Amid 24% judge vacancy, HK Bar chief urges 'neutral' pay reform, pointing to Singapore's ministerial salary debate

Money should not be a factor to lure talent to fill the bench in Hong Kong's judiciary, but it should be a "neutral factor" — that is neither an attraction nor a disincentive, said the special administrative region's bar association president Jose-Antonio Maurellet.

The 47-year-old, who was appointed a senior counsel at the age of 37 in June 2016, made these comments in an op-ed published in China Daily on Sept 16, as the 24.2 per cent judges vacancy rate continue to strain waiting times for criminal cases in Hong Kong.

But Maurellet, a Hong Kong-born Eurasian, does not think that the system or pathway for judges to be appointed is broken.

Instead, he said that there is a good pool of legal talent, but no queue of these top practitioners willing to join the bench.

The bar association president noted that there would always be those who look past personal costs to dispense justice and make their mark in law.

"They should be applauded — and indeed those who are on the bench today have all made significant personal sacrifices," Maurellet said.

"Yet a robust system is one which does not require the highly qualified to think twice before joining the bench."

Challenging to stomach

And while the judicial remuneration looks comfortable when set against Hong Kong's public sector norms, benchmarks against the private sector presents a different situation — compounded by the competition for talent from the business community.

Maurellet contextualised the contrast: "Heavier responsibility, tighter personal constraints, and limits on practice after leaving office all make a significant pay cut, on top of the demands of the job itself, challenging for many to stomach."

In Hong Kong, judges at the District Court and High Court levels must given an undertaking not to practise in future as barristers or solicitors in Hong Kong, unless with the permission of the chief executive.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice and judges of the Court of Final Appeal are prohibited by statute from practising as barristers or solicitors in Hong Kong, either while holding office or at any time after ceasing for any reason to hold office.

Singapore's ministerial salaries debate

Maurellet then reflected on the question of public sector pay debated in Singapore's Parliament, that was presented in Senior Minister K Shanmugam's book Policy, Fairness and Compassion.

It carries the Singaporean senior minister's speech during a 2007 debate.

While it has since been 19 years, and superseded by a new round of debate following the Singapore Government's decision to accept the new benchmark level proposed by an independent committee, Maurellet said he found the arguments presented to be "illuminating".

Maurellet cited Shanmugam, who said then: "Take a bright young man in his 30s. Assume that he is among the brightest in his generation. Today, he has an array of career choices. He can join any multinational corporation or financial institution, or he can stay in a profession.

"If he remains in the private sector, he will have his privacy, he can travel the world, live where he likes, have a second or third home, and choose to live the life he wants. In his early 40s, he could be earning $2 million and more; and by the time he is in his late 40s, a real high-flyer could be taking home $5 million or more."

Paying properly, getting the right people

Maurellet said he agreed with Shanmugam that money should not lure people in, highlighting that what is sought is for pay to be a level where it is a neutral factor.

This means that it should neither be an attraction nor a disincentive.

"Ability, character and commitment should decide," Maurellet added.

He noted that as a thriving financial and dispute resolution centre, successful lawyers in Hong Kong can take home annual average remuneration exceeding HK$20 million (S$3.25 million). This could go up to HK$30 million in a year based on their global average, he said.

"Of course, Hong Kong is not Singapore, and judges are not ministers. But the market for top legal talent is the same kind of market.

If the ablest lawyers conclude that joining the bench means earning a fraction of what they can command in practice — while living under stricter rules — some will simply stay put."

Rounding up his op-ed, and citing US federal courts, Maurellet said of what could happen when the pay gap becomes too big: "The pool narrows, and the bench risks becoming either 'a hobby for the independently wealthy or a step up for those who were never at the top of private practice'.

"This is not what we want to see in Hong Kong one day."

香港特别行政区大律师公会会长何塞·安东尼奥·莫雷莱特表示，金钱不应成为吸引人才加入香港司法机构的因素，而应是一个“中立因素”——既不是吸引力也不是阻碍因素。

这位47岁的律师于2016年6月被任命为资深大律师，当时他37岁。他在9月16日发表于《中国日报》的一篇评论文章中发表了上述评论。目前，香港24.2%的法官空缺率持续加剧刑事案件的等待时间。

但出生于香港的欧亚混血儿莫雷莱特并不认为法官任命的制度或途径存在问题。

相反，他表示，法律人才储备充足，但却没有一大批顶尖律师愿意加入法官队伍。

律师协会主席指出，总会有人不计个人得失，为伸张正义，并在法律界留下自己的印记。

“他们应该受到赞扬——事实上，今天坐在法官席上的每个人都做出了巨大的个人牺牲，”莫雷莱特说。

“然而，一个健全的制度不应该要求高素质人才在加入法官队伍之前三思而后行。”

难以消化

虽然与香港公共部门的标准相比，司法人员的薪酬看起来很可观，但与私营部门的标准相比，情况就有所不同了——再加上商界对人才的竞争，情况就更加复杂了。

莫雷莱特对这种对比进行了背景分析：“更重的责任、更严格的个人限制以及卸任后执业的限制，都会导致收入大幅下降，再加上工作本身的要求，这对许多人来说都是难以承受的。”

在香港，区域法院和高等法院的法官必须承诺，除非获得行政长官的许可，否则不得在将来在香港担任大律师或事务律师。

与此同时，香港终审法院首席大法官和法官均被法律禁止在任职期间或因任何原因卸任后在香港从事大律师或事务律师工作。

新加坡部长薪酬辩论

莫雷莱特随后反思了新加坡国会辩论的公共部门薪酬问题，这个问题在高级部长尚穆根的著作《政策、公平与同情》中有所阐述。

它收录了新加坡高级部长在 2007 年辩论中的讲话。

虽然已经过去了 19 年，并且在新加坡政府决定接受独立委员会提出的新基准水平后，又引发了一轮新的辩论，但 Maurellet 表示，他认为提出的论点“很有启发性”。

莫雷莱特引用了尚穆根的话，尚穆根当时说：“假设一个三十多岁的优秀青年，是同龄人中最聪明的人之一。如今，他有很多职业选择。他可以加入任何一家跨国公司或金融机构，也可以继续从事某个专业领域。”

“如果他继续留在私营部门，他就能拥有隐私，可以环游世界，住在自己喜欢的地方，拥有第二套甚至第三套房产，选择自己想要的生活。在他40岁出头的时候，他的年收入可能达到200万美元甚至更多；到了40岁末期，一个真正的成功人士的年收入可能达到500万美元甚至更多。”

支付合理的薪酬，招到合适的人。

Maurellet表示他同意Shanmugam的观点，即金钱不应该成为诱饵，并强调所追求的是薪酬达到一个中立的水平。

这意味着它既不应该成为吸引力，也不应该成为阻碍因素。

“能力、品格和决心才是决定性因素，”莫雷莱补充道。

他指出，作为蓬勃发展的金融和纠纷解决中心，香港成功的律师年均收入可超过2000万港元（325万新元）。他表示，按照全球平均水平计算，香港律师的年收入甚至可能高达3000万港元。

“当然，香港不是新加坡，法官也不是部长。但顶尖法律人才的市场性质是一样的。”

如果最优秀的律师认为，担任法官意味着收入只有他们执业时收入的一小部分，而且还要遵守更严格的规定，那么有些人就会选择留在原地。

莫雷莱特在总结他的评论文章时，引用了美国联邦法院的判例，谈到了薪酬差距过大可能造成的后果：“人才库会缩小，法官职位要么会变成‘富人的爱好’，要么会变成‘那些从未在私人执业中达到顶峰的人的晋升阶梯’。”

“我们不希望有一天在香港看到这样的景象。”