Re Edmund James Lawson Qc

HCMP 1722/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1722 of 2007

_________________________

_________________________

Before : Hon Ma CJHC in Court

Date of Hearing : 24 September 2007

Date of Judgment : 24 September 2007

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.The Applicant seeks admission to appear for a defendant (whom I shall refer to simply as “L”) in a trial in the District Court commencing on 7 January 2008.  The trial is fixed for 40 days although the Applicant’s solicitors (also the solicitors for L) are of the view that this may well prove to be conservative.

2.L has been charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud.  Both relate to the takeover of a Hong Kong company (imGO Limited, later known as Shanghai Land Holdings Limited) by a company called Global Town Limited (“Global Town”).  The takeover was financed by the Bank of China (Hong Kong).  Messrs Deacons advised Global Town in relation to both the takeover and also the loan from the bank.  L was the partner in charge at Deacons.

3.The two charges are summarized by the Applicant’s solicitor in his affidavit in the following way : -

“

The Securities and Futures Commission, the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and the existing and potential shareholders of the Company were defrauded by (a) not being informed about specific plans to inject assets or the exercise of a put option, and/or (b) the assertion that Global Town’s ability to repay the loan did not depend to any significant extent on the business of the Company;

The Securities and Futures Commission, the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and the existing and potential shareholders of the Company were defrauded in connection with an announcement and a subsequent letter to shareholders concerning amendments to the Articles of Association of the Company for the establishment of an Executive Committee, and subsequently causing the shareholders of the Company to vote at an Extraordinary General Meeting to approve such amendments to the Articles.”

On the first count, L is charged together with five others (he is the 6th Defendant in the indictment); on the second count, he is charged with three others.  The other defendants include another solicitor, investment bankers and officers of Global Town.

4.Although I have not been provided with much by way of material, it is reasonably clear that the issues likely to arise in the trial are factually, and perhaps legally also, difficult and complex.  Regulatory issues will arise (the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and the Securities and Futures Commission were said to have been defrauded) in the context, as far as L is concerned, of professional legal advisors.  The amount of documentation is said to be voluminous.  I am prepared to assume in the Applicant’s favour that the case is one of unusual difficulty and complexity, despite the submissions of Mr Robert Pang (for the Hong Kong Bar Association) that the only issue is really whether L was dishonest.  Mr Ronny Tong SC (for the Applicant) points out that there are more legal issues than just dishonesty, such as that of non-economic loss.

5.The trial will take place in the District Court but this is neither here nor there.  Nor is it relevant that in the past overseas counsel have been admitted in criminal trials involving solicitors or charges of conspiracy to defraud.  It is not suggested there is any similarity between the facts of those cases and the present.  As I say, I am prepared to assume in the Applicant’s favour that the case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity.  It may well also be an important one for, as Mr Tong points out, an examination into Hong Kong’s role as an international finance centre may be involved and within that the role of corporate solicitors.

6.However, one matter regarding the application initially caused me some concern.  No evidence was provided over the aspect of the availability or non-availability of local leading counsel.  Serious and genuine efforts to instruct local counsel have to be demonstrated or where it is said there are none, an explanation must be provided to the court justifying this : - see Re Flesch QC & Another [1999] 1 HKLRD 506 and Re Kosmin QC & Another [1999] 1 HKLRD 641.  All this is to provide a complete picture to assist the court to make an informed decision, giving it some idea as to the size of available and suitable counsel, and the calibre of this pool :  see Re McGregor QC [2003] 3 HKLRD 585, at pages 590-591, paragraphs 11(2)-11(3); Re Pannick QC, unreported, HCMP 1414/2006, 21 July 2006 at paragraph 9.  The relevance of this is to enable the court to determine whether the counsel who seeks admission would be able to add a significant dimension to the case.

7.This morning, Mr Tong has informed me that there was a certain embarrassment for the Applicant’s solicitors to state on affidavit why certain Hong Kong leading counsel were unsuitable or unavailable.  These reasons include the important fact that there are a very few specialist criminal leading counsel in Hong Kong who have a working and familiar knowledge of the Takeovers Code or company takeovers in general.  There are other reasons which it is not necessary for me to detail here.

8.I am of the view that the available pool of local counsel for a case such as the present is necessarily small.  There have been to date very few, if any, criminal cases in Hong Kong involving legal advisors in Hong Kong in the context of company takeovers.  This is a rare type of case even in a jurisdiction such as the United Kingdom.  It is not apparent that there are many Hong Kong leading counsel who would have extensive experience of this area of the law, although a few no doubt would be more than competent.  The Applicant is an experienced practitioner in this field and he will no doubt add a significant dimension to the case.

9.In these circumstances, in my judgment, the Applicant should be approved, admitted and enrolled to practise as a barrister of the High Court of Hong Kong for the purpose of conducting DCCC 980/2006 in the District Court for and on behalf of L rendering advices in conferences in Hong Kong and appearing at the trial of L.

Mr Ronny K W Tong SC and Mr Alexander King SC, instructed by Messrs Haldanes for the Applicant

Mr Robert Y H Pang, instructed by Messrs Anthony Chiang & Partners for the Hong Kong Bar Association

Ms Michelle Chui of the Department of Justice for the Secretary for Justice