LAW ACADEMICS AS PRACTITIONERS

• Date: 01 December 1990
• Published date: 01 December 1990
• Author: WALTER WOON

In the public mind there seems to be a general impression that the terms “academic” and “practitioner” are mutually exclusive. In part, this is because of the classical attitude towards the acquisition of knowledge, the tradition being that the only pure knowledge is the fruit of the mind and not of experience. Plato’s milieu may be long ago and far away, but his shade lives on to haunt us in the last decade of the 20th century.

Whatever may be the case with other disciplines, law cannot be divorced from the worldly context in which it is placed. A great judge once said that the life of the law has not been logic, but experience. It is possible to teach law without having had any practical experience of how it works; but one finds that after a very short time one runs out of relevant things to say. This is the central dilemma of the law teacher in today’s world; how to balance the need for reality against the intellectual demands of teaching pure law.

Theoretical law is like Euclidean geometry; an impressive structure, but bearing only a passing resemblance to reality. We would be failing in our duty as law teachers if all we teach is theoretical law. The acquisition of practical experience by teachers of law is, in my view, essential if students are to be properly instructed.

It is a mistake to assume that practical experience can be obtained only if one works in a law firm. There are several levels at which legal practitioners operate:

1. (1) giving advice on hypothetical and actual situations;

2. (2) drafting of commercial and legal documents;

3. (3) representing clients in court.

Law academics have traditionally confined themselves only to the first level, that of giving advice. Sometimes the advice is sought by a law firm that has been consulted by a client; sometimes the advice is given directly to lay persons. Few, if any, law academics in Singapore have ventured beyond level one.

There are several reasons for this: firstly, there is the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), which gives to practising lawyers a virtual monopoly over legal work. To qualify to practise, one must possess a practising certificate. Section 3(h) of the Act makes an exception to this in favour of

“any full time member of the academic staff of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore who is a qualified person rendering any

opinion or acting in an advisory capacity on any matter in which he has been instructed.”

One should note how...