UN experts on shaky grounds defending renegade solicitor

The two United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs who expressed “grave concern” over the barring to practice solicitor Kevin Yam Kin Fung are on very shaky grounds, claiming there was no violation to the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct.

Yet, the society’s Principles of Professional Conduct (Rule 2 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules, Cap 159) clearly states that a solicitor shall not permit to be done anything which compromises or impairs “his reputation or the reputation of his profession.”

Yam is currently in Melbourne, Australia, after fleeing Hong Kong from prosecution relating to charges on sedition and collusion with foreign forces. The Hong Kong government has offered HK$1 million bounty for information relating to his arrest.

On January 6, this year, a formal complaint was filed by Secretary for Justice, Paul Lam Ting-kwok with the Law Society of Hong Kong alleging “conduct unbecoming a solicitor” by Yam. The charges stemmed primarily from statements Kevin Yam made to the US Congress’ Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) hearing last May. Lam’s complaint claimed that their acts brought the profession into dispute and undermined public confidence in Hong Kong’s judicial system and rule of law. In July, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Yam guilty of professional misconduct, struck him off the Roll of Solicitors, and ordered him to pay HK$816,600 in legal costs.

Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, wrote in his foreword to the Law Society’s Guidebook that: “The public looks to lawyers to fulfill the role of the administration of justice and is one that requires a combination of competence, proper conduct and professional ethics.”

Key to Yam’s crusade is his seeking support from US congress members for sanctions against Hong Kong officials and in particular the judiciary, including judges and prosecutors.

The two UN legal experts were Margaret Satterthwaite, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and Irene Khan, special rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. On October 3, they issued a joint statement expressing concern that Yam had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors “without having breached any of the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct, and by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice.”

What the so-called experts failed to acknowledge was that Yam was bordering on treason by disrespecting the judiciary and the rule of law in Hong Kong by asking the US to impose sanctions on judges and prosecutors. And he was struck off the Roll by his peers in the Law Society and not by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice. His behaviour was definitely unprofessional by bringing the entire legal profession in Hong Kong into disrepute.

But the report itself was a flimsy piece of editorial, hastily prepared as if something had to be said to appease the human rights lobby. They claimed, for example, that for the Secretary for Justice to make a complaint to the Law Society was a conflict of interest. However, Lam defended his actions saying that the acts by Yam had undermined the judicial system and overall interests of Hong Kong. “As the guardian of public interest in the proper administration of justice and upholding the rule of law, I am duty bound to defend Hong Kong’s rule of law and due administration of justice,” he said.

UN special rapporteurs are not staff of the UN, but rather volunteers appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate abuses in a private capacity. They carry no weight, and their findings are purely personal opinions. So much so that the press release issued under the banner of the Office of the High Commissioner of the UN Human Rights (OHCHR) carried a proviso that any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

However, they do attract attention in the media which has the ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill. For the media, sensationalism is the name of the game to boost readership regardless of the subject matter warranting any merit.

Mark Pinkstone

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The conclusion of the Jimmy Lai Chee-ying trial, which lasted 156 days, was a showcase on law and order in Hong Kong and showed that justice seen is justice done.

A panel of three judges – Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee – delivered their verdict on Monday that Jimmy Lai was guilty of national security charges involving two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to print seditious articles.

In their ruling, detailed in an 855-page document, the judges said Lai was the “mastermind” behind the conspiracies, with his sole intent was to “seek the downfall” of the ruling Communist Party.

The trial, which spanned two years (December 2023-2025), with breaks in between, drew international attention through a global campaign by his son, Sebastien, and his team of public relations cum legal experts, Doughty Street Chambers, of London.

They kept the story alive visiting world leaders and TV networks pleading for Lai senior’s release from custody citing poor health. And they got the sound bites they wanted, but the end result was useless. Jimmy Lai was found guilty as charged and could face life imprisonment, the maximum penalty for collusion.

Before passing sentence, the judges will hear mitigating arguments from Lai’s solicitors on January 12 as to why he should be sentenced and if so for a minimum period. They will surely use Lai’s deteriorating health as their main argument.

After the mitigating hearing, which is expected to last about a week, the judges will retire to decide Lai’s fate.

An interesting aspect of the trial is its open transparency. Although Hong Kong is rated 6th in the Asia/Pacific region and 24th out of 143 countries worldwide by the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, the Lai lobbyists branded the High Court as a “sham court.”

The territory’s prosecuting office and the Chief Executive decided on a three-member panel of judges to hear the case instead of going for a full jury hearing. The reason is obvious: it would be difficult to find a seven- or 12-member panel of ordinary citizens who had not heard of the Jimmy Lai arrest and formed an opinion before the trial started.

The courtroom was specially configured to allow 58 seats in the public gallery and another 42 for the press in the main courtroom. Of those, 21 are allocated to local media, 14 to international outlets and seven to digital news platforms.

A group of about 16 western diplomats arrived at the court at around 8.20am on Monday morning with representatives from the UK, the US, the EU and Canada among them to hear the verdict and report back to their respective foreign ministers. Most of them attended the hearings every day to observe the fairness of the court. Never has a Hong Kong court hearing been under such intense scrutiny.

It could not be more transparent. It was open to the world. From the first day that prosecution witnesses gave their evidence to the closing remarks by the defendant, the foreign diplomats and international press were there recording every word spoken.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to call it a “sham court” and international reaction will be interesting. Their comments could implicate their complicity in Lai’s masterplan to overthrow the Chinese government.

Speaking outside the West Kowloon Law Courts Building on Monday, shortly after the guilty verdict was delivered, Chief Superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah of the police force’s National Security Department said Lai’s conviction was “justice served.”

Lai “exploited his media enterprise” and used his wealth and “extensive foreign political connections” to collude with foreign powers, Li said.

His views were echoed by Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung who believed that the trial illustrates how safe Hong Kong is and how we are able to interdict all the national security concerns and all the attempts to affect the national security. “I think this is a good showcase to show that Hong Kong is safe and it is safe to do investments in Hong Kong,” he said.

Indeed. The Jimmy Lai trial was a showcase on how Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial prudence can shape the city to make it the Pearl of the Orient.