the Assistance of Jane Lung (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press).

11 Hanny, C. (2016) Imagining new social legal futures: a sociologuistic analysis of pre-law students’ experiences with discourse communities of legal practice, International Journal of Semiotics and Law, 29, pp. 87–120 at 88.

12 Ibid.

13 Shuy, R. (2015) Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons), p. 823.

14 Trosborg, A. (1997) Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language: Discourse Analysis of Statutes and Contracts (Tubingen: Narr).

15 Heffer, 2005, p. 10.

16 Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 1.

17 Blommaert, 2005, p. 39–40.

18 Blommaert, 2005, p. 41, referencing Gumperz, J., per Auer, P. (1992) Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization, in Peter Auer and Aldo DiLuzio (eds.), The Contextualization of Language (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), p. 4.

19 Blommaert, 2005, p. 42–43.

20 Blommaert, 2005, p. 46.

21 Blommaert, 2005, p. 47.

22 Bauman, R. & Briggs, C. (1990) Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life, Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, pp. 59–88, p. 73, 74; see also Silverstein, M. & Urban, G. (1996) Natural Histories of Discourse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

23 Bauman and Briggs, 1990, p. 75.

24 Frade, C. (2015) Legal translation in Brazil: an entextualisation approach, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 28, pp. 107–124, p. 109.

25 Shuy, 2015, p. 823.

26 Ibid.

27 Shuy, 2015, p. 824.

28 Wolfgram, M. (2012) The entextualisation of ayurveda as intellectual property, International Journal of Cultural Property, 19, pp. 313–343.

29 Wolfgram, 2012, p. 315.

30 Maldonado, 2020, pp. 138–142.

31 Maldonado, 2020, p. 138.

32 Maldonado, 2020, p. 139.

33 Maldonado, 2020, pp. 139–140.

34 Maldonado, 2020, pp.140–141.

35 Maldonado, 2020, p. 141.

36 Maldonado, 2020, pp. 141–142.

37 Maldonado, 2020, pp. 152–153.

38 Whalen-Bridge, H. (2014) The conceptualisation of pro bono in Singapore, Asian Journal of Comparative Law, pp. 97–143.

39 Blommaert, 2008, p. 6.

40 Pinsler, J. (2007) Ethics and Professional Responsibility: A Code for the Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore: Academy Publishing), para. 01–083, although per the Singapore courts, disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, Law Society of Singapore v Chong Wai Yen Michael [2012] SGHC 9, [2012] 2 SLR 113 at [44]

41 Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani [2006] SGHC 143, [2006] 4 SLR(R) 308, para. 6.

42 See Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer [2019] SGHC 92, [2019] 4 SLR 1427 at [46]; Pinsler, 2007, para. 01–084; Tan, Y.L. (2000–2001) Sentencing for legal professional misconduct, Singapore Law Review, pp. 69–78.

43 Bolton v. Law Society [1994] WLR 512.

44 Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick [1999] SGHC 213; [1999] 3 SLR(R) 68, para. 22.

45 See Tan, Y.L. (1998) The Law of Advocates and Solicitors in Singapore and West Malaysia, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Butterworths Asia), para. 906–908, citing Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam [1994] 3 SLR 531, 537, and Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen [1999] 3 SLR(R) 559 at para. 39.

46 Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju [2017] SGHC 141, para. 86.

47 Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel [1999] SGHC 28, [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266, para. 11–12.

48 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 5.

49 Udeh Kumar (2017), para. 101-104.

50 Tan, Y.L. (2004), Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review, para. 18.35.

51 Tham (1999), para. 9, 10.

52 Tham (1999), para. 19.

53 Tham (1999), para. 22.

54 Ibid.

55 See Udeh Kumar (2017). para. 102.

56 Ravindra Samuel (1999), para. 13.

57 Tan, Y.L. (2012), Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Legal Profession, 13, para. 21.3.

58 Law Society of Singapore v. Chia Choon Yang, [2018] SGHC 174, [2018] 3 SLR 1068 at para. 20.

59 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 11.

60 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 14.

61 Ibid.

62 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 15.

63 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 16.

64 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 17–21.

65 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 31.

66 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 85.

67 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 35.

68 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 73.

69 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 74.

70 Ahmad Khalis (2006), para. 86.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.

73 Maldonado, 2020, p. 138–139.

74 American Bar Association Model Rules, rule 6.1, “Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service”, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/aba_model_rule_6_1/#:~:text=Voluntary%20Pro%20Bono%20Publico%20Service,-Every%20lawyer%20has&text=(3)%20participation%20in%20activities%20for,to%20persons%20of%20limited%20means.

75 Australian Pro Bono Centre, https://www.probonocentre.org.au/.

76 Australian Pro Bono Centre The Australian Pro Bono Centre's Definition of Pro Bono, https://www.probonocentre.org.au/information-on-pro-bono/definition/.

77 Law Society Pro Bono Services, About Us, https://www.lawsocprobono.org/Pages/About-Us.aspx.

78 Legal Profession (Mandatory Reporting of Specified Pro Bono Services) Rules 2015, r 2, Definitions.

79 Maldonado, 2020, at 141–142.

80 American Bar Association Model Rules, “Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service”, Rule 6.1(a)(1) and 6.1(a)(2).

81 American Bar Association Model Rules, “Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service”, Rule 6.1, Comment.

82 Australian Pro Bono Centre The Australian Pro Bono Centre's Definition of Pro Bono.

83 Ibid.

84 See Conceptualisation of Pro Bono in Singapore, pp. 130–138.

85 Law Society Pro Bono Services, About Us, https://www.lawsocprobono.org/Pages/About-Us.aspx.

86 Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai [2006] SGHC 167, [2006] 4 SLR(R) 587, para. 8.

87 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 11.

88 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 12.

89 Ibid.

90 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 20.

91 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 23.

92 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 24, 25.

93 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 23.

94 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 34, 35.

95 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 35.

96 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 37.

97 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 38.

98 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 39.

99 Chung Ting Fai (2006), para. 43; see also to Law Society of Singapore v Seah Li Ming Edwin [2007] SGHC 35, [2007] 3 SLR(R) 401 at [31], which endorsed Chung Ting Fai's approach.

100 Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang [2007] SGHC 83, [2007] 3 SLR(R) 477.

101 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 4.

102 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 5.

103 Ibid.

104 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 6.

105 Ibid.

106 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 7.

107 Ibid.

108 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 8.

109 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 9.

110 Ibid.

111 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 11.

112 Ibid.

113 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 12.

114 Ibid.

115 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 14.

116 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 12.

117 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 13.

118 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 15.

119 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 16.

120 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 64.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

124 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 62.

125 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 65.

126 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 66.

127 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 70.

128 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 118, 117.

129 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 107.

130 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 109.

131 Tan Phuay Khiang (2007), para. 110.

132 Ibid.

133 American Bar Association Model Rules, “Voluntary Pro Bono Publico Service”, Rule 6.1, Comment.

134 Australian Pro Bono Centre The Australian Pro Bono Centre's Definition of Pro Bono.

135 Chen, A. & Whalen-Bridge, H. (2016) Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics in Singapore (Singapore: LexisNexis), para. 9.31.

136 Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, r 47.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1, Grant no. R-241-000-185-115.