The conundrum was highlighted in The Times newspaper in the UK, which focused on the latest move into Seoul by a global law firm – Pittsburgh-based K&L Gates -- and a deal cut a few days later by legal profession leaders from England and South Korea.
A memorandum of understanding was signed by English Law Society president, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, and her counterpart at the Korean Bar Association, Young-Moo Shin. According to the Times report, the deal will see the two sides ‘work towards... promoting new opportunities for their members...’

Protectionist barriers

However, the newspaper points out that the route east is still potentially fraught with complications, not least because protectionist barriers remain. But there are also some growing ethical concerns. As the paper reports: ‘... some lawyers and human-rights campaigners maintain that corporate global law firms need an injection of moral conscience when looking at jurisdictions whose lawyers can end up behind bars just for doing their jobs’.
Indeed, recent attention has focussed on another jurisdiction gradually opening its doors to international law firms, Malaysia. Several weeks ago, the local bar council called for an investigation into allegations that a local court of appeal judge plagiarised an old judgment and that several domestic lawyers being accused of contempt for raising the issue.
According to local media reports, the Malaysian bar is concerned over allegations that in handing down a recent commercial ruling, the judge copied significant sections of 12-year-old Singapore judgment. The bar maintains there has been a breach of the Malaysian judges’ code of ethics and that those making the allegations have been unfairly punished.

Ethical bear traps

The Malaysia case is just one of a range of potentially problematic legal profession ethical bear traps awaiting global law firms in the region. However, as rule of law campaigners point out, the existence of one-party authoritarian regimes has not prevented western law firm management committees from planting flags in countries such as Singapore and those of the Persian Gulf.
But can law firms be blamed for being pragmatic? Not really, argues Roger Smith, until recently director of London-based human rights group Justice and now visiting law professor at South Bank University. He told The Times: ‘These are business-orientated commercial law firms who will go for profit. And you can’t criticise them for that.’ But he did say that in an ideal world, ‘the obligation on global law firms when they go into these countries is to be part of the forces that encourage the improvement of the rule of law’.
[dingbat]Lok Vi Ming is to take over the Singapore Law Society presidency from next year, it was announced in the city-state last week. Mr Lok is a senior counsel with the law firm Rodyk & Davidson, and, according to a report on the web site of local broadcaster Channel News Asia, has served on the society’s council for the last three years, most recently as vice president. He succeeds Wong Meng Meng.