|
Press Release on Income of Junior
Bar
- The Bar carried out a comprehensive survey on the income
of the Junior Bar recently. The results confirmed our
understanding that the Junior Bar is not being over-paid
as some would speculate. Indeed, far from they being paid
in multiples of their London counterpart, Juniors here
are, on average, only paid a fraction of what London Juniors
are paid.
- A total of 241 Juniors responded to the survey of which
175 (or 73%) are under 10 years’ call
.
- The results of the survey is shown in the Table
attached. It should be noted
that figures given by the Juniors
are monthly average income net
of expenses. The Table compares
the monthly income of local Juniors
with the gross yearly income of
English Juniors as disclosed in
the 1999-2000 edition of Chambers
Guide to the Legal Profession
and the monthly income of solicitors
as disclosed in a Garfield Robbins
International survey recently
published in Asia Lawyer. The
results of the English survey
were claimed to be the product
of 6,000 in-depth interviews and
audited by the British Market
Research Bureau.
- A number of notable features are immediately apparent
after comparing the results of the three surveys.
- First, while our worst Juniors are earning slightly
more than their counterparts in London, Singapore and
Bangkok, our best Juniors are making substantially less
than the best from London of the same vintage except for
those who specialize in criminal work in the first three
years of call. Our best Juniors are also the lowest paid
lawyers when compared with solicitors in Hong Kong, Tokyo,
Singapore and even Bangkok.
- For civil work, our best paid Juniors are only earning
roughly a third of the best paid Juniors in London for
the first ten years and less than half of solicitors in
Hong Kong for the first three years.
- For criminal work, apart from the first three years,
our Juniors are making substantially less than their UK
counterparts.
- Secondly, whereas in England, the fees earned by criminal
barristers are substantially less (sometimes 2 to 3 times
less) than civil barristers, fees in Hong Kong are relatively
comparable between the two branches under 10 years’
call. Significant disparity only begins to show between
members of over 10 years’ call. This is only natural
in that complexity of civil cases will demand more time
be spent as more senior members take on more complicated
cases. This shows that our civil barristers are substantially
underpaid.
- Thirdly, barristers of beyond 15 years’ call are actually
making less than those of 10 years’ call both in the
civil and criminal sectors. The disparity is more pronounced
for criminal Juniors.
- Fourthly, although most barristers beyond 15 years’
call are eligible to become Silks, their income bears
no comparison to Silks, irrespective if they are practicing
a civil, criminal or mixed practice. In England, the jump
in income from Juniors to Silks is equally significant:
some will more than double their income.
- Fifthly, the English survey shows the income of English
Silks are generally higher than the income of local Silks.
Given the fact that Silks in Hong Kong work at least just
as hard if not harder than their London counterparts,
the falsity of wild accusations that Hong Kong Silks are
charging three to four times the fees of London silks
is fairly obvious.
- Finally, the Bar notes that this survey shows that income
of our Juniors are merely comparable to other professionals
of similar seniority but substantially less than solicitors
in Hong Kong. These figures show that Hong Kong barristers
are definitely not overpaid as some may wish to suggest.
Dated 7th June 2000
Hong Kong Bar Association
|
