How relevant are the touting rules today? What are the reasons behind the touting rule? DO they still apply in today's world where legal services are increasingly becoming commoditised and the element of personal and professional service is significantly reduced?

I am of the view that the touting rules are relevant and should be applied stringently; there is a certain dignity to the profession (inspite of lawyers absconding with clients' monies). If I were a client, I would want to be referred to a lawyer for his professional skills and not because of any incentive offered to the person who is recommending the lawyer. Liberalising the rules to the extent where the dignity of the profession is scandalised should be vigilantly guarded against. It is not the lawyer in us who runs afoul of professional standards but the rather the person that we are. If one lacks personal integrity or discipline, no matter what profession that person may be in, he is going to run afoul of the professional standards. Touting is not a "profession"al woe but a "person"al woe.

There is a move towards liberalisation of fee sharing with non-lawyers in the UK. The new UK Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 which takes effect on 1 July 2007 provides that:

"Except in relation to European cross-border practice, you may share your professional fees with another person or business ("the fee sharer") if:

(a) the purpose of the fee sharing arrangement is solely to facilitate the introduction of capital and/or the provision of services to your firm;

(b) neither the fee sharing agreement nor the extent of the fees shared permits any fee sharer to influence or constrain your professional judgement in relation to the advice which you give to any client;

(c) the operation of the agreement does not result in a partnership prohibited by rule 12 (Framework of practice);

(d) if requested by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to do so, you supply details of all agreements which you have made with fee sharers and the percentage of your firm's annual gross fees which has been paid to each fee sharer; and

(e) your fee sharing agreement does not involve a breach of rule 9 (Referrals of business) or 15.09 (Overseas practice - referrals of business).

Rule 9 (referrals of business) provides, inter alia, that the Client must be informed by the solicitor as well as the referred of the fee sharing.

This seems like a very sensible approach to adopt as it permits fee sharing yet still protects the interest of the client.

Serena Lim
Bizibody Technology

The way I see it. Our rules need a good wash. A lot of the rules are there for "public policy" reasons and ther have no common law basis.

I believe that "touting" and "Champerty" are rules which are "public policy". This meakes it very difficult, as we do not know exactly where the OB markers are. Moreover, what exactly is the public policy that is supposed to be protected ?

The law of negligence is well suited and established to take care of shortfall in legal standards. The modern real world accept the payment of a commission to a 3rd party is normal.

Kaypoh

I believe touting is entirely different from the scenarios that the English fee-sharing rules permit.

The first limb under the English fee sharing rules - sharing fees with persons who inject capital into the lawfirm - is the architypical company scenario - where shareholders take a dividend from the profits of the firm.

The second limb appears to cater to the situation that we recently had in Singapore - where lawfirms were tying up with auditing firms. In principle, this is a good framework. When a client steps into a lawfirm, he is able to get a complete package of services. Auditors, architects and quantity surveyors for example, are an essential service tool that lawyers use in certain classes of litigation.

However "professional services" is a wide term; realtors may take the view that they are providing professional services but unfortunately, flouting of the touting rules appears to rear its ugly head in conveyancing more often than not. So I believe there should be a clarification on what constitutes "professional services".

Do the English rules spell out what constitutes "professional services"?

I believe touting is entirely different from the scenarios that the English fee-sharing rules permit.

The first limb under the English fee sharing rules - sharing fees with persons who inject capital into the lawfirm - is the architypical company scenario - where shareholders take a dividend from the profits of the firm.

The second limb appears to cater to the situation that we recently had in Singapore - where lawfirms were tying up with auditing firms. In principle, this is a good framework. When a client steps into a lawfirm, he is able to get a complete package of services. Auditors, architects and quantity surveyors for example, are an essential service tool that lawyers use in certain classes of litigation.

However "professional services" is a wide term; realtors may take the view that they are providing professional services but unfortunately, flouting of the touting rules appears to rear its ugly head in conveyancing more often than not. So I believe there should be a clarification on what constitutes "professional services".

Do the English rules spell out what constitutes "professional services"?