Lawyers in Singapore are part of a fused profession, meaning that they may act as both a solicitor and as an advocate, although lawyers usually specialise in one of litigation, conveyancing or corporate law.[1]
In 2023, there were a total of 6,512 practising lawyers in Singapore, of whom 3,677 were male and 2,835 were female.[2]
| 2002 | 4000 | [3] | |
| 2007 | 4200 | ||
| 2012 | 5200 | ||
| 2019 | 5920 | ||
| 2020 | 5955 | ||
| 2021 | 6333 | ||
| 2022 | 6237 | ||
| 2023 | 6512 |
In July 2009, there were 95 foreign firms with offices in Singapore, and 840 foreign lawyers, up from 576 in 2000.[4] [5] Six international firms were given a licence to practice local corporate law for the first time in December 2008.[6]
The Big Four law firms in Singapore are generally regarded to be Allen & Gledhill, Rajah & Tann, WongPartnership and Drew & Napier.[7] In addition, Dentons Rodyk & Davidson has in recent years been described as a "Big Five" law firm. This description has appeared most frequently in private legal ranking directories and on two occasions in The Straits Times.Web site: How Singapore's Big Five law firm Dentons Rodyk is embracing the future of work and ditching its traditional office for good . 2023-04-11. www.legal500.com . en. [8] [9]
The following table ranks, by size, the largest 20 domestic and international law firms with at least one office situated in Singapore in 2022.[10]
| 2022 rank | Name | Headquarter(s) | Total number of partners | Total number of associates | Total number of lawyers | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Singapore | 151 | 272 | 420 | Domestic with regional legal network | ||
| 2 | Rajah & Tann | Singapore | 157 | 170 | 332 | Domestic with regional legal network | |
| 3 | WongPartnership | Singapore | 117 | 215 | 332 | Domestic with regional legal network | |
| 4 | Drew & Napier | Singapore | 114 | 154 | 331 | Domestic with regional legal network | |
| 5 | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson | Singapore for local entity; Polycentric for Dentons | 93 | 84 | 179 | International & Swiss Verein | |
| 6 | Shook Lin & Bok | Singapore | 61 | 80 | 141 | Domestic | |
| 7 | Baker & McKenzie Wong & Leow | Singapore for local entity; Chicago for Baker McKenzie | 33 | 83 | 134 | International & Swiss Verein | |
| 8 | Withers KhattarWong | London | 32 | 63 | 95 | International | |
| 9 | Clifford Chance | London | 20 | 61 | 87 | Magic Circle | |
| 10 | Harry Elias Partnership | Singapore | 24 | 54 | 78 | Domestic | |
| 11 | Allen & Overy | London | 15 | 58 | 75 | Magic Circle | |
| 12 | Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance with Virtus Law LLP | London | 21 | 46 | 67 | International | |
| 13 | Norton Rose Fulbright | London | 15 | 46 | 61 | International & Swiss Verein | |
| 14 | RHTLaw Asia | Singapore | 23 | 23 | 58 | Domestic with regional legal network | |
| 15 | Bird & Bird ATMD | Singapore for local entity; London for Bird & Bird | 14 | 36 | 50 | International | |
| 16 | Oon & Bazul | Singapore | 19 | 29 | 48 | Domestic | |
| 17 | K&L Gates Straits Law | Singapore for local entity; Pittsburgh for K&L Gates | 16 | 24 | 48 | International | |
| 18 | Herbert Smith Freehills | London & Sydney | 14 | 15 | 47 | International | |
| 19 | White & Case | New York City | 14 | 31 | 45 | International | |
| 20 | Ashurst | London | 15 | 25 | 40 | International |
In 2009, Parliament approved changes to replace the 'pupillage' system with structured training, and to make it easier for lawyers to return to practice.[11]
In August 2016, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon established a Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers (CPTL) to conduct a "root-and-branch" review of the professional training regime for lawyers in Singapore and to make recommendations on how it might be improved to raise the quality and consistency of training standards.[12]
On 29 March 2018, the CPTL released its report, which included three key recommendations: (a) decouple admission to the Bar from the right to practise law; (b) raise the standard and stringency of the Part B examinations; and (c) lengthen the practice training period from six months to a year. The CTPL also made various other specific recommendations.[13]
In August 2018, MinLaw announced that it had accepted the CTPL's recommendations in principle and that the changes would be implemented from the 2023 session of the Part B examinations onwards.[14]
MinLaw conducted a public consultation on the CTPL's proposals from 15 November 2019 to 27 December 2019.
On 27 February 2023, it was announced that the implementation of the new professional training regime based on the CTPL's recommendations would be deferred and would only apply from the 2024 session of the Part B examinations onwards. According to MinLaw, the deferment was on account of feedback from the legal industry to the effect that more time was required to adapt to the recommended changes, taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.[15] For example, according to Gregory Vijayendran, the doubling of the practice training period would in effect double the cumulative allowance that needed to be paid to trainees. Ng Wai King also explained that law firms needed more time to review their human capital needs and rethink their training requirements.[16]
On 3 October 2023, the Ministry of Law introduced the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill in Parliament to implement the changes.[17]
In November 2023, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament.
The lengthening of the statutory practice training period from six months to a year has drawn mixed reactions. During the Parliamentary debate on the legislative amendments required to lengthen the training period, various Members of Parliament expressed concerns about fair remuneration and benefits such as paid sick leave, in light of the lengthened training period.
NTUC Assistant Secretary-General Patrick Tay drew attention to the adverse financial impact on trainees, noting that trainee lawyers typically work long hours and are paid honoraria of between SGD 1,000 to SGD 2,500 a month, which is substantially lower than their peers in other industries, who typically earn between SGD 3,500 to SGD 5,000 a month. Tay stated that this "can be seen as exploitative" and noted that this may disproportionately impact trainees from lower-income backgrounds, who may need a reasonable income during their training period to support their families. He also called for trainees to be entitled to "basic employment rights", such as paid annual and sick leave, as "everyone falls ill".[18]
Yip Hon Weng suggested mandating a minimum wage for trainees, similar to what housemen are paid in the medical field. It was also noted that trainees do not receive other employment benefits such as paid leave or Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions which employees in Singapore are typically entitled to under the Employment Act.[19]
Senior Parliament Secretary for Law, Rahayu Mahzam explained that MinLaw understood these concerns and these issues were being looked into. However, she cautioned that larger honorariums would need to be balanced against potential increases in costs to firms, particularly smaller firms.
A person seeking to be admitted to the Singapore Bar will generally need to meet the requirements to be a 'qualified person' (QP) and complete the Part B examinations (a practical course of instruction, culminating in practical and written examinations).[20]
To be considered a QP, a person will need to obtain an approved law degree. A list of approved law degrees is set out in the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules, which includes Bachelor of Laws and Juris Doctor degrees from various universities in Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, England, and the United States.[21] [22]
Persons seeking to be QPs solely on the basis of an approved law degree conferred by a university outside Singapore will generally need to fulfil additional requirements to qualify as a QP, namely: